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.
- Syed Shamim Hussain Kazmi vs Habib Bank Limited1989 PLC 6 · Sindh High Court · 1988-04-12Read full judgment →
- Syed Shakeel Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 646 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-30Read full judgment →
- Syed Shakeel Ahmad Shah vs Director Food, Punjab, Lahore and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 347 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1987-01-24Read full judgment →
- Syed Shah Jehan Shah vs Mastana Shah And Another1989 CLC 1547 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-01Read full judgment →
- Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi vs A.C. EtcK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 514 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-29Read full judgment →
- Syed Shabbar R Aza Rizvi vs The Assistant Commissioner, Depalpur and 3 others1989 P Cr. L J 558 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-29Read full judgment →
- Syed Saabat Hussain Kirmani and others vs Mst. Kaneez Fatima1989 SCMR 2028(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of a civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit for declaration due to lack of evidence. The core legal question concerns whether the lower courts were justified in dismissing the suit after the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence despite multiple adjournments and opportunities granted. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were themselves at fault, as sufficient indulgence and opportunities had already been extended to them by the courts below, and the petitioners moreover possessed a weak case on merits. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the concurrent findings and dismissal of the suit.
Questions settled- Whether a suit can be dismissed for lack of evidence when the plaintiff fails to produce evidence despite multiple adjournments?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the dismissal of a suit for non-production of evidence?
- Whether sufficient indulgence shown to a party for producing evidence justifies the dismissal of their suit upon continued default?
- Syed Qurban Hussain Shah and another vs Member, (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 3 others1989 SCMR 1790 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Constitutional petition by the High Court regarding a land consolidation dispute. The petitioners had originally been allotted land of Class-IV quality, which was approximately three times the size of their original holdings, in 1965. Following subsequent proceedings, this allotted land was withdrawn, and the petitioners were restored to their original land. The petitioners argued that they had made significant improvements to the allotted land over the past two decades. The Supreme Court observed that while there might be technical merit in the petitioners' arguments regarding improvements, the petitioners had enjoyed the benefit of the additional land for over twenty years. The Court held that the benefits derived from the extra land during this extended period effectively compensated for any improvements made. Consequently, the Court found no justification to interfere with the High Court's decision, determining that the case was not a fit one for the grant of leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does the long-term enjoyment of additional land during consolidation proceedings compensate for improvements made to that land when the land is subsequently withdrawn?
- Is a case involving the restoration of original land after a long-standing consolidation allotment a fit matter for the grant of leave to appeal?
- Syed Nusrat Ali Shah vs Khawaja Khalid Javid And Another1989 MLD 342 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-09Read full judgment →
- Syed Niaz Ahmad Naqvi vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1357 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-13Read full judgment →
- Syed Nazir Hussain vs Ahtisham Muhammad Ali And 2 Other1989 MLD 88 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil suit was instituted by the plaintiff for the recovery of goods, cancellation of a promissory note, and possession of certain shops based on allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, and an unexecuted partnership agreement. The core legal questions involved whether the agreement of sale and promissory note were vitiated by fraud, whether the suit was maintainable without seeking cancellation of the agreement of sale, and whether the suit was barred under Section 69 of the Partnership Act for want of registration of the firm. The court held that a voidable document remains valid until formally set aside and the plaintiff failed to seek its cancellation or properly plead particulars of fraud. Furthermore, the court held that an unregistered partnership that was not dissolved does not attract the exception under Section 69(3)(a), thereby rendering the suit barred under Section 69(1) of the Act. Consequently, the suit was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff can claim relief based on an alleged fraudulent transaction without seeking formal cancellation of the underlying agreement of sale?
- Does a general allegation of breach of confidence suffice to establish fraud and misrepresentation in the absence of specific pleadings?
- Whether a suit arising from an unregistered partnership is barred under Section 69 of the Partnership Act 1932 when the firm has not been dissolved?
- Does Section 69(3)(a) of the Partnership Act 1932 save a suit that does not seek the dissolution of a firm or the realization of its property?
- Syed Nazar Abbas Naqvi vs Commissioner, Sargodha Division and others1989 SCMR 1062 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the acquisition of property under the Land Acquisition Act. The core legal questions involve whether property acquired for a specific public purpose must be returned to the original owner if that purpose is abandoned or fails, and whether the acquiring authority is permitted to repurpose such land for a different public use. Furthermore, the court seeks to determine if a change in purpose that results in the self-enrichment of the acquiring authority at the expense of the original owner still qualifies as a valid 'public purpose.' Finally, the court addresses whether a constitutional petition challenging such acquisition should be dismissed on the grounds of laches when the change of purpose occurred long after the initial acquisition. Finding these issues significant, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, ordering the case to be heard alongside other similar pending appeals to resolve these questions of law.
