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.
- Zafar Chaudhry vs Ansar Butt And Another1989 MLD 4517 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-11Read full judgment →
- Zafar and Associates, Karachi vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax1989 PTD 275 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-08Read full judgment →
- Zafar Alias Chandi vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 748 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-05Read full judgment →
- Zafar Ali vs Allah Bachayo1989 PLD Supreme Court 294 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a High Court judgment that set aside a Rent Controller's eviction order, holding that the disputed premises constituted a 'hotel' and were thus outside the jurisdiction of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether a shop used for selling tea, described by the parties as 'hotel business', qualifies as a 'hotel' under the Ordinance, thereby excluding it from the definition of 'premises'. The Supreme Court held that the term 'hotel' in the Ordinance implies an establishment providing lodging for travellers and guests, not merely a place offering refreshments. Consequently, a tea shop does not fall within the exclusion. Furthermore, the Court held that the tenant could not raise a jurisdictional objection for the first time in appeal when it required factual determination, particularly when the landlord had no opportunity to lead evidence on the issue at the trial stage. The Court set aside the High Court's decision and remanded the case for a decision on the merits of the eviction application.
Questions settled- Does a shop used exclusively for selling tea and refreshments constitute a 'hotel' within the meaning of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Can a party raise a jurisdictional objection for the first time in appeal when the objection requires the determination of a question of fact?
- Is a court required to decide an issue based on an alleged admission in the pleadings if the court deems it necessary to require proof of such facts?
- Zafar Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 557 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
- Zafar Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2368 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
- Zafar Ahmad vs Abdul IiakimK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 63 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
- Z Afar .Awa N vs The Islamic Republic of Pakistan1989 PLD Federal Shariat Court 84 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-06-29Read full judgment →
- Z a Z Ay vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 93 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-15Read full judgment →
- Z a H Ir Shah vs Jalandar and 6 others1989 PLD Peshawar 117 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-12Read full judgment →
- Yusuf Haji Ismail vs Hussain Mumtaz and another1989 PTD 551 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
- Yusuf Haji Ismail vs Hussain Mumtaz and another--Defendants1989 PLD Karachi 299 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
- Yousuf vs Muhammad Bashir And 4 Other1989 MLD 3200 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
- Yousuf Textile Mills Ltd. vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1403 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
- Younis Masih alias Yousu Masih and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 103 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
- Younis Maseih Alias Yasoo Maseih vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 95 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
- Yasmin vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 161 · Sindh High Court · 1987-10-27Read full judgment →
- Yaseen Etc. vs Bashir Ahmad Etc.K.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 107 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-25Read full judgment →
- Yaseen And Others vs Bashir Ahmad And Other1989 MLD 478 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-25Read full judgment →
- Yaseen Alias Ghori vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 741 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-18Read full judgment →
- Yara and others vs Ahmad1989 SCMR 1373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal seeking to challenge concurrent findings of lower courts regarding a declaration suit concerning land ownership following consolidation proceedings. The core legal question is whether the consolidation authorities were justified in allocating a specific portion of land measuring 10 marlas to the respondent based on prior joint possession and residential structures. The Supreme Court held that the consolidation authorities acted with good justification in allocating the area to the respondent to protect existing residential houses following a flood, and that the lower forums committed no infirmity in dismissing the petitioners' claims. The Court established the principle that orders of consolidation authorities made with valid justification regarding pre-existing joint holdings and residential structures will not be interfered with in appellate review.
Questions settled- Whether consolidation authorities are justified in allocating land to a party based on pre-existing residential structures?
- Can a declaration suit for adverse possession succeed against a co-sharer in joint holdings without establishing statutory requirements?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding consolidation proceedings absent legal infirmity?
