Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Abdullah Shamim vs The State1990 MLD 1524 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-07Read full judgment →
- Abdullah Khan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1856 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-22Read full judgment →
- Abdul Zahir and another vs Directorgeneral, Pakistan Coast Guards1990 PLD Karachi 412 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges orders passed by customs authorities and tribunals regarding the confiscation of a bus and the imposition of personal penalties under the Customs Act, 1969, following the recovery of smuggled goods from the vehicle. The core legal questions involve whether the extension of time for issuing a show-cause notice under section 168(2) of the Customs Act is a speaking order, whether failure to issue a valid notice under section 168(2) vitiates confiscation under section 180, and the validity of service of notice under section 171. The Sindh High Court held that while an order granting an extension of time under section 168(2) must be a speaking order containing reasons recorded in writing by the Collector, the absence of a valid seizure notice under section 168 does not render a subsequent confiscation order under section 180 void or illegal, as confiscation is not strictly dependent on prior seizure. The petition was accordingly dismissed, upholding the confiscation and penalty.
Questions settled- Whether an order granting extension of time under the proviso to section 168(2) of the Customs Act, 1969 requires a speaking order with reasons recorded in writing by the Collector?
- Does the absence of a valid notice or seizure under section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969 render a subsequent confiscation order under section 180 invalid?
- Can an officer of the Pakistan Coast Guards, invested with powers of Customs, seek an extension of time under section 168(2) of the Customs Act, 1969?
- Abdul Wahid vs The State1990 PLD Quetta 63 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-05-08Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahid vs Eid Muhammad and 2 others1990 SCMR 747 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for special leave to appeal arising from concurrent findings in rent ejectment proceedings and subsequent civil litigation regarding the ownership of a property. The petitioner, having been ordered to vacate the premises by the Rent Controller on the finding that a landlord-tenant relationship existed, unsuccessfully challenged this order through an appeal to the District Judge and a subsequent writ petition in the High Court. While the writ petition was pending, the petitioner initiated separate civil suits claiming ownership of the same property, which were also dismissed by the trial court, appellate court, and the High Court in revision. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could re-litigate the issue of property ownership in a civil suit after the Rent Controller had already determined the matter in ejectment proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the ownership issue was finally decided in the rent proceedings. The key principle laid down is that where a party fails to reserve the right to agitate a question of title in a civil court during rent proceedings, they are precluded from re-canvassing that same issue through separate civil litigation.
Questions settled- Can a party re-litigate the issue of property ownership in a civil suit after it has been determined in rent ejectment proceedings?
- Does the failure to reserve the right to agitate title in a civil court during rent proceedings preclude subsequent civil litigation on the same issue?
- Abdul Waheed vs Messrs Brooke Bond Pakistan Ltd.1990 PLC 462 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-06-01Read full judgment →
- Abdul Shakoor vs Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. and 3 others1990 PLC 706 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-04-30Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar vs The State and others1990 MLD 1102 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar vs Muhammad Akbar Shah1990 PLD Supreme Court 285 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan is directed against the judgment of the High Court, which had accepted the respondent's civil revision and restored the dismissal of the appellant's suit for non-prosecution. The appellant had filed a suit for the cancellation of a deed for the appointment of a Mutawalli. The trial court had dismissed the suit for default of appearance on a date when the matter was merely adjourned for suggesting the name of a receiver, rather than for the actual hearing or progress of the suit. The core legal question was whether the date on which the suit was dismissed was fixed for the "hearing" of the "suit" under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the date was fixed solely for ancillary proceedings relating to the nomination of a receiver and not for the hearing of the main suit, rendering the dismissal illegal and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the suit was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether a suit can be dismissed for non-prosecution under Order IX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the date fixed is only for ancillary proceedings such as nominating a receiver rather than the hearing of the main suit?
- Does a date fixed merely for suggesting the name of a person for the appointment of a receiver constitute a date fixed for the hearing of the suit?
- Abdul Sattar Chohan vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Communication and Works Department and another1990 PLC (C.S.) 98 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1989-08-06Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sami vs Abdul Ghaffar1990 PLD Lahore 378 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by a returned candidate challenging the Election Tribunal's judgment, which declared his local council election void and ordered fresh polling due to alleged gross irregularities, missing counter-foils, and temporary stoppage of polling. The core legal questions were whether an Election Tribunal can declare an election void without objective evidence proving that corrupt or illegal practices occurred with the consent/connivance of the returned candidate, and whether failure to establish that the election result was materially affected vitiates such an order. The High Court held that findings of corrupt or illegal practice must be supported by objective evidence and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, similar to criminal cases, rather than based on mere presumptions or lack of evidence. The Court ruled that under the relevant Election Rules, an election cannot be declared void as a whole without a specific finding that non-compliance or irregularities materially affected the election outcome. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Election Tribunal's judgment as being without lawful authority.
Questions settled- What is the standard of proof required to declare an election void on the ground of corrupt or illegal practice?
- Can an Election Tribunal declare an election void as a whole under Rule 15 of the Election Petition Rules 1979 without finding that the election result was materially affected?
- Does the absence of a candidate or polling agent at the restarting of polling invalidate the election proceedings?
- Is a judicial order or finding based on mere presumption and no objective evidence considered an order passed without lawful authority under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Abdul Sajood and another vs Additional Settlement Commissioner and 5 others1990 SCMR 1023 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' writ petition regarding the transfer of evacuee property consisting of shops. The core legal question concerns whether Muslim mortgagees of evacuee property, whose mortgage was not confirmed by the Custodian, are entitled to the transfer of the property under Revised Settlement Scheme No. VIII as against their tenants who also applied for transfer under the same scheme. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the legal question warranted detailed consideration, relying on precedents establishing that Muslim mortgagees are entitled to transfer against their tenants and retain possession until redemption by the Custodian. The key principle laid down is that unconfirmed mortgagees of evacuee property maintaining possession have a valid claim to transfer under settlement schemes over subsequent tenant applicants.
Questions settled- Whether the non-confirmation of a mortgage by the Custodian of Evacuee Property deprives a mortgagee of the claim to the transfer of property under Revised Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
- Are Muslim mortgagees of evacuee property entitled to the transfer of property under Revised Settlement Scheme No. VIII in preference to their tenants who claim transfer under the same scheme?