Questions settled- Should property acquired under the Land Acquisition Act be returned to the original owner if the purpose for which it was acquired fails or is abandoned?
- Can an acquiring authority utilize property acquired for one public purpose for a different public purpose?
- Does the use of acquired property for the self-enrichment of the acquiring authority constitute a valid public purpose?
- Can a constitutional petition be dismissed on the ground of laches if the change of purpose for the acquired property occurred long after the initial acquisition?
- Syed Nawazish Ali vs United Bank Ltd. and another1989 SCMR 550 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the restoration of a recovery suit filed by the respondents. The respondents' suit was initially dismissed for non-prosecution but subsequently restored upon an application, a decision affirmed in revision by the District Judge and in a writ petition by the High Court. The core legal questions involved whether there was sufficient cause for the restoration of the suit and whether the restoration application was time-barred. The Supreme Court held that sufficient cause was shown, taking into account the conduct of the court and counsel, and that the High Court's refusal to interfere with the limitation issue in its discretionary writ jurisdiction did not warrant Supreme Court intervention. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused, establishing that discretionary orders regarding procedural restoration and limitation will not be lightly disturbed where sufficient cause is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Was there sufficient cause for the restoration of a suit dismissed for non-prosecution based on the conduct of the court and counsel?
- Does the dismissal of a writ petition regarding a time-barred application for restoration warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Can discretionary relief in writ jurisdiction regarding procedural matters be challenged under Article 185 of the Constitution?
- Syed Nasir Ali Gardezi Etc. vs Chief Administrator of AuqafK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 112 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
- Syed Nasir Ali Gardezi And Others vs Chief Administrator of Auqaf1989 MLD 3117 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
- Syed Nasir Abbas vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 739 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-25Read full judgment →
- Syed Muzaffar Ali Burney and anothers vs Hafiz Muhammad Ahmad and 2 others1989 PLD Supreme Court 162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a Lahore High Court judgment concerning the division of urban property under settlement laws. The core legal question was whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring a property divisible, allegedly in violation of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, and whether the subsequent transfer of property was illegal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while the High Court generally lacks jurisdiction to declare property divisible contrary to the findings of settlement authorities, it may refrain from interference in exceptional circumstances. The Court determined that the High Court’s intervention was justified because the impugned orders of the settlement authorities were demonstrably arbitrary and capricious. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will decline to interfere in settlement matters where substantial justice has been achieved, notwithstanding that the impugned judgment may not strictly satisfy all jurisdictional or legal requirements, provided the lower court’s decision was based on a careful analysis of the facts and addressed arbitrary administrative actions.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to declare a property divisible when settlement authorities have previously determined it to be indivisible?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court refrain from interfering in a settlement case despite potential jurisdictional defects in the impugned judgment?
- Can a High Court set aside settlement orders that are found to be demonstrably arbitrary and capricious?
- Syed Munawar Hussain Naqvi vs Mr. Farrukh Latif, Addl. District Judge1989 MLD 3009 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-11Read full judgment →
- Syed Muhammad Zafar Bukhari vs Government of the Punjab1989 PLC (C.S.) 752 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-09Read full judgment →
- Syed Muhammad Sharif Shah vs Wali Muhammad and others1989 SCMR 287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a plaintiff challenging the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which originated from a suit for declaration regarding consolidation proceedings. The core legal question addressed was whether the Civil Court possessed the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the consolidation matter brought before it. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, finding that the points raised did not attract the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. The Court held that the petitioner had pursued the incorrect legal remedy by filing a civil suit, noting that the appropriate course of action, following the exhaustion of remedies before the Board of Revenue, was to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the lower courts had correctly decided the matter on its merits and that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction in the consolidation dispute.
Questions settled- Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit regarding consolidation proceedings?
- What is the appropriate legal remedy for a party aggrieved by a decision in consolidation proceedings after exhausting remedies before the Board of Revenue?
- Syed Muhammad Nawaz Shah And Others vs Amir Hussain Shah And Other1989 CLC 1712 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal concerns the inheritance of the estate of Syed Baqir Hussain Shah, who died issueless in 1940. The appellants, claiming as collaterals, sought a declaration of their inheritance rights. The core legal questions were whether the deceased belonged to the Shia sect, thereby altering the applicable inheritance laws, and whether the appellants were disqualified from inheriting because their predecessor, Bahawal Shah, had murdered the deceased. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, finding that the deceased was indeed a Shia and that the murderer’s progeny were disqualified from succession. Upon review, this Court held that the appellate court’s findings were based on substantial evidence and free from legal infirmity. The Court affirmed the principle of Muslim Law that a murderer is barred from inheriting from their victim and that this disqualification extends to the murderer's progeny. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower appellate court's judgment that the appellants were excluded from the inheritance due to the homicide committed by their predecessor.