- Yar Muhammad Rind vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1954 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-11Read full judgment →
- Yar Muhammad and 2 others vs Messrs Delta Ark Service (Pvt.) Ltd.1989 PLC 784 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-12-13Read full judgment →
- Yaqoub Masih And Others vs Province of Punjab1989 MLD 3111 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
- Yaqoob Masih vs Maula Bakhsh1989 CLC 2487 · Board of Revenue · 1989-06-04Read full judgment →
- Yaq00b and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 257 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-05Read full judgment →
- Yakoob And 2 Others vs The State1989 MLD 1684 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-18Read full judgment →
- World Trade Corporation, Faisalabad vs Central Board Of Revenue, IslamabadPTCL 1989 CL. 478 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- World Trade Corporation vs Export Promotion Bureau and others1989 SCMR 1183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against an order of the Supreme Court dated 22-10-1988, which had upheld conditions imposed by the Export Promotion Bureau regarding the petitioner's export quota entitlements. The petitioner argued that the previous order was based on incorrect factual assumptions regarding alleged unauthorized shipments made in 1984. Specifically, the petitioner contended that the ban imposed on 19-8-1984 did not become effective until 20-11-1984, meaning their shipments during that interim period were lawful and did not require regularization or penalties. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's acceptance of the Bureau's conditions and the alleged factual errors in the previous judgment warranted a review. The Court held that the review petition must be dismissed, affirming that the mere existence of a plausible alternative view does not constitute valid grounds for review when the Court has already adopted one of two possible interpretations. Furthermore, the Court noted that the specific argument regarding the effective date of the ban had not been raised in previous proceedings, leaving the petitioner to pursue that argument in appropriate forums in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Does the existence of an equally plausible alternative view constitute sufficient grounds for a review of a judgment?
- Can a party raise a new factual argument in a review petition that was not agitated before the High Court or the Supreme Court in the original proceedings?
- World Trade Corporation vs Central Board of Revenue1989 MLD 4310 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 10th June, 1985 passed by the Central Board of Revenue. The core legal question involved whether the Customs Act, 1969, applied to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas at the relevant time in March 1981, and whether the Central Board of Revenue possessed suo motu revisional powers under the repealed Sea Customs Act, 1878, to set aside a final appellate order. The court held that the Customs Act, 1969, was not extended to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas until 7th January, 1984, meaning the Sea Customs Act, 1878, governed the matter during the relevant period. Furthermore, the court held that no suo motu revisional powers existed under the Sea Customs Act, 1878, to reopen cases that had attained finality. Consequently, the impugned order of the Central Board of Revenue was declared to be without lawful authority and set aside. The key principle laid down is that repealed statutory frameworks and constitutional extension requirements govern retrospective jurisdiction in tribal areas, and authorities cannot exercise suo motu powers without explicit statutory backing.
Questions settled- Whether the Customs Act, 1969 applied to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in March 1981 without formal presidential extension?
- Did the Central Board of Revenue possess suo motu revisional powers under the Sea Customs Act, 1878?
- Can an appellate order that has attained finality under the Sea Customs Act, 1878 be reopened through a notice issued under the Customs Act, 1969?
- World Trade Corporation through its Managing Partner Abdul Hafeez1989 SCMR 459 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged a High Court decision regarding the allocation of export quotas for cotton textiles. Having made unauthorized excess shipments, the petitioners were granted regularization by the Export Promotion Bureau (EPB) on the condition that the excess would be adjusted against their 1986 quota entitlement and a penalty paid. The petitioners initially accepted these terms but later claimed a subsequent letter waived the adjustment condition. The Supreme Court examined the authenticity of the alleged waiver letter, noting that the official who purportedly signed it denied its issuance and that the petitioners' subsequent correspondence failed to reference it. The Court held that the petitioners, having availed themselves of the regularization benefit under the original conditions, were estopped from challenging those conditions. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that there was no reliable evidence of a waiver and that the petitioners had no valid cause to maintain their constitutional challenge.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge the conditions of a regulatory relief after having accepted and acted upon those conditions?
- Does the acceptance of a benefit conditional upon specific terms preclude a subsequent challenge to those terms?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable where the petitioner has already accepted the terms of an administrative decision?
- Workers' Union, Public Health Engineering vs Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division1989 PLC 350 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-09-22Read full judgment →
- Workers' Union vs Messrs Pakistan Paper Products Limited1089 PLC 280 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-12-15Read full judgment →
- Workers Front, Habib Bank Ltd., City Zone, Multan vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Multan Region, Multan and 2 others1989 PLC 969 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-30Read full judgment →
- Woor Muhammad Khan and others vs Messrs Prince Glass Works1989 PLC 386 · Labour Court · 1988-03-28Read full judgment →
- West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority, WAPDA1989 MLD 4183 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-23Read full judgment →
- West Pakistan Province vs Major Ata Muhammad Khan And Other1989 CLC 1022 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-18Read full judgment →
- West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation vs Commissioner1989 PTD 215 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
- Wazid Ali Abid Ali vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lucknow and another1989 PTD 786 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-11-10Read full judgment →
- Wazeer Ali vs Abdullah and others1989 SCMR 1485 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's civil revision, which had challenged an appellate order setting aside a trial court decree passed in favour of the petitioner in a declaratory suit for possession. The petitioner had instituted the original suit seeking a declaration that a disputed sale-deed dated 4-1-1967 was fictitious, fraudulent, and ineffective against his rights. The core legal question concerned the appreciation of evidence regarding the execution and proof of the sale-deed, specifically the non-production of marginal witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the argument pertained to a question of fact which had been properly adjudicated upon by the appellate court after appreciating the evidence, and no legal defect was shown to warrant interference by the High Court or the Supreme Court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, affirming that findings of fact by lower appellate courts based on evidence will not be interfered with absent a legal defect.