- Abdul Rehman vs The State and another1990 PLD Supreme Court 1058 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against the High Court's judgment, which had accepted the criminal appeal of the respondent, setting aside his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for murder and acquitting him. The prosecution case alleged that the respondent and his co-accused intercepted a tonga and shot the deceased. The prosecution examined the eye-witnesses but gave up the tonga driver as a won-over witness. However, the trial court summoned the tonga driver as a Court-witness, who testified that the attackers had muffled their faces. The petitioner argued that the Court-witness's testimony should not have been preferred over the eye-witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the appreciation of evidence and the preference of one witness over another is a factual matter. Even if the Court-witness withheld some truth, the prosecution's case had become fundamentally doubtful. Finding no misreading or non-reading of evidence, or any gross miscarriage of justice, the Court refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of a Court-witness can be preferred over prosecution eye-witnesses in determining the guilt of an accused?
- What are the grounds upon which the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of acquittal in a murder case?
- Does the introduction of a Court-witness who contradicts eye-witnesses regarding the identity of attackers create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
- Abdul Rehman vs Additional District Judge, Faisalabad and another1990 MLD 1221 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rehman and others vs The State1990 MLD 1522 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rehman And Others vs Muhammad Waris1990 CLC 265 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rehman alias Mana vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1336 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzaque vs The Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Government of Pakistan (Ports and Shipping Wing) through the Director-General and 3 others1990 PLC (C.S.) 20 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rehman vs Sirajuddin1990 MLD 754 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-09Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzaq vs The State1990 SCMR 518 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal involving the petitioner Abdul Razzaq, who was implicated in a narcotics case. The core legal question concerns the identity and integrity of the recovered sample, specifically whether the sample found by the chemical examiner to contain heroin was indeed the same sample taken from the petitioner, given the discrepancy in docket numbers where the recovery was sent through Docket No. 333 while the chemical examiner's report referred to Docket No. 604-E. The Court held that the contention regarding the discrepancy in the sample and docket numbers requires detailed consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave for an early date hearing to examine the matter further.
Questions settled- Does a discrepancy between the docket number of the recovered sample and the docket number mentioned in the chemical examiner report warrant consideration for leave to appeal?
- Whether the safe custody and identity of a recovered narcotic sample is crucial for maintaining a conviction?
- Abdul Razzaq Khokhar vs Province of Punjab through Secretary to Government of Punjab and others1990 SCMR 183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the same person could act both as the 'Authority' and the 'Authorised Officer' under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, when applied to Local Council Service employees, and whether the non-supply of an inquiry report vitiated disciplinary proceedings. The appellant, a Chief Officer in the Municipal Committee, was reverted in rank following an inquiry initiated and concluded by the Commissioner. The Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal. The Supreme Court held that where an officer is competent to award both major and minor punishments, they can validly act as both the 'Authority' and the 'Authorised Officer'. The Court further held that non-supply of an inquiry report does not automatically vitiate proceedings unless it causes actual prejudice to the delinquent officer. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the same person could act both as 'Authority' as well as 'Authorised Officer' under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975?
- Whether the proceedings against a civil servant stand vitiated as a result of the omission to supply him with a copy of the inquiry report?
- Do the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 apply to members of the Local Council Service?
- Abdul Razzak vs Agriculture Engineer, Makil Thatta and 2 others1990 PLC 275 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an order of the Labour Court dismissing a workman's grievance petition on the grounds of limitation. The appellant, a Dozer Operator on a work-charged establishment, challenged the termination of his services. The core legal question was whether the employer could plead limitation to defeat a claim when no written termination order, as required by law, was ever issued. The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that the employer failed to prove any written order of termination existed, rendering the plea of limitation unsustainable. The Tribunal emphasized that services of a workman must be terminated strictly in accordance with the modes prescribed by law, specifically requiring a written order with explicit reasons. The Tribunal ruled that the department could not exercise arbitrary power to withhold a written order while simultaneously using the limitation period to deny the workman a remedy, as this violates both statutory requirements and constitutional protections. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Labour Court's order, directed the immediate reinstatement of the appellant, and awarded back benefits from November 1985.
Questions settled- Can an employer plead limitation to defeat a labour claim when no written termination order has been issued?
- Is a written order with explicit reasons mandatory for the termination of a workman's services under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Can a Labour Court or Tribunal regularize an act that is invalid at its inception?
- Abdul Razzak and 7 others vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and another1990 PLC 261 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razak and 4 otherss vs Standard Insurance Company Ltd.1990 MLD 1842 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rauf vs Lahore High Court, Lahore and others1990 PLD Supreme Court 712 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's service appeal as incompetent on the ground that an earlier order of compulsory retirement meant he had ceased to be a civil servant. The core legal question is whether a person who has been compulsorily retired can maintain an appeal before the Service Tribunal against a subsequent order of dismissal from service passed by the departmental authorities. The Supreme Court held that since the dismissal order was passed on the assumption that the petitioner was still a civil servant, the Tribunal erred in declining to entertain the appeal. The Court ruled that the definition of a civil servant under the relevant statute includes a person who has been a member of a civil service, which is wide enough to cover the petitioner's case, thereby converting the petition into an appeal and remanding the matter to the Tribunal for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal against an order of dismissal is maintainable before the Service Tribunal after an earlier order of compulsory retirement?
- Does the definition of a civil servant under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974 include a person who has previously been a member of a civil service or held a civil post?
- Abdul Rashid vs Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman and another1990 SCMR 1429 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Meter-reader from the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The petitioner challenged his dismissal, primarily arguing that the competent authority failed to conduct a formal inquiry before imposing the major penalty. The core legal question was whether the competent authority was mandatorily required to hold a formal inquiry under the applicable disciplinary rules. The Supreme Court held that under Rule 5(iv) of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, the decision to hold a formal inquiry rests within the discretion of the competent authority. Given that the charges against the petitioner were based entirely on official records, the Court found that the authority did not act arbitrarily in dispensing with a formal inquiry. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the Federal Service Tribunal's findings on the merits, noting that the charges were fully substantiated by the record. Consequently, the Court found no error of law in the lower proceedings and dismissed the petition, upholding the dismissal from service.
Questions settled- Does the competent authority have the discretion to decide whether a formal inquiry is necessary under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978?
- Is a formal inquiry mandatory when disciplinary charges are based entirely on official records?
- Abdul Rashid vs Muhammad Akhtar and another1990 SCMR 1048 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which altered the respondent's conviction from section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code to section 304, Part I, and reduced the death sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in re-appraising the evidence, disbelieving the eye-witnesses, and converting the conviction based on a sudden chance encounter and absence of premeditation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's re-appraisal of the evidence, finding discrepancies regarding the place of occurrence, discounting the presence of interested eye-witnesses, and accepting the plea of a sudden quarrel without premeditation was unexceptionable and free from legal infirmity. The key principle laid down is that where the High Court properly evaluates evidence, highlights conflicts with contemporaneous documents, and concludes that an incident occurred on the spur of the moment in a chance encounter, the Supreme Court will not interfere with the reduction of sentence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and substituting it with section 304, Part I?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's re-appraisal of evidence and assessment of eye-witness credibility when no legal defect is pointed out?