Questions settled- Does the murder of a person by a relative disqualify the murderer's progeny from inheriting the victim's estate under Muslim Law?
- Can a finding of fact regarding the religious sect of a deceased person be interfered with in a second appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a murderer barred from inheriting the estate of the person they assassinated under Islamic law?
- Syed Muhammad Aslam Qadri vs Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad1989 PLC (C.S.) 767 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-06-03Read full judgment →
- Syed Muhammad Asghar vs Haji Muhammad Akram M(G),Bor And Other1989 MLD 3756 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-13Read full judgment →
- Syed Muhammad Asghar vs Haji Muhammad Akram M (C) Bor Etc.K.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 143 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-13Read full judgment →
- Syed Muhammad Afzal Shah vs Akbar Ali and 2 others1989 SCMR 1717 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a Lahore High Court judgment that acquitted one respondent (Shaukat Ali) and commuted the death sentence of another (Akbar Ali) to life imprisonment for the murder of Amirul Hasan. The incident stemmed from a religious dispute between the parties regarding derogatory remarks about Sahaba-e-Karaam. The core legal questions were whether the High Court erred in acquitting the co-accused based on the nature of his injury and whether the commutation of the death sentence for the primary accused was legally justified given the circumstances. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the acquittal of the co-accused was based on a reasonable doubt regarding his participation, as his alleged injury could have resulted from a fall. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the commutation of the death sentence, agreeing that the background of religious provocation, while not strictly amounting to grave and sudden provocation, warranted a lesser sentence. The Court concluded that the High Court’s judgment correctly met the ends of justice and refused to interfere with the findings.
Questions settled- Can a court commute a death sentence to life imprisonment based on the background of a religious dispute?
- Is an appellate court justified in acquitting an accused when the injury attributed to them could reasonably be explained by a fall?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's appreciation of evidence regarding the quantum of sentence if the judgment meets the ends of justice?
- Syed Mohsin Ali Hasani vs Government of Pakistan through Establishment Division and another1989 SCMR 1073 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which partly accepted the appellant's appeal regarding financial benefits. The appellant, an Assistant Professor whose college was taken over by the Federal Government, opted for federal service. Subsequently, his parent provincial government (Punjab) promoted him to Grade-19 on the assumption that he retained a lien. The core legal question was whether an employee who opted for federal service and awaited confirmation could claim the benefit of a promotion granted by his parent provincial government during that interim period. The Supreme Court held that the terms and conditions protecting the privileges and benefits of permanent servants pending confirmation only guarantee the rights accruing to confirmed federal employees under central rules, and do not extend to privileges, promotions, or benefits granted by provincial governments to their erstwhile provincial colleagues. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an employee who opted for federal service is entitled to promotions granted by his parent provincial government while awaiting confirmation under the Federal Government?
- Do the privileges and benefits guaranteed to permanent government servants pending confirmation under federal service include promotions or benefits given to provincial government employees?
- Does the retention of a lien in a parent provincial department entitle a federal employee to claim provincial service benefits after exercising a final option for federal service?
- Syed Mohiuddin And Others vs Syed Abdul Sattar And Other1989 MLD 944 · Board of Revenue · 1987-06-18Read full judgment →
- Syed Mehdi Hassan Shah vs Sind Road Transport Corporation1989 PLC 285 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-12-11Read full judgment →
- Syed Mazhar Ali vs Umer Farooq And Another1989 MLD 2808 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
- Syed Mashhood Ashraf. vs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and others1989 PLC 276 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-28Read full judgment →
- Syed Mashhood Ashraf vs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd.1989 PLC (C.S.) 206 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
- Syed Mashhood Ashraf vs Agha Yousaf Ahmad Khan and others1989 SCMR 1481 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 28-3-1983, which dismissed the petitioner's Intra-Court Appeal arising from the dismissal of his writ petition. The core legal question was whether a bank employee's resignation from service deprives the employer of jurisdiction to continue disciplinary proceedings or an inquiry regarding irregularities committed during active service. The Supreme Court held that the mere submission or tender of resignation from service does not absolve an employee of accountability for irregularities committed during their tenure with the bank, and thus the inquiry proceedings remain lawful and within jurisdiction. The Court established the key principle that resignation does not automatically terminate disciplinary proceedings or shield an employee from facing inquiry for past professional misconduct committed while in service.
Questions settled- Does resignation from service absolve an employee of irregularities committed during their employment?