Questions settled- Whether findings of fact recorded by an appellate court regarding the execution of a sale-deed can be interfered with in civil revision?
- Does the non-production of a marginal witness to a sale-deed raise a question of law warranting interference by the Supreme Court?
- When can the High Court interfere with concurrent or appellate findings of fact in a civil matter?
- Water and Power Development AUTHORITYPeitioner vs Abdul Rashid1989 SCMR 467 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, whereby the respondent's service appeal was allowed and he was held entitled to be granted Grade-16 as a sub-Engineer. The core legal questions involve whether the respondent's appeal before the Service Tribunal was barred for failure to exhaust departmental remedies under section 4 of the relevant Act, whether the appeal was barred by time, and whether the respondent possessed the requisite recognized qualification in civil engineering for promotion to Grade-16 given that the institution's recognition status was disputed. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised by the petitioner required detailed consideration, and suspended the operation of the impugned judgment pending the final decision of the appeal. The key principle laid down is that questions concerning the exhaustion of departmental remedies, limitation periods, and educational qualifications for service upgradation warrant a full hearing on merits before the apex court.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal is barred under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 if the aggrieved civil servant fails to file a departmental appeal or review against the original adverse order?
- Whether an employee holding a diploma from an institution recognized only for specific disciplines is qualified for promotion or upgradation to Grade-16 in a different discipline under the applicable service rules?
- Water and Power Development Authority, Lahore And Another vs Muhammad Ayub Khan1989 MLD 3440 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
- Water and Power Development Authority vs Muhammad Riaz1989 SCMR 1663 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had allowed an employee's appeal and restored a departmental appellate order that set aside his dismissal and substituted it with the stoppage of four annual increments. The respondent employee was originally dismissed for misconduct, after which an order was passed purportedly on his departmental appeal. Subsequently, another officer claiming to be the competent authority set aside that order, leading the employee to approach the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal primarily on the ground that the earlier order had been acted upon and implemented through the employee's reinstatement, declining to examine its validity or the competency of the making authority. The core legal question concerns whether an invalid or allegedly incompetent departmental order can be sustained simply because it has been acted upon, and whether the Service Tribunal was justified in bypassing the questions of jurisdiction and the merits of the misconduct charge. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions and suspended the impugned order in the interim.
Questions settled- Whether an order passed by an allegedly incompetent authority can be sustained solely on the ground that it has been acted upon and implemented?
- Is it incumbent upon the Service Tribunal to examine the correctness of findings of misconduct before allowing an employee's appeal?
- Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal is competent when no departmental appeal is filed against a subsequent superseding order?
- Water and Power Development Authority vs Muhammad Riaz Butt and others1989 SCMR 1190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which set aside the removal from service of the two respondents. The respondents had been initially exonerated by a subordinate authority, but the WAPDA "Authority", exercising suo motu revisional powers under clause 12 of the WAPDA E&D Rules, 1978, set aside the exoneration and ordered their removal without recording reasons in the impugned order or indicating consideration of the inquiry report. The Federal Service Tribunal held the removal orders to be arbitrary and illegal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether, assuming the Tribunal's observations regarding the lack of reasons in the formal order are correct, the Tribunal ought to have remanded the case to the Authority for a fresh decision or re-writing of a proper judgment instead of simply setting aside the removal.
Questions settled- Whether the Authority can revise an order of a subordinate authority under Rule 12 of the WAPDA E&D Rules, 1978 without recording reasons in the impugned order?
- Whether internal file notings and opinions can cure the absence of reasons in a formal office order passed by a statutory authority?
- Whether the Service Tribunal, upon finding that an order lacks proper reasons, should remand the case to the competent authority for a fresh decision?
