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.
- Sher Muhammad alias Shera vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2098 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
- Sher Khan vs The State1989 MLD 688 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-31Read full judgment →
- Sher Jang Khan and another vs Fateh Khan1989 SCMR 1487 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendants against a judgment of the High Court, which had dismissed their civil revision in a suit for permanent injunction regarding a right of way. The respondent's suit had been decreed by the trial court, and this decision was upheld on appeal. The High Court dismissed the subsequent civil revision, finding that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were sound and that there was no evidence of misreading or non-reading of the record. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners sought to re-argue the same factual and merit-based points that had already been adjudicated upon by the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that since the findings of fact were concurrent and had been properly examined by the High Court, there was no justification for interference. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact, absent any misreading or non-reading of evidence, are generally not liable to be set aside in revision or further appeal.
Questions settled- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be set aside in civil revision absent misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when it merely reiterates factual arguments already concluded by concurrent findings of lower courts?
- Sher Etc vs Mehr Muhammad Arif Etc.K.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 57 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
- Sher Baz Khan vs WAPDA1989 PLC (C.S.) 884 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-04-23Read full judgment →
- Sher Bahadur vs Senior Superintendent of Police, District Abbottabad1989 PLC (C.S.) 778 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1989-05-31Read full judgment →
- Sher Azam and 3 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2127 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
- Sher Alam and anothers vs Mir Alam Khan and 6 others1989 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 41 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
- Sher Alam and 8 others vs Messrs Abbasin International, Dhabeji, District Thatta1989 PLC 855 · Labour Court · 1989-02-09Read full judgment →
- Sher Ahmad vs Akhtar Zaman and others1989 SCMR 768 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the acquittal of the respondent by the Peshawar High Court in a murder case, overturning his conviction by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s rejection of the prosecution's evidence, including ocular testimony and forensic reports, was legally sound and justified by the record. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court erred in its appraisal of the evidence, particularly regarding the credibility of eye-witnesses and the conflict between ocular and medical evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s decision to acquit was based on cogent reasons, including material contradictions in the ocular testimony and doubts raised by the medical evidence regarding the weapons used. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will only interfere with a judgment of acquittal in exceptional circumstances where there is a clear error of law or a patent mistake of fact that results in a miscarriage of justice, rather than merely re-evaluating evidence.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
- Is the Supreme Court required to re-evaluate evidence in an appeal against acquittal if the High Court's reasoning is sound?
- Does a conflict between ocular evidence and medical evidence provide sufficient grounds for the rejection of prosecution testimony?
- Sher Afzal vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1382 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
- Sher Afzal vs The State And Another1989 MLD 4983 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
- Sher Adat Khan and Other vs Sahib with Etc.K.L.R. 1989 Criminal Cases 421 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
- Sher Adat Khan and another vs Sahib Din and 2 others1989 P Cr. L J 1299 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Muhammad vs Mst. Hashmat Sultana1989 SCMR 34 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the defendant-vendee contended that the disputed transaction was an exchange rather than a sale, a position accepted by both the trial court and the first appellate court. The plaintiff-respondent challenged this, and the High Court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, reversed the concurrent findings of fact, declaring the transaction a sale. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine if the High Court was justified in this interference. The Supreme Court held that while findings of fact are generally immune from interference in revision, such immunity does not apply when the findings are perverse, based on misread evidence, or contradict the pleadings. The Court affirmed that it possesses the power to look behind the form of a transaction to determine its true nature. Finding that the lower courts had ignored material evidence and committed jurisdictional illegality through perverse reasoning, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s judgment that the transaction was indeed a sale.
Questions settled- Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in its revisional jurisdiction?
- Does the power of a court to determine the true nature of a transaction extend to transactions labeled as exchanges?
- Under what circumstances can a finding of fact be considered perverse and subject to interference in revision?
- Sheikh Mahmood Ahmad vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu1989 PLC (C.S.) 111 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Ghulam Hussain vs P&T Coop Housing Society Ltd. And Another1989 MLD 1838 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Fakhari Iqbal vs Federation of Pakistan And Another1989 CLC 2367 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-19Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Asghar Ali vs District Judge, Sahiwal and 2 others1989 SCMR 1162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a review petition filed against the order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 18-12-1988, which had dismissed a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner. The core legal question before the court was whether the previous dismissal order warranted a review in light of earlier precedent cases cited by the petitioner's counsel. The Supreme Court accepted the arguments, recalled the earlier order dated 18-12-1988, and granted leave to appeal to examine the matter in detail based on the cited case law. The court further ordered that the petitioner's possession shall not be disturbed until the final hearing of the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a review petition can be accepted and leave to appeal granted in light of previously settled case law?