- Does an inquiry officer retain jurisdiction to proceed with disciplinary proceedings after the subject employee submits a resignation?
- Can disciplinary proceedings continue against a bank employee despite the tender of resignation and payment in lieu of notice?
- Syed Maqsood Ul Hassan vs Member, Board of Revenue And Other1989 MLD 238 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
- Syed Maqsood Hussain vs The Executive Engineer, Nankana Sahib1989 PLC (C.S.) 461 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-03-29Read full judgment →
- Syed Manzoor Hussain Shah vs Khurshid Ahmad And 4 Other1989 CLC 1372 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
- Syed Manzoor Hussain and 4 others vs Syed Agha Hussain and anothers1989 PLD Lahore 305 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-19Read full judgment →
- Syed Mahboob Alam Shah And Others vs Deputy Commissioner And Other1989 CLC 1801 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arose from a suit for declaration challenging acquisition proceedings of 9 Kanals 9 Marlas of land for the construction of a educational campus. The trial Court granted a temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners who were in physical possession, but the Additional District Judge set aside the order and vacated the injunction, holding that the suit was barred and no notice was required after urgency provisions were applied. The High Court reversed the appellate order and restored the temporary injunction. The Court held that serious questions of law and fact existed regarding whether acquisition proceedings lapsed under Rule 7 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules 1983 when no Section 5 notification was issued within one year, and whether prior notice was mandatory. It further held that civil courts retain jurisdiction to entertain suits challenging the validity of acquisition proceedings when statutory requirements are not strictly complied with.
Questions settled- Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred from entertaining a suit challenging land acquisition proceedings on grounds of non-compliance with statutory rules?
- Whether land acquisition proceedings automatically lapse under Rule 7 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules 1983 if no notification under Section 5 is issued within one year of the Section 4 notification?
- Can an urgency notification under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 be validly issued after acquisition proceedings have lapsed due to efflux of time?
- Syed Karrar Hur Rizvi vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways1989 PLC 769 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-03-29Read full judgment →
- Syed Kamran Ali vs Secretary, Government of the Punjab Food1989 PLC (C.S.) 845 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-10-22Read full judgment →
- Syed Kabir Hussain Shah vs Directorgeneral, T & T, Islamabad and 31989 SCMR 1986 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had rejected the petitioner's appeal concerning the seniority of respondents Nos. 3 and 4. The petitioner, a Stenographer, contested the seniority of the respondents, arguing that their initial appointments as Stenographers were irregular because they were only Matriculates, whereas the minimum qualification for direct recruitment was Intermediate. The petitioner contended that their appointments should be treated as ad hoc and thus excluded from seniority calculations. The core legal question was whether the respondents' appointments were regular and whether they were eligible for the post of Stenographer despite their educational qualifications. The Supreme Court held that the respondents were eligible for appointment as temporary Stenographers because they had rendered the requisite length of service as Stenotypists, as permitted by the Estacode. Consequently, the Court found their appointments to be regular and in accordance with the prescribed manner. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the petitioner was correctly placed junior to the respondents, who had been appointed to the post earlier.
Questions settled- Are Matriculate Stenotypists with three years of service eligible for promotion or appointment as temporary Stenographers?
- Can an appointment be considered regular if the appointee meets the length-of-service requirement despite lacking the standard educational qualification for direct recruitment?
- Does the period of service rendered by an employee whose appointment is found to be regular count towards seniority?
- Syed Javaid Hussain vs Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore1989 PLC (C.S.) 229 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-10-15Read full judgment →
- Syed Jammat Ali Shah And Others vs Investment Corporation Of Pakistan Ltd., Karachi1989 MLD 3931 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
- Syed Jamal Shahid vs Presiding Officer, Special Court (Offences in Banks) and others1989 P Cr. L J 688 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-14Read full judgment →
- Syed Jamal Shah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 209 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-10-29Read full judgment →
- Syed Izhar Ul Hassan Rizvi vs Mian Abdur Rehman And 2 Other1989 CLC 2144 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-19Read full judgment →
- Syed Ishaq Hussain Rizvi And Others vs SH. Mubarik Ali And Other1989 MLD 180 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-10Read full judgment →
- Syed Iqbal Haider vs N.B.P EtcK.L.R 1989 Labour and Service Cases 25 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →
- Syed Hussain Shah vs The State1989 MLD 3966 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-06Read full judgment →
- Syed Hassan Abbas and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2112 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-08-02Read full judgment →
- Syed H Asan Askahi Rizvi vs Muhammad Aziz1989 PLD Supreme Court 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant-landlord served a notice of ejectment under section 14(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 to the respondent-tenant, stating he was to retire from government service and attain sixty years of age on 3rd December 1985. The notice was given on 30th May 1985, which was four days prior to the commencement of the six-month statutory window. After the Rent Controller decreed the ejectment suit in the landlord's favour, the High Court set aside the decision, holding that the notice was premature and invalid under section 14(1). The core legal question was whether a notice served slightly more than six months before retirement is invalid and renders subsequent ejectment proceedings not maintainable. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that section 14(1) confers a special summary benefit and must be strictly construed, meaning a premature notice is invalid and cannot sustain an ejectment application. The key principle laid down is that the special provisions of section 14(1) require strict compliance regarding timelines, and service of a valid notice strictly within the prescribed period is a condition precedent to maintaining summary ejectment proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether a notice under section 14(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 given more than six months before the date of retirement is premature and invalid?