- Water and Power Development Authority vs Muhammad Akram1989 SCMR 1262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) filed a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had partially accepted the appeal of a Meter Reader, Muhammad Akram. The Tribunal had quashed the respondent's removal from service but maintained an order of reversion for two years and directed that the period the respondent remained out of service be treated as extraordinary leave without pay. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the Federal Service Tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction, which the petitioner contended was limited to examining issues of mala fides and coram non judice, citing precedent. The Supreme Court found that the legal point raised regarding the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction required detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the Tribunal exceeded its statutory authority in modifying the disciplinary orders passed against the employee. The appeal was ordered to be prepared on the existing record, with permission for parties to file additional documents within two months.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to interfere with disciplinary orders beyond the scope of mala fides and coram non judice?
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal modify a penalty of removal from service to a period of reversion and leave without pay?
- Water and Power Development Authority vs Mian Ghulam Bari1989 CLC 1605 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-08Read full judgment →
- Water and Power Development Authority vs Javaid Ahmad, Line1989 SCMR 1068 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a service dispute between the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) and its employee, a Line Superintendent, whose services were terminated in 1981. The employee successfully challenged his termination before the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, orders which the Lahore High Court subsequently upheld. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in failing to apply Section 17(1-B) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958, which deems WAPDA employees to be civil servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act 1973. The Supreme Court held that the amendment to the 1958 Act effectively classified WAPDA employees as civil servants, thereby excluding them from the jurisdiction of labour courts. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower court judgments, ruling that the Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, as the appropriate forum for such service disputes is the Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Does the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958 classify WAPDA employees as civil servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- Do labour courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate service termination disputes involving WAPDA employees?
- Is a WAPDA employee considered a workman under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Water and Power Development Authority vs Ajmal Hameed1989 SCMR 708 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the termination of the respondent, a former temporary Junior Engineer with the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The respondent was granted leave for Umra but failed to return to duty upon its expiration, despite warnings. Subsequently, his services were removed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. Following his removal, the respondent submitted his resignation and remained inactive regarding his employment status for approximately three years before appealing to the C.M.L.A. and subsequently the Ministry of Water and Power, which rejected his appeal. The Federal Service Tribunal later issued a favorable order for the respondent. The petitioner contends that the appeal before the Tribunal was time-barred due to the significant delay in challenging the termination. The Supreme Court finds that the case requires consideration regarding the limitation issue and grants leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal is maintainable when the aggrieved party has delayed challenging the termination order for several years?
- Does the failure to agitate a service termination for a significant period render an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal time-barred?
- Water and Power Development Authority And Others vs Isfahan Rice1989 MLD 3306 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
- Water and Power Development Authority and another vs Muhammad1989 SCMR 843 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) against a judgment of the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal had modified the respondent's penalty from dismissal from service to removal from service, following the respondent's misconduct involving the incorrect recording of consumer meter readings on twenty occasions. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal failed to provide sufficient reasons for substituting the penalty, asserting that the original dismissal was competently awarded. The Supreme Court examined the scope of the Service Tribunal's appellate powers, referencing established precedents regarding the amplitude of such authority. The Court held that the Service Tribunal acted within its competent power when modifying the penalty. Consequently, the Court determined that the impugned order did not raise a question of law of public importance sufficient to justify granting leave to appeal under the Constitution. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming the Tribunal's discretion in matters of service penalties.
Questions settled- Does the modification of a service penalty by a Service Tribunal raise a question of law of public importance justifying leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
- Does a Service Tribunal possess the authority to substitute a penalty of dismissal with removal from service?
- Wasimuddin and anothers vs The State and another1989 P Cr. L J 345 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-05Read full judgment →
- Wasim Ansari vs Liaquat Medical College And Other1989 MLD 1903 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-07Read full judgment →
- Wasil Khan vs Mst. Sakina Bayee and 3 others1989 SCMR 647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of a contract concerning the sale of property in Zaryab Colony, Peshawar. The appellant alleged that respondent No. 4, acting as general attorney for other respondents, entered into an agreement to sell the property and received earnest money, evidenced by a receipt (Ex.PW1/1). The trial court, district court, and High Court dismissed the suit, partly relying on the exclusion of the receipt from evidence due to it being unstamped. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred in excluding the document. Citing the proviso to Section 35 of the Stamp Act 1899, the Court clarified that an insufficiently stamped instrument, other than specific exceptions, is admissible in evidence upon payment of the requisite duty and penalty. Additionally, the Court noted that the failure of the respondent who negotiated the bargain to appear in court cast doubt on the respondents' bona fides. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh decision on the merits.
Questions settled- Can an insufficiently stamped document be admitted in evidence upon payment of the requisite duty and penalty?
- Does the failure of a material witness to appear in court to rebut a claim create an adverse inference?
- Is a court justified in dismissing a suit for specific performance solely on the basis of an unstamped receipt without allowing for the payment of duty?
