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.

• Abdul Aziz vs Mst. Babu Jan And 9 Other1990 CLC 1924 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-06-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Inspector-General of Police, Sindh and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 637 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Faizi Industries Ltd.1990 PLC 487 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-06-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Oureshi, Advocate vs Federation of Pakistan and others1990 PLD Lahore 488 · Lahore High Court · 1990-08-18
  constitutional petitionEighth Amendmentquo warrantoparliamentary proceedingsdisqualification of memberslocal council membership
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the validity of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, arguing that it was passed without the requisite two-thirds majority because numerous members of the National Assembly had allegedly lost their seats under Article 12-A of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Election) Order, 1977 for failing to resign from local bodies. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's premise was fundamentally flawed because Article 12-A's resignation period was extended and the Article was subsequently omitted entirely from the statute book by Presidential Order No. 27 of 1985 before any disqualification could take effect. Furthermore, the court held that under Articles 67 and 69 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, parliamentary proceedings cannot be called into question due to procedural irregularities or the participation of members allegedly not entitled to sit, and that a writ of quo warranto cannot be issued regarding an assembly dissolved years prior. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution is ultra vires on the assertion that it was carried out by members allegedly not validly seated in the House?
  • Whether the validity of proceedings in the National Assembly can be called in question under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Whether a writ of quo warranto can be issued in respect of members of an assembly that has already been dissolved?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz and others vs Malik Shahab Din and others1990 SCMR 1610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-28
  constitutional jurisdictionsettlement authoritiesevacuee propertyallotment cancellationfraudrepealed lawsSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the jurisdiction of the High Court in constitutional proceedings to interfere with findings of fraud made by Settlement authorities. The core legal question examined was whether the notified officer possessed the legal authority to reopen long-settled land allotments, determine the validity of past review orders of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, and treat subsequent transactions as fraudulent under instructions issued pursuant to the repealing of evacuee laws. The Supreme Court held that the notified authority acted without jurisdiction in sitting in judgment over the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's historical orders and in interfering with allotments and sales that had stood unchallenged for two decades, particularly when no matters were validly pending or remanded. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, establishing the principle that notified officers under repealing evacuee legislation cannot exercise roving review powers over closed, historical transactions and settled orders without explicit statutory backing or pending/remanded proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction can upset findings of fraud arrived at by Settlement authorities?
  • Does a notified officer under the repealing evacuee laws have the jurisdiction to determine the validity and effect of past orders passed by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner?
  • Can a notified authority interfere with land allotments and subsequent sales that have remained in effect and unchallenged for a long duration without pending cases or remand orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz And Another vs Ata Muhammad And Another1990 CLC 884 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz and 3 others vs Abdul Rahim and 46 others1990 SCMR 798 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-19
  water rightscivil revisioncanal water allocationservice of noticeconcurrent findings of factleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning water rights, specifically the allocation of 'Nikkal' water by the Deputy Canal Officer. The petitioners challenged an order of the Deputy Canal Officer, which reallocated water rights from the petitioners to the respondents, arguing that the allocation failed to prioritize filling village ponds in specific squares and that proper notice was not served to all villagers. The trial court initially decreed in favor of the petitioners, but the District Judge reversed this decision, upholding the Deputy Canal Officer's order, a judgment subsequently affirmed by the Lahore High Court in civil revision. The Supreme Court examined the merits and found that the water allocation was based on a correct assessment of sufficiency for the village ponds, deeming additional water a misuse. Furthermore, the Court held that public announcements via mosque loudspeakers and beat of drums constituted sufficient notice to the villagers. Finding no error in the lower courts' factual determinations, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, declining to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact.

  Questions settled

  • Does an announcement via mosque loudspeaker and beat of drum constitute sufficient notice to villagers in a dispute over water rights?