- Can the Supreme Court recall its earlier order dismissing a petition for leave to appeal upon reconsideration?
- Sheikh Altaf vs Superintendent of Police, Vehari and others1989 P Cr. L J 852 · Lahore High Court · 1988-01-16Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Altaf vs Superintendent of Police Vehari, and OtherK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 1988-01-16Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Abdul Sattar and others vs Haji Ghulam Rasool and others1989 SCMR 1150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns several petitions for leave to appeal filed by vendees in pre-emption cases, challenging the dismissal of their respective civil revisions and writ petitions by lower courts. The primary legal question presented across these petitions involved the consequences of failing to pay the requisite court-fee in pre-emption suits. Additionally, the petitioners sought to raise factual contentions regarding the nature of the suit land and claims of improvements made to the property. The Supreme Court, relying on the settled precedent established in Siddique Khan v. Land Acquisition Collector (PLD 1984 SC 289), held that the issue regarding the payment of deficient court-fee was already concluded against the petitioners. Furthermore, the Court observed that the arguments concerning the nature of the suit land and the improvements were essentially questions of fact that had been decided against the vendees by the lower forums, providing no justification for interference. Consequently, the Court dismissed all the petitions, affirming that established legal principles regarding court-fee deficiencies and concurrent findings of fact precluded the relief sought by the petitioners.
Questions settled- Does the failure to pay the requisite court-fee in a pre-emption suit warrant the dismissal of the petition?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of suit land in a pre-emption case?
- Are claims regarding improvements in a pre-emption suit maintainable if they have already been decided as questions of fact against the petitioner?
- Sheikh Abdul Majied vs Tayab Ali1989 MLD 793 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-15Read full judgment →
- Sheen Gul And 6 Others vs Secretary (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Bolichistan And 3 Other1989 CLC 2431 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-08-02Read full judgment →
- Shazada Salahuddin Khan And 8 Others vs WAPDA Through Its Chairman1989 CLC 2060 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-02Read full judgment →
- Shauqeen vs The State1989 MLD 2853 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-17Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Khan vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Auqaf1989 PLC (C.S.) 851 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Shaukat Hussain vs Mst. Rubina and others1989 PLD Karachi 513 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed to challenge a family court judgment and decree that dissolved a marriage, awarded prompt dower, and granted maintenance, while dismissing the husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner contended that the decree was obtained through fraud and professional misconduct of his advocates, and that an oral pronouncement of talaq was ineffective for want of notice under section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The court held that the petitioner participated fully in the trial and that allegations against his counsel did not amount to fraud vitiating the decree, which could not be examined under writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court held that under Islamic injunctions and constitutional provisions including Article 2-A and Article 227, the effectiveness of a validly pronounced talaq cannot be made contingent upon serving notice to the Union Council Chairman. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether a family court judgment and decree can be set aside under Article 199 on the ground of alleged professional misconduct or negligence of the litigant's advocates?
- Does the effectiveness of a validly pronounced talaq under Islamic law depend upon the service of notice to the Chairman of the Union Council under section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
- How do Article 2-A and Article 227 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 impact the interpretation and enforcement of existing statutory provisions regarding personal law and talaq?
- Whether the absence of notice to the Union Council under section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 operates as an implied revocation of a pronouncement of talaq?
- Shaukat Hussain Qureshi vs Additional District Judge And Other1989 MLD 4537 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-05Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Hussain Khan vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 312 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-10Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Hayat vs Government of Sind and another1989 SCMR 774 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition challenging a notification issued by the Government of Sind appointing an Additional Sessions Judge to try specified criminal cases pending in different Sessions Divisions and authorising him to hold sittings at the Central Prison, Karachi. The core legal question was whether the Provincial Government has the legal authority under section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to appoint an Additional Sessions Judge for the trial of specified cases only, without reference to the already established Courts of Session within whose ordinary jurisdiction the cases are pending. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the framework of the Criminal Procedure Code does not contemplate the appointment of an Additional Sessions Judge for the trial of specified cases without reference to already established Courts of Session, making the notification illegal and without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that an Additional Sessions Judge must be appointed in relation to established Courts of Session with territorial nexus, and cannot be appointed merely to dispose of specified cases outside that statutory framework.