- Whether an incident arising from a sudden quarrel without premeditation attracts the application of section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Abdul Rashid Khan vs Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division1990 SCMR 1441 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding the determination of his seniority as a civil servant. The petitioner, a Section Officer appointed in 1959 and promoted to Grade 18 in 1976, challenged the Establishment Division's decision to fix his seniority in the Office Management Group (O.M.G.) effective from 9-10-1977, the date of his encadrement. The petitioner contended that his seniority should instead be calculated from his initial date of continuous appointment in 1959, citing specific provisions of the O.M.G. Rules 1975 and the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) Rules 1965. The Supreme Court identified several critical legal questions requiring determination, specifically concerning the interpretation of seniority rules under the O.M.G. framework, the applicability of CSS Rules regarding continuous service, and whether the department's fixation of seniority violated the proviso to section 23 of the Civil Servants Act 1973. Finding these issues substantial, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the merits of the seniority dispute.
Questions settled- Does Rule 12(b)(i) and (ii) of the O.M.G. Rules 1975 govern the inter se seniority of various categories rather than the starting date of seniority?
- Should a civil servant's seniority be calculated from the date of continuous appointment under Rule 13 of the CSS Rules 1965?
- Does the fixation of seniority by the Establishment Division violate the proviso to section 23 of the Civil Servants Act 1973?
- Abdul Rashid and others vs Abdul Samad and others1990 SCMR 844 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Balochistan High Court judgment that set aside a remand order by the Member, Board of Revenue, and ordered the dismissal of the petitioners' suit for redemption of a mortgage. The suit, originally filed under the Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968, was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner based on a Tribunal's finding that the plaintiff lacked title due to a will. After multiple rounds of litigation and remand orders, the High Court ultimately declared the Board of Revenue's remand order without lawful authority and restored the dismissal of the suit. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the High Court, after setting aside the revisional order, should have either treated the revision as pending or recorded determinative findings on the controversial issues itself. The Court held that the High Court erred by upholding the dismissal without addressing critical questions regarding the competency of the suit, the validity of the will under applicable law, and the proof of the mortgage. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case for proper resolution of these legal and jurisdictional questions.
Questions settled- Can a High Court, after declaring a revisional order of a lower authority to be without lawful authority, uphold the dismissal of a suit without recording determinative findings on the controversial issues?
- Is a suit for redemption of a mortgage competent under the Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968 if the plaintiff's title is disputed based on a will?
- Does the High Court have the authority to resolve jurisdictional and legal questions itself when remanding a matter back to statutory authorities?
- Abdul Rahim vs The State Through Colony Officer1990 CLC 1978 · Board of Revenue · 1989-12-10Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rahim Shah vs The State1990 SCMR 585 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained his conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and confirmed the death sentence, later commuted to life imprisonment by Presidential Order. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the petitioner's guilt, based on ocular testimony and recovery evidence, were sustainable despite alleged contradictions and procedural objections. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was well-founded and dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the arguments challenging the credibility of the eye-witnesses or the validity of the recoveries. The Court affirmed that minor contradictions in testimony do not necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case when the witnesses are disinterested and their accounts are corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the crime weapon. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on a misreading of evidence.
Questions settled- Does the registration of an F.I.R. after preliminary investigation automatically invalidate the testimony of eye-witnesses?
- Can the recovery of a crime weapon at the instance of an accused serve as sufficient corroboration of ocular testimony?
- Are minor contradictions in the evidence of eye-witnesses sufficient grounds to overturn a conviction for murder?
- Abdul Rab Jaffery vs Rashid D. Habib and others1990 MLD 546 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Quddus and another vs Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Dargai1990 SCMR 832 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two civil petitions for leave to appeal against the Peshawar High Court's dismissal of writ petitions regarding the recovery of produce share/compensation for land occupied by tenants after their legal ejectment. The core legal question was whether Section 6 or Section 7 of the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950, applied to the assessment of compensation for the unauthorized occupation of land by former tenants who remained in possession following an eviction decree. The Supreme Court held that the case did not involve 'holding over' but rather unauthorized occupation after a decree for ejectment, thereby correctly attracting the application of Section 7 of the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950. The Court further affirmed that the compensation rate fixed by the lower courts, based on oral and documentary evidence of rental values, was neither capricious nor perverse. The Court dismissed the petitions, establishing that Section 7 governs compensation for land use by former tenants post-ejection, and that such compensation may be determined based on evidence of rental value rather than strictly adhering to the rent of the preceding agricultural year if evidence supports the calculation.
Questions settled- Does Section 7 of the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act 1950 apply to tenants who remain in possession of land after a decree for ejectment has been passed?
- Is the compensation for unauthorized occupation of land by a former tenant limited strictly to the rent payable in the preceding agricultural year?
- Can a court determine the rate of compensation for unauthorized land use based on oral and documentary evidence of rental values?
- Abdul Qayyum, Extelephone Operator vs The Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, Sargodha Division, Sargodha and another1990 SCMR 1471 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by an ex-telephone operator challenging the dismissal of his service appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal. The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner could overcome the threshold bar of limitation, as the Tribunal had dismissed his appeal on the ground of being time-barred. During the proceedings, the Court directed the petitioner to address the issue of limitation first, emphasizing that the merits of the case could not be examined unless the procedural obstacle of limitation was successfully crossed. The petitioner appeared in person and failed to provide any satisfactory explanation or justification for the delay in filing his appeal. Consequently, the Court held that in the absence of a valid explanation for the delay, the petition could not be entertained. The Court affirmed that procedural requirements, specifically those regarding limitation, must be satisfied before a court can adjudicate upon the merits of a service-related grievance. Finding no grounds to condone the delay, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can a court adjudicate the merits of a case if the appeal is barred by limitation?
- Is a petitioner required to explain a delay in filing an appeal before the merits are considered?