  • Can a High Court interfere in its revisional jurisdiction with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts regarding water allocation?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz and 2 others vs Muhammad Zarif and 3 others1990 SCMR 1721 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-03
  pre-emptionlocus standinecessary partysuit for pre-emptiontenancy rightsremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a constitutional petition dismissed by the High Court concerning a suit for pre-emption based on tenancy. The appellants, who were the original defendants/vendees, challenged the remand of the case to the Collector. During the proceedings, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the appellants' locus standi, arguing that the appellants had sold the suit land to a third party, Mst. Jannat, who possessed a superior title. Furthermore, the respondents contended that Mst. Jannat was a necessary party to the litigation. The appellants countered that the land had been re-sold to them, though this assertion remained contested. The Supreme Court held that regardless of the alleged re-sale, Mst. Jannat was an essential party to the proceedings, as she was entitled to challenge the appellants' claims regarding the transfer of title. Consequently, the Court upheld the preliminary objections raised by the respondents, ruling that the absence of a necessary party rendered the appeal unsustainable. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the appellants failed to implead a necessary party whose interests were directly affected by the litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Is a subsequent purchaser of suit land a necessary party in a pre-emption appeal?
  • Does an appellant have locus standi to pursue an appeal if they have transferred the subject property to a third party?
  • Can an appeal be dismissed for failure to implead a necessary party?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz and 2 others vs Abdul Majid and another1990 MLD 102 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz (Aziz Ahmed) vs Additional Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad and 2 others1990 PLC (C.S.) 794 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1989-08-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Akbar vs Fazal Mahmood and 2 others1990 MLD 1019 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-02-14Read full judgment →
• Abbasi Textile Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Sales Tax (East), Karachi1990 PTD 189 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-18
  sales taxpartly manufactured goodstax exemptionmanufacturing processtax assessmentexported goods
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals regarding the interpretation of the Sales-tax Act, 1951, specifically whether raw materials consumed in the manufacture of exported goods are liable to sales tax. The core legal questions were whether cotton used in yarn production and yarn used in cloth production, or components like glass shells used in bulbs, are taxable when the final products are exempt from sales tax, and whether such consumption constitutes a "sale" under Section 3(6)(d) of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the appeals were without merit. The Court affirmed that "partly manufactured goods" are subject to sales tax if the end-product is exempt, ensuring the tax is collected at some stage of the manufacturing process. It further ruled that the "keeping of goods" by a manufacturer for their own use is deemed a "sale" under the Act, regardless of whether those goods are assimilated into the final product. The principle established is that the integrated nature of a manufacturing process does not exempt component materials from taxation when the final output is otherwise exempt from sales tax.

  Questions settled

  • Does the 'keeping of goods' by a manufacturer for their own use constitute a 'sale' under Section 3(6)(d) of the Sales-tax Act, 1951?
  • Are 'partly manufactured goods' liable to sales tax when the final end-product is exempt from such tax?
  • Does the integrated nature of a manufacturing process exempt raw materials from sales tax if the final product is exempt?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbasi Textile Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Sales Tax (East), Karachi (Copy)1990 PLD Supreme Court 422 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  sales taxpartly manufactured goodsescaped assessmenttax exemptionintegrated manufacturing processdeemed sale
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from appeals challenging the levy of sales tax on raw materials and partly manufactured goods consumed in the production of exported items. The appellants argued that the manufacturing process was integrated and could not be bifurcated, meaning that raw cotton, rather than yarn, was the raw material for cloth, and that intermediate goods assimilated into finished products did not constitute 'use' under the Sales-tax Act, 1951. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeals, holding that where an end-product is exempt from sales tax, the partly manufactured goods incorporated into it are liable to sales tax. The Court clarified that under Section 3(6)(d) of the Act, a manufacturer keeping partly manufactured goods for its own use is deemed to have sold them, making them taxable. The Court established that the assimilation of intermediate goods into a finished product does not escape the definition of 'use' or the levy of sales tax if the final product is exempt, thereby preventing total tax avoidance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether yarn or raw cotton constitutes the 'partly manufactured goods' in respect of cloth manufactured and exported under the Sales-tax Act 1951?
  • Does the keeping of partly manufactured goods by a manufacturer for its own use in producing an exempt end-product constitute a 'sale' under Section 3(6)(d) of the Sales-tax Act 1951?