Questions settled- Whether the Provincial Government can appoint an Additional Sessions Judge for the trial of specified cases only without reference to already established Courts of Session?
- Does the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 contemplate a Court of Session without reference to territorial limits?
- Does the failure to appoint an Additional Sessions Judge in respect of particular Courts of Session vitiate his jurisdiction to try cases?
- Shaukat ALl vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 769 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-13Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs The State1989 MLD 4681(2) · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs The State and others1989 P Cr. L J 2430 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-19Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 50 · Other · 1988-09-17Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs Feroze Din and 2 others1989 SCMR 1396 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court, which altered the conviction of respondent No. 1 from murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, Part I, P.P.C., reducing the death sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, and correspondingly reduced the sentence under Section 307, P.P.C. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction and sentence based on findings of a sudden quarrel without premeditation. The Supreme Court held that the case was covered by Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as the occurrence took place suddenly during a scuffle, making the High Court's findings proper. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, establishing that where a mutual fight and sudden quarrel are established without premeditation, Exception 4 to Section 300 applies to mitigate the offence.
Questions settled- Whether the alteration of conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder is justified when a sudden quarrel is established?
- Does a mutual fight and sudden occurrence attract the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether material improvements and suppression of facts by eye-witnesses warrant the rejection of the prosecution's initial version of two separate occurrences?
- Shaukat Ali vs Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha and 28 others1989 PLD Lahore 139 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-25Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Lahore Region and three1989 SCMR 282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, filed by a government employee challenging the dismissal of his appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioner, a Head Vernacular Clerk, sought to challenge the revocation of his promotion order by the competent authority following representations made by senior colleagues who were initially superseded. The core legal question was whether the competent authority, having initially issued a promotion order based on the Departmental Promotion Committee's recommendation, could subsequently recall that order and refer the matter back for reconsideration. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, refusing leave to appeal. The Court held that because the promotion order had neither been communicated to the petitioner nor acted upon, no vested right had been created. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the competent authority retains the power to seek a more considered view from the Departmental Promotion Committee, which acts as a substitute for the Public Service Commission, particularly when senior candidates were initially ignored.
Questions settled- Can a competent authority recall a promotion order that has not been communicated to the employee?
- Does the Departmental Promotion Committee have the authority to reconsider its recommendations upon the direction of the competent authority?
- Does an employee acquire a vested right to a post if a promotion order is passed but never communicated or acted upon?
- Shaukat Ali vs Abdul HaqK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 67 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali Shaikh vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1941 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-09Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali and others vs Rahwali Sugar Mills, Rahwali and others1989 SCMR 1401 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the transfer of evacuee property. The Rahwali Sugar Mills, having purchased the evacuee property, challenged the transfer of residential accommodations within its premises to its employees by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner. The High Court had declared the transfer orders without lawful authority, noting that the authorities failed to consider relevant documents submitted by the Mills, and remanded the case to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision. The core legal question was whether the properties transferred to the employees were part of the Mills premises already sold to the company, which constitutes a question of fact. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the remand to the Chief Settlement Commissioner was fully justified because the lower authorities had failed to consider the Mills' evidence. The Court dismissed the petitions, emphasizing that the factual determination regarding the nature of the property must be resolved by the designated Settlement Commissioner upon a proper review of the evidence.
Questions settled- Is the determination of whether a property constitutes part of a larger premises already sold a question of fact?
- Can a High Court remand a case to a Settlement Commissioner when lower authorities fail to consider relevant evidence?
- Does the failure of a quasi-judicial authority to consider material documents justify the setting aside of its transfer order?