- Abdul Qayoom and others vs Muhammad Rafique alias Boota and others1990 PLC 59 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-08-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qadir vs Haji Noor Ali and 4 others1990 MLD 887 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-02Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qadeer vs The State1990 SCMR 491 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Abdul Qadeer against the judgment of the High Court maintaining his conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while reducing his death sentence to imprisonment for life, alongside a conviction under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for a murderous assault. The core legal questions involve determining the true nature of possession over the disputed land in Khasra No. 2152 and whether the petitioner had exceeded his right of private defence and defence of property, or if the offence fell under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Patwari Halqa favored the petitioner's possession, rendering the complainant party trespassers for attempting to take forcible possession. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the case warranted a conversion of the conviction to Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the right of private defence was exceeded, laying down principles regarding land possession disputes and the right of private defence in criminal homicides.
Questions settled- Whether the offence falls under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when a dispute arises over land possession?
- Did the accused exceed their right of private defence and defence of property during the occurrence?
- Does the possession of land by the accused party affect the nature of the criminal liability in a sudden fight over property?
- Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, J Muhammad Iqbal and 6 others vs Shamsuddin1990 PLD Supreme Court 736 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qaddus vs Mst. Shabana Parveen and another1990 MLD 68 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged the dismissal of an appeal by the District Judge, Karachi (South), which was deemed time-barred due to the late payment of court-fees. The original appeal arose from a Family Court judgment concerning dissolution of marriage, dower, and maintenance. The petitioner had initially filed the appeal without court-fees, believing them unnecessary for Family Court appeals, a common misconception prior to a Supreme Court ruling. An application for time to pay court-fees under Section 149, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was granted tentatively, but the appeal was ultimately dismissed as time-barred. The High Court held that while the circumstances might have warranted the exercise of discretion under Section 149, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellate court had declined to exercise it. The High Court emphasized its reluctance, in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973, to interfere with a lower court's decision regarding its statutory discretionary powers. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Are court-fees payable on appeals arising out of judgments of Family Courts?
- Can a court revoke its tentative exercise of discretion under Section 149, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a High Court interfere with a lower court's decision not to exercise its discretionary powers under Section 149, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does the exemption from court-fees for plaints under Section 19 of the Sind Family Courts Act, 1964, extend to appeals?
- Abdul Oayyum Khan vs Azad Government of State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary and 5 others1990 PLC (C.S.) 775 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-02-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Mehdi vs Mrs. Abdul Hakim1990 MLD 2182 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Matloob Khan vs Additional Chief Secretary, Punjab and others1990 SCMR 1438 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the period 1-1-1981 to 13-7-1981, which described his performance as below average. The reporting officer (Assistant Commissioner) recorded this rating, which was subsequently agreed upon by the second countersigning officer (Commissioner), despite the first countersigning officer (Deputy Commissioner) rating the performance as fair and average. After his representation for expunction was rejected and his appeal to the Service Tribunal was dismissed, the petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The petitioner contended that the remarks were inconsistent because his performance was rated as average in Part II of the ACR but below average in Part III. The Supreme Court held that there was no inconsistency, as Part III requires a comparative assessment against other officers, which can result in a lower rating even if the officer is considered average in isolation. Finding no legal error or bias, the Court refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can an officer be rated as average in one part of an Annual Confidential Report and below average in another part without creating an inconsistency?
- Does a comparative assessment of an officer's performance against peers justify a lower rating than an individual performance assessment?
- Abdul Maroof Khan Afridi vs Karachi Development Authority through DirectorGeneral, Civic Centre GulshaneIqbal, Karachi1990 MLD 2252 · Sindh High Court · 1990-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arose from the demolition of a structure by the Karachi Development Authority (K.D.A.) on a disputed plot of land in Karachi, which the petitioner claimed was part of a Katchi Abadi and protected by an interim injunction in a pending civil suit. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with demolition actions when a properly instituted civil suit concerning the same property and parties was already pending and material facts had been suppressed. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and should be denied where the petitioner suppresses material facts, fails to implead necessary parties, and where an equally efficacious alternative remedy—specifically a pending civil suit—is already available. The court established that litigants invoking constitutional remedies must approach the court with clean hands, fully disclose all relevant facts, and utilize existing civil proceedings rather than multiplying litigation.
Questions settled- Can a constitutional petition be maintained when an equally efficacious suit is already pending between the parties regarding the same subject matter?
- Does the suppression of material facts and failure to implead necessary parties justify the dismissal of a constitutional petition?
- Whether constitutional jurisdiction can be invoked to challenge actions that have a direct nexus with an ongoing civil suit instead of seeking relief within the suit itself?
- Is a constitutional petition liable to be dismissed as infructuous if the impugned demolition work has already been completed?
- Abdul Manna N vs Abdul Latif and another1990 PLD Supreme Court 1086 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed against a High Court order remanding a suit for the redemption of mortgaged property. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could challenge a remand order that was partially necessitated by his own request for a preliminary decree, and whether such a petition is maintainable while the remanded proceedings remain pending. The Supreme Court held that the remand order was lawful and justified, noting that the petitioner was estopped from challenging a procedure he had previously advocated for. Furthermore, the Court determined that the petition was premature, as the remanded proceedings might ultimately result in a favorable outcome for the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court will generally decline to entertain a petition for leave to appeal against a remand order if the final outcome of the remanded proceedings remains uncertain, granting the petitioner liberty to refile only if the final decision in the remanded case is adverse.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge a remand order that they themselves requested in the lower court?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable against a remand order while the remanded proceedings are still pending?
- Does the absence of a preliminary decree in a mortgage redemption suit necessitate a remand?
- Abdul Malik alias Bhora and 2 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 753 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid vs The State1990 MLD 1023 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid vs Chairman, WAPDA and 2 others1990 SCMR 1458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the portion of the Service Tribunal's order dated 11-1-1988 that denied him back benefits upon his reinstatement in service. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal was justified in denying back benefits when the employee's reinstatement was based on a technical flaw in the inquiry proceedings and the employee had contributed to the disciplinary action by remaining absent without sanctioned leave. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal had the lawful authority to deny back benefits under such circumstances, as the employee's own conduct of unauthorized absence provided a good and sufficient reason. The court laid down the principle that an employee reinstated on technical grounds after being absent without leave may lawfully be denied back benefits based on their own contributory conduct.
Questions settled- Can the Service Tribunal deny back benefits upon reinstating an employee who was absent without sanctioned leave?
- Whether leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution can be granted when the Service Tribunal denies back benefits for valid reasons.
- Is an employee reinstated on technical grounds automatically entitled to back benefits?