- Should the special provisions of section 14(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 be interpreted strictly or liberally?
- Are ejectment proceedings initiated on the basis of a premature statutory notice maintainable under the law?
- Syed Ghulam Sayedain Naqvi vs Muhammad Tahir alias Kalia and another1989 SCMR 474 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1988-08-19Read full judgment →
- Syed Ghulam Bari Shah vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan1989 PLC 787 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
- Syed Fazal Hussain Shah vs Abdul Ghani1989 SCMR 662 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises out of a pre-emption suit concerning a plot of land in Sialkot. The appellant purchased the plot via a registered sale-deed in 1970, which the respondent unsuccessfully sought to pre-empt in the trial court and the district court on the basis of being an owner in the estate. However, the Lahore High Court accepted the respondent's civil revision and decreed the suit in 1988. The core legal question was whether a pre-emption suit based on the qualification of being an owner in the estate could be decreed after that qualification ceased to exist. The Supreme Court held that in view of its prior ruling in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah, the qualification of being an owner in the estate ceased to be part of the statute book after 31st July 1986 and could not serve as the basis for a decree thereafter. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the pre-emption suit dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the qualification of being an owner in the estate survive as a valid ground for pre-emption after 31st July 1986?
- Can a High Court decree a pre-emption suit based on a qualification that has ceased to be part of the statute book?
- Syed Faiz Ali Shah vs The State1989 MLD 3729 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-13Read full judgment →
- Syed Basit Shah And Others vs The Chief Administrator of Auoaf, Punjab, Lahore1989 CLC 2259 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-30Read full judgment →
- Syed Bachal Shah vs Malik Asad Sikandar and 2 others1989 PLD Karachi 53 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the acceptance of respondent number one's nomination papers for the National Assembly election on the ground that he did not meet the minimum age requirement of twenty-five years under Article 62(b) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, relying on school certificates and a prior election tribunal decision. The core legal question was whether a Returning Officer possesses the authority during scrutiny to hold an inquiry into the correctness or validity of age entries in the electoral roll or go behind those entries under section 14 of the Representation of the People Act 1976. The Sindh High Court held that under proviso (iii) to section 14 of the said Act, a Returning Officer is explicitly barred from inquiring into the correctness or validity of any entry in the electoral roll, making such entries final for the purposes of scrutiny, while the question of age remains open for challenge before an Election Tribunal. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether a Returning Officer can inquire into the correctness or validity of an entry in the electoral roll during the scrutiny of nomination papers?
- Does the Returning Officer have the power to hold a summary enquiry regarding the age of a candidate beyond the entries contained in the electoral roll?
- Can school certificates be used before a Returning Officer to challenge the age of a candidate stated in the electoral roll?
- Syed Asrar Hussain Taqvi vs Government of Sind and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 736 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-01-26Read full judgment →
- Syed Asadulhaq vs District Education Officer and others1989 SCMR 1450 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of service appeals by the Service Tribunal, concerning the premature retirement of civil servants. The petitioners, serving as an Assistant and a Superintendent in the office of the District Education Officer, Bahawalpur, were retired from service on completion of 25 years of service qualifying for pension by the order of the Deputy Director (Administration). The core legal question is whether the Deputy Director (Administration) was the competent authority to order their retirement or if the power vested solely in the District Education Officer under the applicable rules. The Supreme Court held that since the Deputy Director was the appointing authority under Rule 4(a) of the West Pakistan Ministerial and Subordinate Service Rules, he was fully competent under Section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act to direct their retirement in the public interest. Consequently, the petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed as devoid of merit. The key principle laid down is that the authority competent to make appointments is legally empowered to direct the retirement of a civil servant upon completing the qualifying period of service.
Questions settled- Whether the Deputy Director is competent to order the retirement of civil servants who fall under their appointing jurisdiction?