- Shaukat Ali And Others vs Muhammad Sharif And Other1989 MLD 4175 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1874 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
- Sharif Pervaiz vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Rawalpindi and 41989 PLC (C.S.) 543 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-04-03Read full judgment →
- Sharif Muhammad vs Khuda Bakhsh Represented By His Legal Heirs And 31989 CLC 2092 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
- Sharif Mohammad vs Khuda Bakhsh EtcK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 160 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-18Read full judgment →
- Sharaf Faridi and 3 others vs The Federation of Islamic Republic of 'Pakistan through Prime Minister of Pakistan and anothers1989 PLD Karachi 404 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two constitutional petitions challenging the executive's administrative control over the subordinate judiciary and the failure to implement the separation of the judiciary from the executive as mandated by the Constitution. The core legal questions were whether the judiciary must be separated from the executive under Article 175(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether Article 203 grants the High Court exclusive administrative and disciplinary control over the subordinate judiciary. The Court held that the constitutional mandate for the separation of the judiciary is binding and that Article 203 vests the High Court with comprehensive, exclusive administrative control over subordinate courts. Consequently, the Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the provincial and federal governments to initiate necessary legislative and administrative measures to bifurcate the magistracy and transfer administrative control to the High Court within six months. The key principle laid down is that the independence of the judiciary is a fundamental constitutional requirement, and the executive cannot exercise administrative or disciplinary authority over judicial officers, as such control is reserved exclusively for the High Court to ensure the rule of law.
Questions settled- Does Article 175(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 mandate the separation of the judiciary from the executive?
- Does Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 grant the High Court exclusive administrative control over the subordinate judiciary?
- Can a High Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the government to initiate legislative measures to implement constitutional provisions?
- Is the administrative control of the executive over the subordinate judiciary violative of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Sharaf Din vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 173 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
- Sharaf Din and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1067 · Lahore High Court · 1988-01-09Read full judgment →
- Shan Muhamivlad vs District Magistrate, Bahawalnagar and others1989 P Cr. L J 554 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-18Read full judgment →
- Shamsuddin And 3 Others vs Deputy Commissioner, Tharparkar And Other1989 MLD 7 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-17Read full judgment →
- Shamsud Din vs Mst. Jiwan and others1989 SCMR 1939 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant against the dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal by the High Court in a suit for inheritance. The core legal questions involve the applicability of customary law versus Shariah regarding an inheritance that opened in 1933, and whether concurrent findings of fact regarding customary law and possession can be re-appraised by the Supreme Court to overcome limitation objections. The Supreme Court held that no law or principle had been violated by the lower appellate courts, and concurrent findings of fact regarding customary law and possession would not be re-appraised, especially where the respondents were correctly granted their share in the inheritance according to the principles of Shariah. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming the inheritance rights of the female heirs.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact on the applicability of customary law can be re-appraised by the Supreme Court?
- Whether findings of fact on possession can help overcome objections relating to limitation in an inheritance suit?
- Whether female heirs are entitled to inheritance according to the principles of Shariah when previous mutations were based on customary law?
- Shamsher Ali vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 520 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-20Read full judgment →
- Shamsher Ali Khan vs MajorGeneral Sher Ali Khan and others1989 SCMR 828 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the decree for possession granted in favour of the respondents. The core legal questions involved whether a certain letter written by the original owner constituted a valid gift of the property, and whether an heir residing in Pakistan could inherit from a predecessor who died as an Indian national while residing in India during a state of war. The Supreme Court held that the letter in question did not contain the necessary ingredients of a valid gift and lacked registration, and further affirmed that under Islamic law, the mere fact that a propositus lived in Dar-ul-Harab while the heir lived in Dar-ul-Islam does not bar inheritance between believers. The key principles laid down are that a valid gift of immovable property requires necessary legal ingredients and registration, and that difference of domicile or residence between Dar-ul-Islam and Dar-ul-Harab does not impede inheritance among Muslim heirs.
Questions settled- Does a letter permitting someone to use a house constitute a valid gift of immovable property under the law?
- Does the residence of a propositus in Dar-ul-Harab and an heir in Dar-ul-Islam bar the heir from inheriting under Islamic law?
- Can a high court be obliged to consider a question of inheritance not put in contest or framed as an issue by the trial court?
- Shamrooz Khan vs Muhabbat Khan and another1989 SCMR 819 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute between two brothers over the transfer of a parcel of land. The appellant alleged that the settlement file, which formed the basis of a transfer in favor of the respondent, was forged and fabricated. Upon receiving this complaint, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner issued a notice to the respondent to investigate the allegations. The respondent challenged this notice in the High Court via a constitutional petition. The High Court, while acknowledging the Tribunal's inherent jurisdiction to undo fraud, preemptively evaluated the record, found no fraud, and quashed the notice. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan considered whether the High Court could preemptively adjudicate a factual matter of fraud within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the custodian of the record is the best judge in the first instance to determine the veracity and genuineness of its own record. Consequently, the High Court erred in preempting the Tribunal's inquiry. The appeal was accepted, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was allowed to proceed with the determination.