  • Can intermediate goods assimilated into a finished product escape the levy of sales tax if the final end-product is exempt from tax?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbas and 2 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 911 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-10Read full judgment →
• Aamer Bashir vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 532 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-19Read full judgment →
• A.F. Abadan and others vs Government of Balochistan through its1990 PLD Quetta 70 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-06-02Read full judgment →
• A.D.Malik vs Abdul Hameed and others1990 SCMR 610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-19
  compromisetenancy disputevoluntary vacationshop occupationsupreme court practice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a long-standing dispute between the parties regarding the occupation of a shop. The core legal question concerns the settlement of the tenancy dispute through a voluntary compromise agreement between the petitioner-tenant and the contesting respondent-landlord. The Supreme Court of Pakistan recorded the statements of the learned counsel for both parties, wherein the petitioner agreed to vacate the shop voluntarily by a specified date, and the respondent agreed to let the petitioner remain in possession until that date upon the continued payment of monthly rent, without the need for execution proceedings. The court held that the petition should be disposed of in terms of the voluntary compromise and undertaking given by the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that parties can amicably resolve tenancy disputes before the court through binding undertakings to vacate premises by a date certain without requiring execution proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can parties settle a tenancy dispute before the Supreme Court through a compromise regarding the vacation of premises?
  • Whether a tenant can be bound by an undertaking given to the court to voluntarily vacate a shop by a specific date?
  Read full judgment →
• A.B.C. Laminart (Pvt.) Ltd. and another vs A.P. Agencies, Salem1990 MLD 1344 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-03-13
  jurisdiction clauseouster of jurisdictioncontractual disputecause of actioncivil procedurepublic policyterritorial jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court order regarding the jurisdiction of a civil court in a contract dispute. The core legal question was whether a contractual clause stating that 'any dispute arising out of this sale shall be subject to Kaira jurisdiction' effectively ousted the jurisdiction of the Salem court, where part of the cause of action arose. The Supreme Court held that while parties to a contract may agree to submit disputes to a specific court that possesses legal jurisdiction, such an agreement does not automatically oust the jurisdiction of other competent courts unless the clause is clear, unambiguous, and explicitly excludes them. The Court observed that the absence of restrictive terms like 'exclusive,' 'alone,' or 'only' meant the clause did not preclude the Salem court from exercising jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that where multiple courts have concurrent jurisdiction, an ouster clause must be explicit to be valid. The principle established is that jurisdiction clauses must be strictly construed to determine if they truly intend to exclude all other competent forums.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contractual clause specifying a particular jurisdiction automatically oust the jurisdiction of other competent courts?
  • Can parties to a contract validly agree to submit disputes to a specific court that otherwise possesses jurisdiction?
  • What criteria must be met for a jurisdiction clause to be considered an absolute ouster of the jurisdiction of other courts?
  • Is an agreement to limit jurisdiction to a specific court void under Section 28 of the Contract Act 1872?
  Read full judgment →
• A. Fateh Din and others vs The State1990 MLD 1572 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-03Read full judgment →
• A & B Beverages Ltd. (Private) through Managing Director vs Government of Pakistan and 3 others1990 PTD 569 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
• A & B Beverages Ltd. (Private) through Managing Director vs GovernmentPTCL 1990 CL. 967 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• 1. Bannu Sugar Mills (Private) Ltd. 2. Premier Sugar Mills And Distillery Co.PTCL 1990 CL. 651 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• 1. Abbasi Textile Mills Ltd. 2. Philips Electrical Industries Of Pakistan Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Salestax (East), Karachi. Commissioner Of Sales Tax (East), Karachi_PTCL 1990 CL. 576 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  sales taxpartly manufactured goodstax exemptionraw materialcharging sectioninterpretation of statutesmanufacturing license
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves tax appeals concerning the liability of raw materials to sales tax when consumed in the manufacture of end-products that are themselves exempt from sales tax. The core legal question is whether intermediate goods, such as yarn used for cloth or glass shells used for bulbs, qualify as "partly manufactured goods" under the Sales-tax Act, 1951, and are thus taxable when the final products are exempt. The Supreme Court held that the appeals must be dismissed, affirming that such raw materials are subject to sales tax. The court reasoned that the legislative intent behind the Act is to ensure that sales tax is paid at at least one stage of production. Where the end-product is exempt, the "partly manufactured goods" incorporated into it lose their exemption status. The court established the principle that the keeping of goods by a manufacturer for their own use constitutes a "sale" under Section 3(6)(d) of the Act, thereby ensuring that the tax burden is not entirely avoided when the final product is not taxable.