- Does the power to retire a civil servant on completion of 25 years of service vest in the appointing authority?
- Whether the District Education Officer is the exclusive authority competent to retire assistants and superintendents serving in their office?
- Syed Allah Yar Shah vs Election Authority Sind And Other1989 MLD 611 · Sindh High Court · 1987-12-03Read full judgment →
- Syed Ali Mehdi vs District Magistrate, Karachi1989 MLD 1016 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-26Read full judgment →
- Syed Ali Ahsan and another vs Federal Land Commission and others1989 SCMR 764 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition against the dismissal of a constitutional challenge concerning the validity of an oral gift of agricultural land made by petitioner No. 2 to her minor son (petitioner No. 1) prior to the cut-off date under Martial Law Regulation 115. The core legal question was whether the Land Commission authorities could independently determine the validity, delivery of possession, and acceptance of the gift when the underlying mutation entry had been summarily cancelled and a review of that cancellation was pending before the revenue authorities. The Supreme Court held that the Land Commission authorities acted beyond their jurisdiction in adjudicating upon the civil questions of delivery of possession and acceptance, which were matters for a civil court or the pending revenue review, and that their orders were premature until the Collector decided the legality of the mutation cancellation. The Court established that existing entries in the mutation register must be accounted for under the relevant exceptions of Martial Law Regulation 115, and revenue authorities must properly determine contested mutation cancellations before land authorities can conclude on land alienations.
Questions settled- Whether the Land Commission authorities have the jurisdiction to determine the validity, delivery of possession, and acceptance of a gift when the underlying mutation entry is subject to a pending review before revenue authorities?
- Can the validity of an oral gift of agricultural land be conclusively determined by land commissioners without a proper decision by revenue authorities regarding the cancellation of the mutation entry?
- Whether matters regarding the delivery of possession and acceptance of a gift by a natural guardian fall within the exclusive domain of civil courts rather than land commissions?
- Syed Aley Ahmad vs Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement1989 SCMR 681 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgments of the Lahore High Court concerning the cancellation of the sale of an evacuee land plot. The petitioner was initially allowed the sale of the plot by the Member, Board of Revenue, on 20-8-1980, but this order was subsequently cancelled on 9-2-1981 without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The Lahore High Court set aside the cancellation order on the grounds of violation of the principle of audi alteram partem and remanded the case back to the Member, Board of Revenue, for a fresh decision after hearing the petitioner. An intra-court appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the Member, Board of Revenue, had become functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to recall the earlier order. The Supreme Court held that the High Court took a fair view by remanding the matter, allowing the petitioner to raise all legal pleas before the Member, Board of Revenue, who was directed to pass a speaking order.
Questions settled- Whether an order cancelling the sale of evacuee property passed without hearing the affected party violates the principle of audi alteram partem?
- Whether the Member, Board of Revenue becomes functus officio after passing an order of sale of evacuee land?
- Whether the High Court is justified in remanding a matter to the tribunal of origin to decide all legal and factual questions afresh?
- Syed Alamdar Hussain Shah vs The State1989 MLD 4078 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-27Read full judgment →
- Syed Ahmad Hashimi vs Imam Bukhsh And Another1989 MLD 1890 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-12Read full judgment →
- Syed Abu Ul Fazal vs Mehmood And Another1989 CLC 2357 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
- Syed Abid Ali Kausar and others vs Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 645 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-03-09Read full judgment →
- Syed Abdul Sattar And Others vs Syed Mohiuddin And Other1989 MLD 910 · Board of Revenue · 1986-11-23Read full judgment →
- Syed 7Aheer Hassan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 342 · Sindh High Court · 1988-07-13Read full judgment →
- Sycd Zeshan Akhtar Zaidi vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 380 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-14Read full judgment →
- Surinder Nath Kapoor vs Union of India and others1989 PTD 728 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-08-03Read full judgment →
- Suresh Ragho Desai And Another vs Smt. Vijaya Vinayak Ghag And Another1989 MLD 1486 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-08-29Read full judgment →
- Superintendent of Police, Sialkot and anothers vs Bashir Hussain1989 SCMR 856 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal arose from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had set aside the retirement of a Police Sub-Inspector ordered under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The primary legal question was whether the respondent's appeal, pending before the Tribunal at the time the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 came into force, had abated by operation of law. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Paragraph 13 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, which explicitly ousted the jurisdiction of all courts and tribunals—including Service Tribunals—to entertain proceedings challenging retirement orders issued after the completion of twenty-five years of service, mandating that such pending proceedings abate forthwith. The Court held that the respondent's appeal fell squarely within the scope of this abatement provision. Finding that the Tribunal's decision to set aside the retirement order could not override the statutory mandate of abatement, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, thereby upholding the retirement order.