- Wasal Ahmad vs The State1989 SCMR 1992 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had modified the petitioner's conviction from Section 304, Part-I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 304-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing his sentence from seven years to four years of rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner sought to re-argue the evidence, which the Supreme Court declined to entertain, noting that such appreciation of evidence is not permissible in leave to appeal proceedings. Regarding the sentence, the petitioner contended that the maximum penalty was unwarranted. The Supreme Court rejected this plea, emphasizing that the incident involved the deaths of seven individuals due to the petitioner's rash and negligent driving. The Court held that given the gravity of the consequences—seven fatalities—a sentence lesser than the maximum prescribed under Section 304-A would not have been justified. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the appropriateness of the maximum sentence for the proven negligence.
Questions settled- Is the appreciation of evidence permissible in proceedings for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Does the death of multiple victims due to rash and negligent driving justify the imposition of the maximum sentence under Section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Warts Khan vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Peshawar and 2 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 777 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1988-09-18Read full judgment →
- Waris vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 619 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-29Read full judgment →
- Waqar Zaheer and Other vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 608 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Waqar Zaheer and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 491 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-13Read full judgment →
- Waqar Ali Zafar and others vs Province of Punjab and others1989 SCMR 1527 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a Lahore High Court order dismissing a writ petition against the requisitioning of property. The petitioners contended that the requisition order issued by the Commissioner was unlawful because they were in actual occupation of the disputed property, and additionally argued that the house was incomplete and required further construction. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, could determine the factual controversy regarding the vacancy or occupation of the property at the time of requisition. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition, holding that the High Court correctly declined to engage in a factual inquiry regarding the vacancy of the property, as such disputes fall within the domain of a court of plenary jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that where a civil suit regarding the same subject matter is pending, the civil court is the competent forum to adjudicate factual disputes concerning the status of the property at the time of its requisition.
Questions settled- Can the High Court in writ jurisdiction determine factual disputes regarding whether a property was vacant at the time of its requisition?
- Is a civil court the appropriate forum to adjudicate factual controversies concerning the occupation status of requisitioned property when a civil suit is pending?
- Waqar Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 3183 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-19Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs Saeed Ice Factory1989 MLD 4329 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs Rashid Muhammad1989 MLD 4225 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs Nisar Art Press1989 MLD 3843 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs Mst. Khatoon And Other1989 MLD 3122 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-05Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs Government of Sind Through Secretary, Local Government, Karachi And Other1989 MLD 1146 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-10Read full judgment →
- WAPDA through Superintending Engineer (E), WAPDA Circle, Gujrat vs Mian1989 PLC 334 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-08-21Read full judgment →
- WAPDA through its Chairman and another vs Muhammad Latif1989 SCMR 1771(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by WAPDA against the High Court's acceptance of the respondent's appeal regarding his removal from service and consequential punishments, following his earlier acquittal by a Special Judge in criminal proceedings concerning the same accusations. The core legal question considered by the Supreme Court was whether the respondent's exoneration by the Service Tribunal raised a question of law of public importance warranting interference. The Supreme Court held that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal did not raise any question of law of public importance. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused, laying down the principle that the Supreme Court will not grant leave to appeal under such circumstances unless a substantial question of law of public importance is involved.
Questions settled- Does the exoneration of an employee by a service tribunal in departmental proceedings raise a question of law of public importance when criminal charges on the same facts resulted in an acquittal?
- Will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against a service tribunal's judgment where no substantial question of law of public importance is involved?
- WAPDA and another vs Syed Jamil Ahmad1989 PLC (C.S.) 101 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1988-05-16Read full judgment →
- Wall Muhammad And 2 Others vs Ejaz Ahmad And 3 Other1989 MLD 2869 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-14Read full judgment →
- Wali Muhammad vs Mukhtar Hussain1989 SCMR 1875 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal in a rent restriction case challenging an ejectment order passed against the petitioner. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the ejectment order, specifically focusing on two primary legal questions. First, the Court will determine whether the relationship of landlord and tenant could be established between the parties while appeal proceedings regarding the ownership of the property were pending. Second, the Court will consider whether the case is distinguishable from standard ejectment cases based on default in rent payment, particularly where the tenancy was not long-standing under the new purchaser and the period of default found by the lower courts was minimal. Additionally, the Court will examine whether the petitioner might have been entitled to discretionary relief had the issue of the landlord-tenant relationship been framed differently. The Court ordered the appeal to be prepared on the existing record and directed that the previously granted stay order remain in operation.