  Questions settled

  • Are raw materials consumed in the manufacture of exported goods liable to sales tax if the end-products are exempt from such tax?
  • Does the keeping of manufactured goods by a manufacturer for their own use constitute a "sale" under the Sales-tax Act, 1951?
  • Can the process of manufacturing cloth from yarn be considered an integrated process that exempts the intermediate yarn from sales tax?
  Read full judgment →
• (Mst). Memona Begum And Another vs The State Through DeputyK.L.R. 1990 Revenue Cases 108 · Board of Revenue · 1989-08-29Read full judgment →
• (Mst) Hussain Jan Etc. vs (Mst) Channo BiK.L.R. 1990 Revenue Cases 147 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-06Read full judgment →
• Zulqernain Khan vs Mian M. Aslam, M.I.C.1989 P Cr. L J 2470 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-17Read full judgment →
• Zuloarnain Shah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 980 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-10-11Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 747 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-26Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1780 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-15Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar And 3 Others vs The State1989 MLD 2806 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-18Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar and 12 others vs Gulzar Ahmad alias Lala and 2 others1989 SCMR 1484 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-28
  Regular Second AppealCivil RevisionConversion of proceedingsLeave to appealProcedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by defendants against the dismissal of their Regular Second Appeal by the High Court. The underlying suit was for a declaration. The core legal question presented to the Supreme Court was whether the High Court possessed the authority and discretion to permit the conversion of a Regular Second Appeal into a Civil Revision. The Supreme Court, relying on the precedent established in the case of Karamat Hussain and others v. Muhammad Zaman and others (PLD 1987 SC 319), held that the High Court erred in its approach regarding this conversion. The Court found that the legal position favored the petitioners, thereby determining that the High Court should have allowed such conversion under the circumstances. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, directing that the appeal proceed on the existing record while allowing parties to submit necessary additional documents for the final disposal of the matter. This judgment reinforces the procedural flexibility available to appellate courts in managing the classification of appeals and revisions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court permit the conversion of a Regular Second Appeal into a Civil Revision?
  • Does the precedent in Karamat Hussain and others v. Muhammad Zaman and others support the conversion of a Regular Second Appeal into a Civil Revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs Government of PAK1STAN14ugh S.E. Civil Circle, Pak. P.W.D., Lahore1989 PLC 953 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali Shah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 21 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-19Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali and others vs Administrator (RP), Settlement1989 SCMR 2025 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-20
  leave to appealevacuee propertyproperty transferSettlement Scheme No. VIIImiscarriage of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners approached the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking leave to appeal against the deprivation of property No. BXII-3 S-56/58, constructed on evacuee property. The core legal question concerned whether the transfer of the property in favor of respondent No. 3 was obtained through misrepresentation regarding construction eligibility, thereby causing a miscarriage of justice against the petitioner who was legally eligible. The court held that the contentions raised regarding the deprivation of property on technical grounds and the alleged hoodwinking of the department by respondent No. 3 required detailed examination. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the legality of the property transfer and the eligibility criteria under the applicable settlement scheme.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an applicant who has not raised the required construction is eligible for the transfer of property under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
  • Can leave to appeal be granted when a party is deprived of property on technical grounds resulting in a miscarriage of justice?