Questions settled- Does an appeal pending before a Service Tribunal regarding a retirement order abate upon the commencement of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981?
- Does Paragraph 13 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, oust the jurisdiction of courts and tribunals to challenge retirement orders made after twenty-five years of service?
- Can a Service Tribunal's finding that a retirement order was influenced by a Scrutiny Board prevent the abatement of an appeal under the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981?
- Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad and others vs Azmat Ali1989 SCMR 1226 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, and other police officials against a judgment of the Service Tribunal, which had ordered the reinstatement of the respondent, Azmat Ali, while denying him financial benefits for the period he remained out of service due to his conduct. The petitioners challenged the Tribunal's decision, arguing that the respondent was guilty of misconduct and therefore should not have been reinstated. The Supreme Court examined the basis of the respondent's initial removal, noting that the order of the Superintendent of Police relied upon a conviction passed by a Summary Military Court. Crucially, the Court observed that the conviction order had not been countersigned by the Deputy Martial Law Administrator (D.M.L.A.), which effectively rendered the conviction order set aside. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments, holding that the Tribunal's decision was legally sound given the invalidity of the underlying conviction. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a conviction by a Summary Military Court that lacks the countersignature of the Deputy Martial Law Administrator remain valid for the purpose of terminating a civil servant?
- Can a Service Tribunal order the reinstatement of an employee while denying back benefits based on the employee's conduct?
- Sunder Singh vs State of Rajasthan1989 MLD 1527 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-02-04Read full judgment →
- Sundaram Textiles Ltd., Madurai. vs Assistant Collector Of Customs, Madaras And AnotherPTCL 1989 FC. 105 · Madras High Court · 1981-07-07Read full judgment →
- Sultan vs Habib Ahmad and another1989 SCMR 451 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a vendee against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court in a pre-emption case. The core legal question revolves around whether a decree for pre-emption could be passed against the petitioner after 31-7-1986 when the pre-emptor had not been granted a decree at any stage by any court prior to that date, relying on the precedent of Sardar Ali and others (PLD 1988 SC 287). The Supreme Court held that the question raised requires examination and granted leave to appeal, directing the appeal to be prepared on the present record and heard alongside similar cases, while ordering the continuation of the stay order until the final hearing.
Questions settled- Whether a decree for pre-emption can be passed against a vendee after 31-7-1986 if the pre-emptor was not granted a decree at any stage by any court before that date?
- Sultan Sakandar vs Superintendent of Police, Mianwali and others1989 SCMR 2027 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 5-8-1981, which decided two appeals brought by the petitioner against orders issued by the Superintendent of Police, Mianwali. The Tribunal had upheld the order dated 6-12-1979 as legal while declaring the order dated 24-1-1980—which reduced the petitioner's rank from Head Constable to Foot Constable—to be without lawful authority due to non-compliance with the prescribed Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The core question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal suffered from any legal infirmity or misapplication of applicable rules. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's order was in accordance with law and that no ground was established to show that the Tribunal acted contrary to law or any relevant rules. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether an order reducing a civil servant's rank is lawful if passed without complying with the procedure laid down in the applicable Efficiency and Discipline Rules?
- Whether leave to appeal will be granted by the Supreme Court when the Service Tribunal's judgment is found to be in accordance with law and applicable rules?
- Sultan Muhammad Khan vs Sultan Mubarik and others1989 PLD Lahore 301 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-14Read full judgment →
- Sultan Muhammad And 2 Others vs Mst. Najabat Sultan And 6 Other1989 CLC 1683 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
- Sultan Mahmood vs The State1989 MLD 4786 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-02Read full judgment →
- Sultan Khan vs The Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary, Revenue Department1989 SCMR 2012 (1) · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1989-08-10Read full judgment →
- Sultan and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 664 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-12Read full judgment →
- Sultan And Others vs Ganesh And Other1989 MLD 2413 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-02-09Read full judgment →
- Sultan and 13 others vs Muhammad alias Muhammad Bakhsh and 231989 SCMR 1402 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioners' revision petition by the High Court, which had upheld the appellate judgment of the District Judge setting aside the trial court's decree in favor of the petitioners in a declaratory suit for possession. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioners established title to the suit land through an oral sale or via adverse possession as co-sharers. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to provide authentic documentary evidence or produce the Patwari to substantiate the alleged oral sale, and further held that as co-sharers recorded in Hisadari possession, their possession could not be construed as adverse. The petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit. The key principle laid down is that an oral sale unsupported by revenue records or necessary witnesses cannot establish title, and co-sharers cannot claim adverse possession against other co-sharers in the same khata.