Questions settled- Does the relationship of landlord and tenant exist when appeal proceedings regarding the ownership of the property are pending?
- Can an ejectment order for default in rent payment be distinguished when the tenancy is new and the default period is of a very short duration?
- Is a tenant entitled to discretionary relief in an ejectment proceeding if the issue of the landlord-tenant relationship is contested?
- Wali Muhammad vs Muhammad Shaft and others1989 SCMR 1517 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant, Wali Muhammad, against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which had acquitted four respondents previously convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had acquitted seven co-accused and convicted the four respondents, sentencing one to death and three to life imprisonment. The High Court, on appeal, acquitted all four respondents on the grounds that the eye-witnesses were chance, interested, and inimical witnesses due to prior criminal litigation, and their testimony lacked independent, unimpeachable corroboration. Additionally, no incriminating recoveries were made from the respondents. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, after reviewing the evidence, affirmed the High Court's findings, holding that it is unsafe to rely on interested ocular testimony without independent corroborative evidence, especially when the same testimony was disbelieved regarding other co-accused. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no legal infirmity in the High Court's judgment and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether ocular testimony from interested and inimical witnesses can form the sole basis of a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without independent corroboration?
- Can an acquittal by a High Court be overturned in a petition for leave to appeal when the prosecution's eye-witnesses are determined to be chance witnesses with strained relations with the accused?
- Wali Muhammad vs Ismail Kathiawar and another1989 SCMR 256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal conviction for culpable homicide. The petitioner challenged the judgment of the Sind High Court, which had modified his conviction from murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(II) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing his sentence to eight years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the High Court's reappraisal of evidence and subsequent alteration of the conviction and sentence warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s conclusions were based on a proper appreciation of the prosecution's ocular testimony and the petitioner's judicial confession. Finding no error in the lower court's reasoning regarding the absence of premeditation and the nature of the altercation, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact or the reappraisal of evidence by the High Court unless such findings are based on a misreading of evidence or are otherwise perverse.
Questions settled- Does the absence of premeditation in a fatal altercation justify a conviction under Section 304(II) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 instead of Section 302?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's reappraisal of evidence if the findings are based on a proper appreciation of the prosecution's case?
- Can a judicial confession be partially accepted while rejecting the self-defense plea contained within it?
- Wali Muhammad and others vs Muhammad Nazar and others1989 SCMR 1423 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had exercised its constitutional jurisdiction in favor of the respondents. The dispute originated from the allotment of land to Attaullah Khan, the father of the respondents, who was a claimant from a non-agreed area. Following the promulgation of Martial Law Regulation No. 89, his allotment was reduced, requiring him to surrender a specific number of Produce Index (P.I.) units. Although he opted to purchase the surrendered area, he failed to pay any installments due to ongoing disputes regarding his actual entitlement and the extent of the land to be surrendered. When his request for a second extension to pay the purchase price was refused and he was ordered to surrender the land, he successfully challenged this in the High Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's view that a formal order of assumption was a necessary prerequisite before the authorities could compel the surrender of the excess land.
Questions settled- Is a formal order of assumption required before authorities can compel the surrender of excess land under Martial Law Regulation No. 89?
- Can a claimant be compelled to surrender land when there is a dispute regarding the actual entitlement and the area to be surrendered?
- Wali Muhammad And 2 Others vs The State1989 MLD 852 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
- Wali Dad vs Multan and 10 others1989 SCMR 526 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three petitions arising from pre-emption suits filed by tenants against the sale of agricultural land. The core legal question was whether the doctrine of 'sinker'—which bars a pre-emption suit if a stranger is joined as a plaintiff—applied where multiple tenants, each having a tenancy interest in specific portions of the sold land, joined together as plaintiffs in suits challenging the sale of the entire joint holding. The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of sinker was not applicable in this case. The Court reasoned that the plaintiffs were not strangers to the land; rather, they were tenants with legitimate claims to the specific portions of the land sold. By instituting three separate suits corresponding to the three sale deeds, the pre-emptors maintained the integrity of the transactions. The Court affirmed that even if technical arguments regarding the joinder of parties were raised, the principle of sinker could not be invoked to defeat substantial justice where the claimants were not strangers to the subject matter of the pre-emption.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of sinker apply when tenants with specific interests in different portions of a joint holding join as plaintiffs in a pre-emption suit?
- Can a pre-emption suit be dismissed on the ground of sinker if the plaintiffs are not strangers to the land sold?