  • Whether a transfer obtained by misrepresentation to the department creates a valid right in favor of the transferee?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali alias Zulla and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 489 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-19Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 760 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ahmad Alias Zulfiqar vs The State1989 MLD 4077 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-27Read full judgment →
• Zubair Ahmad and another vs Ch. Muhammad Abaid Ullah and another1989 SCMR 1252(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-04
  leave to appealarbitratorrefereescope of arbitratorsupreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the scope, duties, and functions of a referee or an arbitrator. The core legal question involves determining the exact legal parameters governing referees and arbitrators, particularly in light of previous judicial precedents such as Ch. Muhammad Saleem v. Muhammad Akram and others and Muhammad Hanif Khan and another v. Ghulam Farid Khan and others. The Court held that the case is a fit one for granting leave to appeal to examine these issues thoroughly. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will review and define the precise legal framework and functions applicable to referees and arbitrators when conflicting or significant interpretations are raised.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope, duties, and functions of a referee or an arbitrator?
  • When is a case considered fit for granting leave to appeal regarding the functions of an arbitrator?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubaida Begum vs Muhammad Bashir1989 MLD 4246 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
• Zilla Council, Sargodha vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1989 PLC 478(2) · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
• Zilla Council, Sargodha through its Chairman vs Rana Muhammad1989 PLC 711 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• Zilla Council Sargodha vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal EtcK.L.R 1989 Labour & Service 57 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
• Zila Council, Sargodha vs Messrs Muhammad Siddique & Co. And Another1989 MLD 3027 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
• Zila Council, Sahiwal vs Muhammad Yar1989 PLC 55 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-06-17Read full judgment →
• Ziaulislam vs The State1989 SCMR 1821 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-07
  bail pending trialleave to appealCustoms Actcriminal procedureappellate review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against an order of the Sind High Court, which had previously dismissed the petitioner's application for the grant of bail pending trial. The petitioner was facing charges under Section 2(a) and Clause 8 of Section 156(1) read with Section 178 of the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's refusal to grant bail was legally sustainable given the facts and circumstances of the case. Upon reviewing the record and hearing the arguments presented by the learned counsel, the Supreme Court found no legal or factual error in the impugned judgment of the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, finding no grounds to interfere with the denial of bail. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the lower court's exercise of discretion regarding bail in the context of the Customs Act, 1969, was correct and did not warrant appellate intervention.

  Questions settled

  • Is the refusal of bail by the High Court in a case involving the Customs Act 1969 subject to interference by the Supreme Court where no legal or factual error is demonstrated?
  • Does the dismissal of a bail application by the High Court warrant the grant of leave to appeal when the record supports the lower court's decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Zia Ullah Khan and others vs Government of Punjab and others1989 PLD Lahore 554 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-30
  Special Courts for Speedy Trialsreasonable classificationequal protection of lawtrial in absentiaright to counselrepeal of Ordinancetextual amendmentArticle 264constitutional validity
  Summary & questions settled

  Sixty-eight connected matters, comprising constitutional petitions and criminal revisions, challenged the constitutional validity of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance II of 1987, Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act XV of 1987, and the Amending Ordinance XIX of 1988, along with government notifications transferring cases to Special Courts. The petitioners argued the statutes violated Article 25 (equality before law) and Article 10 (right to counsel) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Lahore High Court upheld the general classification of heinous offences under Section 2(c) and Section 5 as a reasonable classification satisfying Article 25. However, the Court held that Section 8(4) and (5), permitting trial in absentia and appointment of state defense counsel, violated Article 10. Crucially, the Court determined that the amending Ordinance XIX of 1988, which purported to extend the parent Act's life from one year to two years, stood repealed after four months under Article 89(2). Because Article 264 lacked a provision equivalent to Section 6A of the General Clauses Act 1897, the textual amendment did not survive the repeal. Consequently, Act XV of 1987 expired upon the repeal of Ordinance XIX of 1988, rendering subsequent notifications and Special Court proceedings without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the classification of offences under Section 2(c) of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act XV of 1987 satisfies the requirements of reasonable classification under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does a statutory provision permitting the criminal trial of an accused person in absentia with a court-appointed advocate violate the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of choice under Article 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does a textual amendment made to a principal Act by a Presidential Ordinance survive the constitutional repeal of that Ordinance under Article 89(2) in the absence of a provision analogous to Section 6A of the General Clauses Act 1897 in Article 264 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is an accused entitled to an opportunity of being heard before the Government issues an executive order or notification transferring their case for trial to a Special Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Zia Muhammad And Others vs Ghulam Muhammad1989 MLD 4228 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