- Abdul Majid Qureshi vs The General Manager, P.R. Headquarters1990 PLC (C.S.) 826 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1990-02-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid and another vs Muhammad Shaft and others1990 SCMR 393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These petitions for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing civil revisions filed by the petitioners, which challenged judgments of the Additional District Judge decreeing suits for the partition of a house and a shop. The core legal question concerned the validity and genuineness of a gift deed (Tamleeknama) executed by the original owner in favour of the petitioners, and whether the document suffered from interpolations and suspicious features. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings regarding the suspicious nature of the gift deed—specifically targeted interpolations, signature discrepancies, and artificial aging of the document—were unexceptionable and did not warrant interference. The petitions were accordingly dismissed, affirming that findings of fact by lower appellate and revisional courts regarding tainted documents will not be disturbed where no illegality is shown.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity and execution of a gift deed can be interfered with in civil revision?
- Does an interpolated and artificially aged gift deed create a valid transfer of property?
- Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing civil revisions where the lower appellate court properly scrutinized the authenticity of a disputed document?
- Abdul Majeed Lone vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and 2 others1990 PLC (C.S.) 359 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1989-12-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed Khan vs The Government of Sindh through the ChiefK.L.R. 1990 Labour and Services 153 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed Khan vs Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary1990 PLC (C.S.) 460 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed and anothers vs The State1990 SCMR 220 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically regarding a murder and attempted murder case. The core legal question concerned whether the ocular testimony, which attributed specific firing roles to the appellants, could be relied upon despite inconsistencies with the medical evidence. The Supreme Court held that while the prosecution established the occurrence, the specific roles attributed to the appellants—Abdul Majeed and Muhammad Yaqub—were doubtful. The medical evidence regarding the nature of the injuries sustained by the prosecution witnesses suggested a strong possibility that they were caused by stray pellets from a single shot, rather than individual shots fired by each appellant as alleged. Consequently, the Court applied the principle of the benefit of the doubt, setting aside the convictions of the appellants and acquitting them. The judgment emphasizes that where ocular testimony conflicts with medical evidence regarding the mechanism of injury, the court must exercise caution and extend the benefit of the doubt to the accused.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court acquit an accused if medical evidence creates a reasonable doubt regarding the specific role attributed to them by ocular witnesses?
- Does the possibility of injuries being caused by stray pellets entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt in a criminal trial?
- Is ocular testimony sufficient to sustain a conviction when it conflicts with medical evidence regarding the nature and cause of injuries?
- Abdul Majeed and 10 others vs Province of Punjab and another1990 SCMR 846 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed a second appeal concerning a land dispute under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The petitioners, claiming title through an allotment to their predecessor, contested a prior sale of the same land to the respondents by the Custodian. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court failed to apply an independent mind in a second appeal involving judgments of variance, and whether the Custodian's sale was legally valid given the acquisition notifications. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court correctly addressed the arguments raised by counsel and that the petitioners could not re-open factual questions, such as the lack of Central Government approval, which were not pressed in the High Court. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the sale to the respondents predated the petitioners' allotment, defeating their claim. The judgment reinforces the principle that factual findings regarding title cannot be re-agitated in the Supreme Court and that statutory bars, such as Section 22 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and Article 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, preclude such challenges.
Questions settled- Whether a High Court in a second appeal is required to formally compare judgments of variance if the counsel does not raise specific infirmities?
- Does Article 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 apply to suits challenging orders passed by government officers in their official capacity?
- Can a party raise a question of fact in the Supreme Court that was not pressed before the High Court?
- Does Section 22 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 bar disputes regarding the title of land allotted to displaced persons?
- Abdul Latif vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 505 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif Khatri vs Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 473 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif And Others vs Rasul Bakhsh Shah1990 CLC 1497 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-01Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif and 4 others vs Muhammad Khan and 15 others1990 SCMR 909 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendants against the dismissal of their Regular Second Appeal in a suit for declaration concerning a dispute over property alleged by the plaintiffs to be Waqf property constituting a mosque, and claimed by the petitioners to be in private ownership. The core legal question involves whether concurrent findings of fact rendered by the courts below regarding the nature of the property warrant interference in a second appeal. The Supreme Court held that concurrent findings of fact in favour of the plaintiffs cannot be reopened on merits in the absence of any shown error of law or principle, and technical objections raised by the petitioners do not suffice to grant leave. The ratio decidendi is that concurrent factual findings by lower courts regarding property disputes are binding and unassailable in second appeal unless a substantial error of law or principle is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact rendered by lower courts can be interfered with in a second appeal without demonstrating an error of law or principle?
- Can technical objections substitute for a failure to show an error of law when challenging concurrent findings of fact?
- Is leave to appeal granted against the dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal when the petitioners have no case on merits?
- Abdul Khalique vs The State1990 PLD Karachi 448 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Full Bench of the Sindh High Court considered whether the appellate court could grant bail or suspend sentences under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the express bar in Section 7 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. The Court held that Section 7 explicitly prohibits the exercise of powers under Section 426, Cr.P.C. during the pendency of an appeal, reflecting the legislative intent for the expeditious disposal of cases within three months. The Court distinguished this from cases where special laws are silent on interim relief, noting that an express statutory bar cannot be bypassed by invoking ancillary powers. However, the Court clarified that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. remains intact, as it is neither expressly nor impliedly excluded. Therefore, while the appellate court cannot grant bail under Section 426, it retains the authority to grant relief in exceptional cases of hardship or to prevent the abuse of the court's process, thereby securing the ends of justice.
Questions settled- Does the express bar in Section 7 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, preclude the High Court from granting bail under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 excluded by the provisions of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
- Can an appellate court grant interim relief in cases where the governing special law is silent regarding such power?
- Does the term 'no Court' in Section 7 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, include the High Court hearing an appeal?
- Abdul Khaliq Khaleeque, Senior Research Officer, Council of Islamic1990 SCMR 1425 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a service dispute concerning the appointment of a Chief Research Officer (BPS-19) within the Council of Islamic Ideology. The petitioner, a Senior Research Officer, challenged the appointment of respondent No. 2, arguing that the respondent lacked the requisite research experience prescribed by the service rules. The core legal question was whether the respondent's experience as a translator qualified as research experience under the applicable rules and whether the court should interfere with the departmental selection process. The Federal Service Tribunal had dismissed the petitioner's appeal, noting that both candidates suffered from similar deficiencies and that the respondent was senior in service. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that in the absence of a specific definition of 'research experience' in the rules, the department's interpretation equating translation with research was permissible. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that it is the prerogative of the Departmental Promotion Committee to determine the relative suitability of candidates, and courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the competent authority, especially when both candidates are considered.
Questions settled- Can a court substitute its judgment for that of a Departmental Promotion Committee regarding the relative suitability of candidates?