- Is the doctrine of sinker applicable where pre-emptors maintain the integrity of the sale transactions by filing separate suits for separate sale deeds?
- Walayat Hussain vs Muhammad Hanif1989 MLD 1012 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises out of a suit where the trial court closed the defendant's evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and subsequently pronounced judgment more than eight months after hearing arguments, which was unsuccessfully challenged in first appeal before the Additional District Judge. The core legal question concerned the validity of a judgment pronounced long after the conclusion of arguments, violating the prescribed timeframe requiring fresh arguments. The Lahore High Court held that announcing a judgment after an inordinate delay of eight months without fresh arguments vitiates the decision. The Court set aside the lower courts' judgments, accepted the civil revision, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh decision after hearing arguments anew, establishing that substantial delays in judgment delivery necessitate rehearing of arguments.
Questions settled- Whether a judgment announced after an inordinate delay following the hearing of arguments is legally sustainable without rehearing arguments?
- Can an order closing evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be challenged in civil revision?
- What is the consequence of failing to announce a judgment within the normal prescribed period after hearing arguments?
- Wakeelur Rehman and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2289 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-25Read full judgment →
- Wahid Bux vs The State And 7 Other1989 MLD 2799 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
- Wahid BAKHSHPotitioncr vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2257 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
- Wahid Bakhsh vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Criminal Cases 268 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-15Read full judgment →
- Wahid Bakhsh vs The State And Another1989 MLD 776 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
- Wahid Bakhsh Rana vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1591 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-17Read full judgment →
- Wahid Bakhsh and others vs Ghulam Ahmad and others1989 SCMR 134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench, which dismissed the petitioners' regular second appeal regarding land originally mortgaged in 1921. The petitioners challenged subsequent mutations of redemption, sale, and exchange sanctioned in 1937, arguing they were collusive, without consideration, and unregistered, and filed a suit for declaration of redemption and possession. The trial court dismissed the suit based on a finding of sale and adverse possession, a view upheld in appeal and by the High Court, despite no issue having been framed regarding adverse possession. The core legal question is whether a party can simultaneously raise contradictory pleas of ownership by purchase and ownership by adverse possession. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this question, holding that such inconsistent pleas warrant further consideration by the appellate forum.
Questions settled- Whether in view of the respondents' claim about purchase of the disputed land, they could also be given the benefit of adverse possession?
- Waheed Ullah Khan vs Muhammad Hanif CH.K.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 95 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-10Read full judgment →
- Waheed Ullah Khan and 2 others vs Muhammad Hanif and two others1989 SCMR 2042 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by tenants against the dismissal of their first appeal by the High Court, which upheld their eviction order passed by a Rent Controller. The core legal controversy concerns the relationship of landlord and tenant, specifically whether a complicated question of title regarding evacuee property transferred under settlement laws could be conclusively decided by the rent forum in light of prior writ proceedings, or whether it should have been referred to a civil court of general jurisdiction. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal to examine whether the tenants should be permitted to agitate the question of title before a court of general jurisdiction while maintaining the eviction order, repelling all other pleas raised by the petitioners.
Questions settled- Can the question of title in a rent restriction matter be decided with reference to a final decision by settlement authorities and superior courts?
- Is it obligatory for a Rent Controller to refer a complicated question of title to a competent civil court for adjudication?
- Whether the High Court's finding on title in writ proceedings operates as a conclusive bar to reagitating the matter before the Rent Controller?
- Wadero Muhammad Tayyab vs Akbar Hussain And Another1989 MLD 10 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-06Read full judgment →
- Wa LI Mu H a MM a D vs Muhammad Ibrahim and others1989 PLD Lahore 440 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for a declaration that a registered sale-deed executed by his attorney was fraudulent, without consideration, and void. The core legal questions involve whether an attorney can alienate property in favor of his minor children and associates without full disclosure and consent, and whether such transaction is vitiated by undue influence and breach of fiduciary duty. The Lahore High Court held that the agent abused his fiduciary position, exercised undue influence over an illiterate principal, and violated statutory provisions by transferring property to his minor sons and associates without consent. The court ruled that the transaction was voidable and liable to be repudiated under the Contract Act. The key principles laid down are that an ignorant agriculturist occupies a position akin to a pardanashin lady regarding the presumption of undue influence, that an agent cannot deal on his own account or in favor of close relatives without full disclosure and consent of the principal, and that revisional courts can interfere with concurrent findings of fact when subordinate courts misapply the law or ignore material evidence.
Questions settled- Whether a power of attorney executed by an illiterate person can be used to alienate property in favor of the attorney's minor children without violating the principles of agency?