• Zi Ar a T G Ul vs Qadar Gul and 7 others1989 PLD Peshawar 14 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-10-26Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Ali Shah vs General Manager, Harappa Textile Mills Limited, Sahiwal1989 PLC 638 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• Zatun And Others vs Settlement Commissioner (Lands), And Other1989 MLD 4943 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-04Read full judgment →
• Zarin Khan vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 299 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-17Read full judgment →
• Zarin and anothers vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, Home1989 PLD Peshawar 240 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-04Read full judgment →
• Zargul vs The State1989 SCMR 529 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-02
  murderabscondencequantum of sentencetransportation for lifeimprisonment for liferetrospective effect
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and a sentence of life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that the appellant fatally shot the deceased over a motive involving illicit intimacy. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular and medical evidence, the effect of prolonged abscondence, and the correct quantum of sentence applicable given intervening statutory amendments altering transportation for life to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt based on reliable eyewitness testimony and unexplained long abscondence, but modified the sentence from imprisonment for life back to transportation for life, noting that the offense was committed when transportation for life was the prescribed penalty carrying a duration of twenty years before the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 came into force. The key principle laid down is that substantive penal enhancements regarding sentence duration cannot be applied retrospectively to offenses committed prior to the statutory change.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses corroborated by medical evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can prolonged abscondence without a plausible explanation be used as corroborative evidence against an accused in a murder trial?
  • Whether the substitution of 'transportation for life' with 'imprisonment for life' by the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 applies retrospectively to an offense committed prior to its promulgation?
  Read full judgment →
• Zareen Bibi and others vs Inayat Begum and others1989 SCMR 1425(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-11
  concurrent findings of factleave to appealproof of documentsinheritance disputemarital statuswitness testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged concurrent findings of fact by the trial court, the appellate court, and the Lahore High Court, which had rejected the petitioners' claim regarding the marital status and parentage of the respondents. The petitioners, claiming to be the legal heirs of the deceased Nur Muhammad, argued that the respondent Inayat Begum was not his wife and that the other respondents were not his children, relying on an alleged admission made by Inayat Begum before a Magistrate. The Supreme Court observed that the alleged statement had never been duly proved as a document in the proceedings. Furthermore, the respondent Inayat Begum was never summoned to the witness box to clarify or prove the alleged statement. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of evidence to substantiate the petitioners' claim, the concurrent findings of fact reached by the lower courts were sound. The Court affirmed that it would not interfere with such concurrent findings and accordingly dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts when the evidence relied upon by the petitioner was never duly proved?
  • Is an unproved statement allegedly made before a Magistrate sufficient to overturn concurrent findings of fact regarding marital status?
  • Does the failure to summon a party to the witness box to prove an alleged admission undermine a claim based on that admission?
  Read full judgment →
• Zardad vs Ali Akbar And 8 Other1989 CLC 2028 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-31Read full judgment →
• Zarban Shah vs District Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan and another1989 P Cr. L J 685 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
• Zamir Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1953 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-06Read full judgment →
• Zaman vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 231(1) · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
• Zaman vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1860 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
• Zaman Khan vs Muhammad Yasin1989 MLD 571 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-03Read full judgment →
• Zakir Hussain And 9 Others vs Trustees of Jamia Masjid Through Its1989 MLD 2368 · Sindh High Court · 1089-03-07Read full judgment →
• Zakir Hussain Alias Zakir Ahsan vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 2 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
• Zakir Ali vs The State1989 MLD 4795 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-22Read full judgment →
• Zakaullah and others vs Member, Federal Land Commission, Pakistan1989 SCMR 1384 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-30
  leave to appealconsolidation of appealsland commissionjudicial efficiencyprocedural order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against an order concerning land commission proceedings. The core legal question addressed by the Court pertains to the procedural consolidation of the instant petition with other pending civil appeals that share identical facts and circumstances. The Supreme Court, noting that the issues in the present case are similar to those in Civil Petitions Nos. 240/R of 1976 and 246/R of 1976, granted leave to appeal. The Court held that the petition should be converted into an appeal to ensure it is heard alongside Civil Appeals Nos. 292 and 293 of 1976. The key principle established is that where multiple petitions arise from similar facts and circumstances, judicial efficiency and consistency are best served by consolidating them for a joint hearing, provided the record is adequately prepared with necessary documentation. The Court further directed that the existing stay order remain in effect pending the final adjudication of the consolidated appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal for the purpose of consolidation with similar pending matters?
  • Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to direct the consolidation of cases sharing identical facts and circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Zakar Nazar Hussain vs Khan Muhammad And Other1989 MLD 4950 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-16Read full judgment →
• Zaitoon Begum and others vs Agha Qasim Ali and others1989 SCMR 1331 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-27
  adverse possessiontenant possessionleave to appealejectment orderpermissive possession
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning a dispute over a house originally owned by Jeewan Khan, which was sold to the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest in 1933, with the vendor and later his widow remaining in possession as tenants. The respondents subsequently filed a suit for a declaration that they had become owners through adverse possession since 1933. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate court decreed it, and the High Court dismissed the petitioners' revision petition. The core legal question is whether persons whose predecessor entered possession as a tenant and against whom an ejectment order was passed can subsequently claim title by adverse possession. The Supreme Court held that the contention raised by the petitioners regarding the tenant status and the bar against claiming adverse possession requires examination. Accordingly, the Court granted leave to appeal, laying down that a tenant or their successors cannot easily set up a plea of adverse possession without establishing a clear termination or change of permissive character of possession.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant or their successors-in-interest claim ownership through adverse possession against the landlord?
  • Does the continuation of possession following an unexecuted ejectment order affect the possessor's legal status?
  • Whether the failure to execute an ejectment order transforms permissive possession into adverse possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Zainab Bibi vs The S.H.OK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 654 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
• Zahur Din vs Anjuman Himayat-I-IslamK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 121 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Mohy Ud Din vs Syed Afzal Hussain Naqvi And Other1989 MLD 3983 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-25Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Din vs Anjuman Himayat Islam1989 MLD 480 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ali And Others vs Barkhurdar And Other1989 MLD 251 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-18Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 524 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-01Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmad vs Abdul Ghafoor and others1989 SCMR 566 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-10
  ejectmentpersonal needrent restrictionwrit jurisdictionconstitutional petitionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the ejectment of respondent No. 1 from a shop on the ground of personal need. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment, but the Additional District Judge set aside the order on appeal. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition, declining to interfere with a finding based on the appreciation of evidence. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly refused to interfere with the appellate court's finding of fact regarding personal need in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that since the finding of the Additional District Judge was based on the appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any infirmity, the High Court very properly refused to interfere. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the principle that findings of fact by lower appellate forums based on evidence will not be disturbed in constitutional jurisdiction unless afflicted with legal infirmity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere in writ jurisdiction with a finding of fact regarding personal need based on the appreciation of evidence?
  • Does an appellate court's reversal of a Rent Controller's ejectment order warrant interference when based on proper appraisal of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahir Shah vs The State1989 MLD 2745 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-06-02Read full judgment →
• Zahir Shah vs The State1989 MLD 680 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
• Zahida Mirza vs Fayyad Ahmad, Managing Director, WASA, LDA and another1989 PLC 371 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
• Zahid Nadeem vs The State1989 MLD 630 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
• Zahid Majid And Another vs The State1989 MLD 4152 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-20Read full judgment →
• Zahid Mahmood and another vs Mst. Iqbal Begum1989 SCMR 525 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-16
  leave to appealeviction ordersublettingrent proceedingsconcurrent findings of factEvidence Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal filed by tenants against the High Court of Sindh's dismissal of their first rent appeal, which had upheld an eviction order issued on the ground of subletting. The petitioners raised factual controversies regarding the transfer of possession, arguing that physical possession was not transferred and that there was no proof of legal possession being transferred for consideration, such as rent paid by the sub-tenant to the original tenant. The Supreme Court of Pakistan refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition. The Court held that the questions raised were essentially issues of fact concluded by unexceptionable concurrent findings of the lower forums. The Court further observed that technical rules of evidence do not strictly apply to rent proceedings before the Rent Controller, justifying the High Court's reliance on the record and high probabilities to resolve the question of subletting.