Questions settled- Does a Tribunal or Settlement Authority possess the inherent jurisdiction to investigate allegations of fraud and forgery committed on its own record?
- Can the High Court, in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, preemptively adjudicate a factual question of fraud that falls within the jurisdiction of a Tribunal before that Tribunal has determined the issue?
- Shamman vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 704 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →
- Shamir vs Muhammad Afzal and 2 others1989 SCMR 720 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court which acquitted respondents Nos. 1 and 2 of murder charges under Section 302/34, P.P.C. and dismissed the complainant's revision petition for enhancement of sentence. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully established its case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of suppressed injuries on the accused persons and a competing version of self-defence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to provide a straightforward account of the occurrence, suppressed material injuries sustained by the accused, and left the origin of the dispute in doubt, thereby making the defence's plea of exercise of the right of private defence probable. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's acquittal, laying down the principle that mere doubtful narrations by the prosecution cannot sustain a conviction without clear and reliable ocular and circumstantial evidence, and that the suppression of accused injuries severely undermines the prosecution version.
Questions settled- Whether suppression of injuries sustained by the accused during the occurrence reflects adversely on the prosecution version?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the prosecution fails to give a straightforward account of the incident and offers doubtful narrations?
- Does the right of private defence become probable when the prosecution conceals injuries and the occurrence takes place in land possessed by the accused?
- Shamir And Others vs The State1989 MLD 722 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
- Shamim Akhtar vs Muhammad Rasheed1989 PLD Supreme Court 575 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from eviction proceedings initiated by a transferee landlord under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The tenant resisted ejectment by claiming protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 on the strength of a prior agreement to sell executed by the original landlord, in respect of which a suit for specific performance was pending. The High Court granted protection to the tenant under Section 53-A. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, holding that Section 53-A requires that the transferee either take possession or continue in possession in part performance of the contract with an overt act in furtherance thereof. Where a pre-existing tenant's agreement to sell lacks a specific stipulation altering the nature of possession or exempting rent payment, the possession remains that of a tenant. A pending suit for specific performance does not automatically terminate the landlord-tenant relationship or afford Section 53-A protection.
Questions settled- Does a pre-existing tenant who enters into an agreement to sell with the landlord automatically gain protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 without a express stipulation altering the nature of their possession?
- Can a tenant deny the relationship of landlord and tenant in rent eviction proceedings merely by filing a suit for specific performance based on an agreement to sell?
- Does Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 protect a tenant from ejectment where the agreement to sell does not exempt them from paying rent or alter their status as a tenant?
- Shameer and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1256 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellants under sections 399 and 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, handed down by the Special Court for Speedy Trials, Faisalabad. The prosecution alleged that the appellants were apprehended at night on a public road while armed with various firearms and that they had assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity. The core legal question before the court was whether the mere assembly of persons armed with firearms on a thoroughfare, without further evidence of intent or overt acts, is sufficient to establish the offences of preparation for dacoity and assembling for dacoity. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellants made preparations for dacoity or that their assembly was for the purpose of committing dacoity, as mere possession of firearms at a public place is insufficient to establish these specific statutory ingredients. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and ordered the immediate release of the appellants. The key principle laid down is that to sustain a conviction under sections 399 and 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the prosecution must independently prove the specific intention and preparation to commit dacoity, which cannot be presumed merely from the presence of an armed assembly.
Questions settled- Is the mere possession of firearms by a group of persons sufficient to prove preparation for committing dacoity under Section 399 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an assembly of five or more armed persons on a public road alone sustain a conviction under Section 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without evidence of the purpose of the assembly?