- Does an agent standing in a fiduciary relationship commit a breach of duty by transferring the principal's property to himself or his associates without full disclosure and consent?
- Whether the protections against undue influence applicable to vulnerable persons extend to an illiterate and ignorant agriculturist?
- Can a revisional court interfere with concurrent findings of fact where the subordinate courts have misapplied statutory provisions and disregarded material evidence?
- Vinod Kumar Singh vs Banaras Hindu University And Other1989 MLD 3215 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-11-11Read full judgment →
- Vibhuti Glass Works vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lucknow1989 PTD 1337 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-04-28Read full judgment →
- Vazir Ali And Others vs Hanif1989 MLD 1966 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-12Read full judgment →
- Uzma Wahid vs Guardian Judge And Other1989 MLD 3064 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-02Read full judgment →
- Usman Khan vs Malik Allah Wasaya Khan and others1989 SCMR 1678 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff, challenging the High Court's dismissal of their second appeal regarding a suit for declaration and annulment of a sale. The dispute arose from a sale of land executed by the plaintiff’s attorney, who was the plaintiff's son, after the plaintiff had allegedly cancelled the power of attorney. The petitioners contended that the attorney lacked authority at the time of the consent decree for specific performance, as the power of attorney had been revoked prior to the decree. Conversely, the respondents argued that the alienation was agreed upon and a receipt was executed before the revocation, thereby validating the transaction. The core legal questions involve determining whether the sale transaction was legally complete prior to the cancellation of the power of attorney and whether the subsequent suit was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court, finding these issues substantial, granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the alienation and the limitation period applicable to the suit.
Questions settled- Does the cancellation of a power of attorney invalidate a consent decree for specific performance entered into by the attorney after the date of revocation?
- Can a sale transaction be considered complete based on a prior receipt despite the formal power of attorney being cancelled before the final decree?
- Is a suit for declaration and annulment of a sale time-barred when the cause of action arises from a disputed consent decree?
- Usman A.Ghafoor and 2 others vs Messrs Attock Textile Mills Ltd. and 21989 SCMR 818 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 24-10-1988, which accepted an application for the transfer of a civil suit for damages from Rawalpindi to Lahore to be heard alongside a previously pending suit between the parties. The core legal question concerned the propriety of transferring a suit for damages filed against insurance surveyors from one city to another for consolidation with a related proceeding. The Supreme Court held that the transfer of the suit was a matter of judicial discretion exercised by the High Court keeping in view the convenience of both parties and involved no legal defect or substantial question of law. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court's discretionary order transferring a civil suit for consolidation with a pending case warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
- Is a suit for damages against insurance surveyors properly transferable to the court where a related suit between the same parties is already pending?
- United Industries Ltd., Faisalabad vs Collector Appeal, Centrl Excise1989 MLD 1566 · Board of Revenue · 1989-02-08Read full judgment →
- United Industries Ltd., Faisalabad (M/s.) vs Collector Appeal Central ExcisePTCL 1989 CL. 376 · Central Board of Revenue · 1989-03-13Read full judgment →
- United Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Ali Gul Packages Industries Ltd. And Other1989 CLC 1743 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-03Read full judgment →
- United Bank Ltd. and others vs Abdul Khaliq and others1989 SCMR 1252(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by United Bank Limited against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal's order reinstating the respondent cashier after his dismissal following a conviction by a Summary Military Court for hoarding. The core legal question concerned the validity of the dismissal from service without affording an opportunity to explain his position and the consequent feasibility of reinstatement. The Supreme Court held that since the respondent was willing to be appointed as an Assistant in any capacity and did not insist on his former post of cashier—thereby addressing the Bank's apprehension regarding his conviction by a military court—no subsisting grievance remained. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, establishing that willingness to accept an alternative assignment can resolve practical impediments to reinstatement following dismissal.
Questions settled- Whether an employee dismissed following a conviction by a Summary Military Court can be reinstated to service?
- Does the failure to provide an opportunity to explain position vitiate an order of dismissal from service?
- Can an employee waive the right to reinstatement in a specific former post to facilitate settlement and re-employment?
- United Bank Limited vs Muhammad Gul1989 P Cr. L J 205 · Special Court · 1988-04-19Read full judgment →
- Union of India And Others vs Madhumilan Syntex (Pvt.) Ltd. And Another1989 MLD 2442 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-05-03Read full judgment →
- Union of India And Others vs K.K. Chopra (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs1989 MLD 2587 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-08-05Read full judgment →