  Questions settled

  • Whether strict provisions of the Evidence Act apply to proceedings before the Rent Controller?
  • Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding subletting can be re-agitated in a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
  • Can a court infer subletting based on material on record and high probabilities in the absence of direct evidence of payment of rent by the sub-tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Khan vs Abdul Latif1989 MLD 592 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-25Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain Chaudhry, Chairman, H.B.F.C. Employees' Union and 31989 PLC 165 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
• Zahid Bashir and others vs The State and others1989 P Cr. L J 790 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
• Zahid Ali And 2 Other vs The StatePTCL 1989 CL. 65 · Special Appellate Court Customs · 1987-03-19Read full judgment →
• Zaheeruddin vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 92 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-13Read full judgment →
• Zaheeruddin and 4 others vs The State1989 SCMR 17 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-12
  leave to appealAhmadi communityposing as MuslimKalma Tayyabbafundamental rightscriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  Petitioners, belonging to the Ahmadi community, were convicted under Section 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for wearing badges of 'Kalma Tayyabba', which was considered as 'posing' as Muslims. Their convictions and sentences of one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine were upheld through the hierarchy of courts up to the High Court. Upon petitions for leave to appeal, the core legal questions involved whether wearing such a badge amounts to 'posing' as a Muslim under Section 298-C, whether the charge was framed in accordance with law, and whether Section 298-C violates Fundamental Rights Nos. 19, 20, and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the points raised were of substantial legal importance, consequently granting leave to appeal and allowing the petitions for a full hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether wearing a Kalma Tayyabba badge by an Ahmadi amounts to posing as a Muslim under Section 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether the charge framed against the petitioners was in accordance with law?
  • Whether Section 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 violates Fundamental Rights Nos. 19, 20, and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ud Din vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 160 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-13Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmed vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1055 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-13Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 4612 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-05Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmad vs Manager Administration, Wazir Ali Industries Ltd., Hyderabad1989 PLC 850 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-01-26Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmad Khan vs Mst. Amina Begum1989 SCMR 1370 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-16
  ejectmentbona fide personal requirementdefault in payment of rentconcurrent findingsrent controllerlandlord-tenant dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal arising from separate proceedings under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, involving the same parties and the same commercial premises. The core legal questions were whether the respondent-landlady had established a bona fide personal requirement for the shop for her son's business, and whether the petitioner-tenant had committed a default in the payment of rent. In both instances, the Rent Controller and the High Court had concurrently ruled in favor of the landlady, finding that the personal requirement was proven and that the tenant had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the rent default. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the findings of fact regarding personal bona fide requirement and rent default were supported by the evidence and had been concurrently decided by the lower courts. Consequently, the Court found no substantial question of law warranting interference and dismissed both petitions, affirming the eviction orders. The judgment reinforces the principle that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts, when supported by evidence, are generally not disturbed in appellate jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding personal bona fide requirement in rent cases?
  • Does a tenant's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for rent default justify an eviction order?
  • Is a landlord's requirement for a shop for their son's business a valid ground for ejectment under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaffar Iqbal Belatti vs Chairman, H.B.F.C. Employees Union and 2 others1989 PLC 443 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1988-08-13Read full judgment →
• Zafarul Hassan And Others vs Khawaja Muhammad Kalim And Other1989 MLD 2756 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
• Zafariqbal vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Crimnal Cases 545 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
• Zafar Usman vs The Income-Tax Officers and others1989 PTD 547 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-09Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs The State1989 MLD 2912 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2187 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-27Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs Mst. Maqsooda Begum and 2 others1989 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 17 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs Amjad Javed And Other1989 MLD 743 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal and Another vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 126 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-31Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1189 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-01Read full judgment →