Questions settled- Can title through an oral sale be established without producing corroborative documentary evidence or the relevant revenue official?
- Whether a co-sharer recorded in Hisadari possession can claim adverse possession against other co-sharers in the same khata?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower appellate and revisional courts when based on proper appreciation of evidence?
- Sultan alias Jagga and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 703 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-19Read full judgment →
- Sultan Ali And Others vs Rashid Ahmad And Other1989 MLD 3985 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-17Read full judgment →
- Sultan Ahmad vs Ghulam Nabi1989 MLD 1051 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-13Read full judgment →
- Sultan Ahmad Khan vs The State1989 MLD 2795 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-18Read full judgment →
- Sultan Ahmad Etc vs Qasim AliK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 109 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-31Read full judgment →
- Sultan Ahmad and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1851 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-14Read full judgment →
- Suleman vs The State1989 PLD Federal Shariat Court 13 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-10-27Read full judgment →
- Suleman Khan vs The State1989 MLD 4787 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-05Read full judgment →
- Suleman And. Others vs Muhammad Siddique1989 MLD 3052 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-11Read full judgment →
- Sufi Wassan Muhammad vs Province of Punjab through Collector, Faisalabad and others1989 SCMR 897 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the possession and allotment of a government-owned 'D' type quarter. The petitioner, who claimed to have purchased the property rights from the original allottee, Karim Khan, sought a declaration of his right to the property and a perpetual injunction against the government authorities. The trial court initially decreed the suit in the petitioner's favor, but this was reversed by the District Judge, and the Lahore High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's civil revision. The core legal question was whether an unauthorized occupant of government property could claim a right to allotment or regularization based on alleged agreements with a previous allottee and government policy letters. The Supreme Court held that since the original allottee was not the owner, he lacked the authority to transfer any title to the petitioner, rendering the petitioner's possession illegal and unauthorized. The Court affirmed that the petitioner, being a trespasser, had no legal standing to demand regularization, and dismissed the petition, noting that the property was currently occupied by others.
Questions settled- Can an allottee of government property transfer title to a third party without ownership rights?
- Does an unauthorized occupant of government property have a legal right to claim regularization of allotment?
- Is a person in possession of government property through an unauthorized agreement with a previous allottee considered a trespasser?
- Sufi Ghulam Mohyuddin vs _ D. S. C., Jhelum1989 SCMR 1759 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding petitions filed by the petitioners. During the proceedings, counsel for the petitioners informed the Court that despite diligent efforts, they were unable to establish contact with their clients. Simultaneously, counsel for the respondent submitted that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had issued an order cancelling the land in dispute on the grounds of fraud. Consequently, the respondent argued that the pending petitions had become infructuous. Accepting the submission made by the counsel for the respondent, the Court held that the petitions were rendered infructuous due to the intervening administrative order cancelling the disputed land. The Court accordingly dismissed the petitions. The judgment establishes the principle that where the subject matter of a petition is effectively extinguished or rendered moot by a subsequent administrative order, the petition itself becomes infructuous and is liable to be dismissed.
Questions settled- Does an administrative order cancelling the land in dispute render a pending petition regarding that land infructuous?
- Can a petition be dismissed if the counsel is unable to contact the petitioners?
- Sufi Ghulam Mohyuddin and 9 others vs Deputy Settlement1989 SCMR 1138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding a dispute over land cancellation. The petitioners, represented by counsel, were unable to be contacted despite efforts. The respondent, represented by counsel, informed the Court that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had already passed an order cancelling the land in dispute on the ground of fraud. Consequently, the respondent argued that the pending petitions had become infructuous. The Court, accepting the submission of the respondent's counsel that the underlying dispute had been rendered moot by the administrative cancellation of the land, dismissed the petitions as having become infructuous. The judgment confirms the principle that where the subject matter of a petition is extinguished or the relief sought is rendered unattainable due to subsequent administrative actions, the petition loses its viability and must be dismissed as infructuous.
Questions settled- Can a petition be dismissed as infructuous if the subject matter of the dispute has been cancelled by an administrative order?
- Does an order of cancellation of land on the ground of fraud render a pending petition regarding that land infructuous?
- Sufaid Khan And Others vs Member, Board of Revenue (Consolidation)1989 MLD 3485 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-29Read full judgment →
- Subhash Chand vs State of Haryana And Other1989 MLD 1076 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-01-11Read full judgment →
- Subedar vs Mian Inam Elahi and others1989 PLD Lahore 309 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
- Sube Singh And Others vs State of Haryana And Other1989 MLD 1514 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-09-21Read full judgment →