- When service rules do not define a term like 'research experience', is the departmental construction of that term permissible?
- Does an allegation of mala fide based on hearsay and internal comments by a subordinate against colleagues constitute a valid ground for judicial interference?
- Abdul Karim vs The State1990 SCMR 203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns the conviction of the appellant, Abdul Karim, which was based solely on the retracted confession of a co-accused. The core legal question was whether a conviction can be sustained against an accused relying exclusively on the implication by a co-accused in a confession, in the absence of any other independent corroborative evidence linking the appellant to the crime. The Supreme Court held that the conviction could not be sustained. The Court observed that the trial court and the High Court erroneously used circumstantial evidence relevant only to the co-accused to implicate the appellant, despite the absence of a conspiracy charge. Furthermore, the Court rejected the lower courts' assumptions—that the crime required multiple participants or that the co-accused had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant—as artificial and insufficient for corroboration. The key principle laid down is that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of a co-accused's confession without independent evidence connecting the accused to the offense. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of a co-accused's confession in the absence of other evidence?
- Are assumptions regarding the necessity of multiple participants in a crime sufficient to corroborate the involvement of an accused?
- Is it permissible to use circumstantial evidence relevant to one accused to sustain the conviction of another accused in the absence of a conspiracy charge?
- Abdul Karim vs Noor Muhammad and 3 others1990 MLD 2073 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Kabir vs The State1990 PLD Supreme Court 823 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the High Court's rejection of the petitioner's bail application. The petitioner, accused of murder and bodily injuries, sought statutory bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground of statutory delay, having been detained for over two years. The prosecution opposed the application under the fourth proviso, arguing that the petitioner was a previously convicted offender, having been convicted and sentenced to death on four counts in another murder case. The petitioner contended that because his sentence in the other case was suspended by the High Court pending appeal, he could not be treated as a previous convict. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that a conviction remains operative until it is set aside by a higher appellate court. The suspension of a sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 merely suspends the execution of the punishment as a concession, but does not erase or suspend the conviction itself. Consequently, the petitioner remained a previously convicted offender, rendering the statutory bail provisions inapplicable.
Questions settled- Does the suspension of a sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 also suspend or erase the conviction of the accused?
- Can an accused whose sentence has been suspended pending appeal be considered a previously convicted offender under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the pendency of an appeal against conviction keep the conviction in abeyance for the purpose of granting statutory bail?
- Abdul Jamil Asghar And Others vs Settlement Commissioner (Land) And Other1990 CLC 1525 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 991 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar Khan vs Messrs Fauji Foundation and another1990 PLC 580 · Labour Court · 1987-10-31Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar Khan and 25 others vs Nawabdin and 52 others1990 PLD Karachi 328 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-11Read full judgment →
- Abdul Haseeb and 51 others vs Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment1990 PLC (C.S.) 741 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Haque vs The Director General, T & T and others1990 SCMR 373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside a departmental decision declaring the petitioner senior to respondent No. 5. The petitioner, a Steno-typist confirmed in 1956, had been on deputation to another directorate before reverting to his parent department in 1980. Respondent No. 5, confirmed in 1962, remained in the parent department and was promoted to Stenographer in 1975, later receiving a selection grade. The petitioner claimed seniority based on his earlier confirmation as a Steno-typist and argued that his lien on his permanent post in the parent department was maintained during his deputation, meaning his seniority should have been preserved despite his absence. The Federal Service Tribunal had ruled against the petitioner, overturning an earlier departmental order that favored him. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner's contention regarding the retention of his lien and seniority while on deputation required further judicial examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the petitioner's seniority was correctly assessed.
Questions settled- Does an employee retain seniority in their parent department while serving on deputation in another directorate?
- Does a permanent employee maintain a lien on their post while serving in a different department on loan?
- Can a departmental authority's decision regarding seniority be set aside by the Federal Service Tribunal if the issue of lien retention was not adequately considered?
- Abdul Haque Shah vs Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Saddar1990 SCMR 782 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Patwari dismissed from service after inquiry on three separate charges of misconduct and corruption, sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against the judgments of the Service Tribunal dismissing his appeals. The core legal questions involved whether the Assistant Commissioner possessed the competency as the appointing authority to order the dismissal, and whether a civil servant already dismissed in one inquiry could be subjected to subsequent dismissal orders while his appeals were pending. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that pursuant to the amended West Pakistan (Northern Zone) Patwar Subordinate Service Rules of 1963 via the notification dated 15th July 1972, the Assistant Commissioner was indeed designated as the appointing authority and competent to order dismissal. Furthermore, a person dismissed from service is treated as remaining in service for the purpose of pending proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, establishing that the Assistant Commissioner is the competent appointing and dismissing authority under the amended service rules.
Questions settled- Whether the Assistant Commissioner is competent to pass an order of dismissal against a Patwari as the appointing authority under the West Pakistan (Northern Zone) Patwar Subordinate Service Rules of 1963?
- Does a person dismissed from service cease to be a civil servant for the purpose of multiple parallel inquiries while an appeal is pending?
- Whether multiple dismissal orders can be sustained against a civil servant facing separate disciplinary inquiries?
- Abdul Haque alias Dost Muhammad vs District Magistrate and 4 others1990 PLD Karachi 481 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the detention of the detenu, Noor Muhammad, ordered by the District Magistrate under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The detention order was based on vague allegations of prejudicial conduct and providing support to dacoits. The core legal question was whether the executive authority's 'satisfaction' for detention was based on sufficient material, or if it was arbitrary and mala fide. The Court held that the detention order was unsustainable and quashed it. The ratio of the decision is that the 'satisfaction' required under the Ordinance must be objective, not merely subjective or based on whims. Executive authorities must possess sufficient, specific material to justify a detention order, and the High Court, in its power of judicial review, is entitled to examine the materials relied upon by the detaining authority. Vague allegations unsupported by evidence, particularly when the petitioner's assertions of political victimization remain uncontroverted, render a detention order unlawful.
Questions settled- Is the 'satisfaction' of the detaining authority under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, subjective or objective in nature?
- Can the High Court examine the materials relied upon by the executive authority to issue a detention order?
- Does a detention order based on vague allegations without supporting material satisfy the requirements of law?
- Is a detention order sustainable if the detaining authority fails to provide sufficient material to support the grounds of detention?
- Abdul Hanan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 777 · Peshawar High Court · 1973-07-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the validity of a conviction under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the accused was convicted for providing false information to a public servant. The core legal question was whether the trial court could take cognizance of the offence when the complaint was not filed by the specific public servant to whom the false information was allegedly given, as required by Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, strictly requires the complaint to be in writing by the public servant concerned or their superior, and does not permit the delegation of this authority. Consequently, because the complaint was not lodged by the proper authority, the court lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance. The conviction was set aside, and the proceedings were quashed. The court further clarified that this dismissal does not constitute an acquittal on merits, and the prosecution remains at liberty to file a fresh, legally compliant complaint if advised.
Questions settled- Can a public servant delegate the authority to file a complaint under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the dismissal of a complaint for non-compliance with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 operate as an acquittal?
- Is a court empowered to take cognizance of an offence under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without a complaint from the concerned public servant?
- Abdul Hanan vs Pakistan Railways and another1990 PLC 83 · Labour Court · 1989-09-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 568 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, convicted under Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, challenged his conviction and the seven-year sentence imposed by the trial court. The core legal questions were whether the conviction was sustainable based on the appellant's admission and evidence, and whether the sentence should be reduced or ordered to run concurrently with a sentence from a separate, unrelated criminal case. The Court held that the conviction was sound, as the trial court correctly assessed the evidence, including eye-witness testimony and the appellant's admission of provocation. Regarding sentencing, the Court affirmed that the quantum of punishment must reflect the gravity of the offense and the circumstances. Furthermore, the Court held that under Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, consecutive sentences are the general rule, and concurrent sentences are an exception applicable only when offenses are intimately connected. Since the two offenses were unrelated, occurring at different times and places, the Court refused to order concurrent sentences and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Is a conviction under Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when based on both the accused's admission and corroborating prosecution evidence?
- Does the general rule under Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require sentences to run consecutively unless the court directs otherwise?
- Can a court order sentences for two separate, unrelated criminal offenses to run concurrently?
- Abdul Hamid vs The Director-General, L.Da. and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 553 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid vs Lahore Development AuthorityK.L.R. 1990 Labour & Service Cases 23 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid Khan vs Muhammad Zameer Khan and 2 others1990 MLD 1617 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, Abdul Hamid, challenged the cancellation of his allotment of a residential house in Bhimber Town, which had been ordered by the President of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in 1975 based on alleged abandonment and consent. The appellant argued that the cancellation was void, citing lack of due process, absence of legal authority for the President to cancel such allotments, and fraud. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the cancellation order was invalid because the inquiry required by Section 18(7) of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, was not conducted by the designated Rehabilitation Authority, but rather by unauthorized revenue officials. The Court further determined that the findings of fact regarding abandonment and consent were based on a flagrant misreading of evidence, noting that the appellant remained in possession of the property. The Court established that where a statute mandates an inquiry by a specific authority as a condition precedent for an administrative order, failure to adhere to this requirement vitiates the order. Consequently, the Court set aside the cancellation of the appellant's allotment, while maintaining the cancellation for the other two allottees who had admitted to surrendering their rights.
Questions settled- Whether the Government is a necessary party in a suit challenging an administrative order regarding evacuee property where the Government has no direct interest in the property?
- Does an inquiry conducted by revenue officials, rather than the designated Rehabilitation Authority, satisfy the requirements of Section 18(7) of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957?
- Can an objection regarding the non-joinder of a necessary party be raised for the first time on appeal?
- Does the legislature have the authority to give retrospective effect to a statute, and can such legislation validate prior administrative actions?
- Abdul Hamid Khan and 10 others vs Mst. Rajo Bibi and 9 others1990 SCMR 911 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from two petitions directed against the dismissal by the High Court of the petitioners' First Appeals challenging the grant of temporary injunctions by the trial Court in suits for declaration filed by the respondents. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's treatment of First Appeals as Civil Revisions and whether observations made during interlocutory proceedings prejudice the main trial. The Supreme Court held that discretionary orders regarding temporary injunctions must not influence the course of the trial, and consequently refused leave to appeal while issuing clarifying observations to protect the petitioners' interests in the main case. The key principle laid down is that observations made in interlocutory orders pertaining to temporary injunctions shall not prejudice or influence the merits of the main suit during trial.
Questions settled- Whether observations made in temporary injunction orders can influence the course of the main trial?
- Can the High Court treat First Appeals against temporary injunctions as Civil Revisions?
- Are discretionary orders passed on temporary injunction questions binding on the merits of the main case?
- Abdul Hamid Khan & Sons vs Karimji Ebrahimji & Sons1990 MLD 840 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-08Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid Dogar vs Abdul Wahid and another1990 SCMR 677 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comprises two connected petitions directed against the dismissal of the petitioner's civil revisions by the High Court, arising out of cross-suits involving monetary claims and an alleged arrangement to send the petitioner's sons abroad for employment. The core legal question revolves around whether the lower courts erred in non-suiting the petitioner based on technical considerations and through the non-reading and misreading of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's plea possessed a prima facie ring of truth corroborated by the circumstances, noting that such cases of first impression involving the defrauding of poor persons under the lure of foreign employment require authoritative pronouncement. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted in both petitions to be heard along with a similar connected matter, and the effect of the impugned decree in one of the related petitions was suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the civil revisions based on technical considerations?
- Does a claim involving fraudulent promises of foreign employment warrant leave to appeal for authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court?
- Whether the lower courts committed non-reading and misreading of evidence in appreciating the claims of the parties?
- Abdul Hameed vs Muhammad Zaki and 3 others1990 MLD 1129 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed vs Deputy Commissioner, Vehari and others1990 SCMR 1435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had upheld the removal of the petitioner, a Head Clerk, from service. The petitioner was dismissed following allegations that he endorsed a false office note regarding an auction sale, falsely claiming that a de-confirmation order by the Board of Revenue had been set aside by the High Court and that full payment had been made, when in fact neither was true. The core legal question was whether the dispensing of a regular inquiry by the authority was procedurally incompetent under the applicable disciplinary rules and whether such an inquiry was necessary to establish the facts. The Supreme Court held that the inquiry was properly dispensed with by the authorized officer, as the facts regarding the absence of a High Court order and the status of the auction money were verifiable without a formal inquiry. Finding no substantial legal question of public importance and no illegality in the Tribunal's appreciation of evidence, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, affirming that a regular inquiry is not mandatory when the misconduct is demonstrable from the record.
Questions settled- Can an authorized officer dispense with a regular inquiry in disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
- Is a regular inquiry mandatory when the facts of misconduct are verifiable from the record?
- Does the endorsement of a false office note by a civil servant constitute sufficient grounds for removal from service?
- Abdul Hameed Kiranvi vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1990 PLC 213 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the decision of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which set aside a Labour Court order reinstating the petitioner. The petitioner, an Empty Godown Supervisor, had his services terminated by the respondent employer citing the off-season closure of the factory. The core legal question was whether the termination was lawful under the relevant labour laws and whether the petitioner successfully discharged the burden of proving mala fides or victimization. The High Court held that the termination was a case of termination simpliciter, which complied with the statutory requirement of providing written reasons. The Court affirmed that while an employer must state reasons for termination in writing, the decision to declare an employee surplus remains the employer's prerogative unless proven to be colourable or in contravention of law. The Court ruled that the petitioner failed to establish mala fides or victimization, and thus, the Appellate Tribunal's decision to uphold the termination was correct. The key principle laid down is that in cases of termination simpliciter, the burden lies on the employee to prove mala fides, and an employer's decision regarding surplus staff cannot be questioned merely because the job was permanent.
Questions settled- Does Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 require an employer to do more than state the reasons for termination in writing?
- In a case of termination simpliciter, upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish mala fides?
- Can an employer's decision to terminate an employee on the grounds of being surplus be challenged solely on the basis that the employee's job was of a permanent nature?
- Abdul Hakeem vs The State and 2 others1990 PLD Shariat Court (AJ&K) 3 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani vs Shafiq Ahmad and another1990 SCMR 423 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the respondent's conviction under section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code was set aside and he was acquitted of the murder charge, while the petitioner's revision petition for enhancement of sentence was dismissed. The core legal question was whether the respondent acted within the legitimate exercise of his right of private defence of person when he intervened to protect his elderly father who was being strangulated by the deceased during a sudden quarrel over water usage. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly concluded the respondent acted in self-defence, as the father's perilous condition created a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt. The court laid down the principle that a person is justified in using necessary force to rescue a parent from a situation presenting a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt.
Questions settled- Whether the right of private defence extends to causing fatal injuries to protect a parent from strangulation?
- When does an agricultural implement qualify as a weapon of offence in the context of self-defence?
- Does a sudden quarrel over property rights justify intervention by a family member to save a co-accused from death or grievous hurt?
- Abdul Ghani vs Muhammad Shafi1990 CLC 1472 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-23Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani vs Manzoor Ahmad Butt1990 SCMR 441 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendant against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which had maintained the decree for possession of a disputed shop in favor of the respondent. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court erred in its revisional jurisdiction by ignoring alleged misreading and non-reading of evidence regarding the nature of the suit property as a plot versus a built-up shop. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact on the matter, duly examined by the High Court with valid reasoning, did not warrant interference under revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the decisions of the lower forums. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact affirmed by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction without any established error of non-reading or mis-reading of evidence will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact affirmed by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction?
- Does a revisional court require strong grounds of non-reading or mis-reading of evidence to interfere with factual determinations?
- Can a plea regarding the nature of the suit property as a plot or built-up shop be entertained when concurrently resolved against the petitioner?
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Haji Abdul Salam and others1990 SCMR 443 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a constitutional petition filed by Haji Abdul Salam, which was adjudicated by the Lahore High Court on October 8, 1986. The High Court, after examining the merits and legal propositions, determined that the interests of justice necessitated a remand of the case to the Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement Wing-revenue). The High Court specifically declined to adjudicate on disputed factual issues, such as the alleged failure to pay the transfer price or the validity of a compensation book, noting that such inquiries were unsuitable for constitutional proceedings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed this decision upon appeal. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order, reasoning that the remand was appropriate as it allowed for a comprehensive examination of the merits in accordance with the law, without debarring the petitioner from participating in the proceedings. The Court affirmed that remanding a case for a proper inquiry into disputed facts is a valid exercise of judicial discretion when the record is insufficient for a final determination.
Questions settled- Is a remand order appropriate when the record is insufficient to determine disputed factual issues?
- Does a remand order in a constitutional petition violate the rights of the petitioner if they are permitted to participate in the subsequent proceedings?
- Can a High Court decline to decide factual disputes in a constitutional petition and instead remand the matter for inquiry?
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Government Of Pakistan Through Ministry Of Interior, Islamabad And 3 OtherPTCL 1990 CL. 678 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Ghulam Rasool And 04 Other1990 CLC 1941 · Board of Revenue · 1989-11-21Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Abdul Sattar1990 PLC 30 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-25Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor Khan vs Syed Tasawar Hussain Shah1990 MLD 213 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-09Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1465 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor and 5 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1565 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-23Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar vs WAPDA through its Chairman and another1990 SCMR 1462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal against his removal from service by WAPDA. The core legal question was whether Rule 5 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules of WAPDA, which allowed the competent authority to dispense with a formal inquiry and proceed via a show-cause notice, was arbitrary and violative of the fundamental right to equality under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that the Efficiency and Discipline Rules of WAPDA are non-statutory and do not constitute 'law' under Article 8 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court determined that the procedure providing multiple options for disciplinary action, including dispensing with a formal inquiry while still requiring a show-cause notice, is based on a rational classification and is not inherently discriminatory. The Court also noted that the petitioner had admitted his guilt in a statement, rendering the challenge to the procedure moot. The key principle established is that non-statutory service rules are not subject to the same constitutional scrutiny as statutory laws regarding fundamental rights.
Questions settled- Are the Efficiency and Discipline Rules of WAPDA considered 'law' under Article 8 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Can a disciplinary procedure that offers multiple options for inquiry, including dispensing with a formal inquiry, be challenged as discriminatory?
- Does the failure to raise a constitutional ground before the Service Tribunal preclude a party from raising it in a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Abdul Fatah and others vs The State1990 MLD 1087 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Basit and 2 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1154 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Baqui vs Malik Mitha Khan and another1990 MLD 1960 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-03-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Baqi vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 145 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz vs Saleh Muhammad and another1990 SCMR 346 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Baluchistan High Court, which had declined to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner standing trial alongside a co-accused. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in refusing bail when a prosecution witness had directly implicated the petitioner in the murder charge, despite arguments concerning the delay in recording the witness's statement. The Supreme Court held that in view of the weight of evidence from at least one eye-witness directly implicating the accused, the High Court rightly refused bail, as deeper evaluation of evidence and assessment of delay cannot be undertaken at the bail stage. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that tentative assessment of a direct ocular account is sufficient to decline bail without entering into a detailed comparative analysis of witness statements or procedural delays at this preliminary stage.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be refused when an eye-witness directly implicates the accused in a murder case?
- Can the effect of delay in recording a witness statement be determined at the bail stage?
- Is a detailed evaluation of statements of witnesses justified at the juncture of considering a bail petition?