- What are the essential ingredients that the prosecution must prove to establish an offence under Section 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Shambilid Ghori and anothers vs Mst. Tayyaba Begum1989 PLD Lahore 478 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
- Shamasuddin and 2 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 825 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
- Shama Enterprises (Private) Ltd vs Malik Ghulam Sarwar And Other1989 MLD 21 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an intra-court appeal directed against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissing the appellant's application for the grant of an ad-interim injunction in a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement. The core legal question was whether the refusal of the ad-interim injunction was justified when the plaintiff-appellant showed unwillingness to deposit the balance of the sale consideration and instead offered to furnish security. The court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that in a suit for specific performance where an injunction is sought regarding the suit property, the court normally orders the deposit of the balance of the sale consideration to ascertain whether the plaintiff is factually ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement. The key principle laid down is that a plaintiff seeking equitable relief such as an injunction in a specific performance suit must demonstrate readiness and willingness by depositing the balance consideration when so required by the court.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff seeking an ad-interim injunction in a suit for specific performance can be required to deposit the balance of the sale consideration?
- Does the refusal to deposit the balance sale consideration justify the dismissal of an injunction application in a specific performance suit?
- What is the standard requirement for a plaintiff seeking equitable relief regarding a suit property under a sale agreement?
- Shakir Habib vs Managing Director, Punjab Small Industries1989 PLC 758 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Shakir Etc. vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 704 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
- Shakir And Others vs The State1989 MLD 2676 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
- Shakil Anjum vs The ST a Te1989 PLD Lahore 432 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-24Read full judgment →
- Shakil Ahmad vs Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala1989 PLC (C.S.) 359 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-09-03Read full judgment →
- Shakil Ahmad And Others vs Shukar Din1989 MLD 3758 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
- Shakeel Ahmad Rashidi vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1475 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-30Read full judgment →
- Shakeel Ahmad And Another vs The State1989 MLD 806 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-18Read full judgment →
- Shakar Ud Din And Another vs Asghar Ali1989 CLC 1751 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
- Shakar Ud Din And Another vs Asghar Ali1989 MLD 2265 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Mushtaq Ali, a Dvoca Te vs Government of Pakistan1989 PLD Federal Shariat Court 60 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-06-15Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Muhammad Anwar and anothers vs Pakistan through the Secretary Ministry of Communication, Islamabad and 2 others1989 PLD Karachi 45 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-27Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Abdul Aziz vs Mirza and 3 others1989 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 78 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
- Shahzada vs Ghulam Muhammad1989 SCMR 1288 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the regular second appeal of the respondent was accepted, setting aside the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts which had dismissed the respondent's suit for specific performance of a contract of sale. Briefly, the petitioner agreed to sell land to the respondent by a deed dated 15 June 1970, with the transaction to be completed by 3 January 1971. The sale was not completed, leading the petitioner to treat the agreement as void, while the respondent instituted a suit for specific performance, claiming readiness to perform despite a portion of the land being acquired by the Highway Department. The trial court and first appellate court dismissed the suit, but the High Court reversed this decision. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the High Court was justified in upsetting concurrent findings of fact regarding the breach and non-performance of the contract by the crucial date.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in setting aside concurrent findings of fact regarding the breach of an agreement to sell?
- Does failure to complete a sale transaction by the stipulated crucial date render the contract void?
- Can a suit for specific performance be maintained when the vendee fails to pay the balance amount by the agreed date?
- Shahzad Alam Mirza vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd.1989 PLC 693 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-03-06Read full judgment →
- Shahwas Khan and others vs Gul Ahmad Textile Mills Ltd. and another1989 PLC 563 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
- Shahmir and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1011 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
- Shahjahan vs The State1989 PLD Federal Shariat Court 17 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
- Shahjahan Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2310 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-10Read full judgment →
- Shahid Zafar and others vs Muhammad Shah and others1989 SCMR 1507 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition regarding a land allotment dispute. The petitioners, who purchased land from the successors of the late Nawabzada Liaqat Ali Khan, sought to claim specific land (Khasra No. 17/1) that had been allotted to the respondent, Muhammad Shafi, against his urban claim. The petitioners argued that based on an earlier order by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, the land in question should have been allotted to their predecessors-in-interest. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners, as purchasers, were bound by the record as it stood in the last Jamabandi and could only pursue remedies available to their predecessors. Furthermore, the High Court declined to investigate allegations of tampering with revenue records, citing that such findings of fact had already been determined by competent authorities. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, ruling that it could not interfere with established findings of fact in the absence of valid grounds to disturb them, and consequently dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can the High Court investigate allegations of tampering with revenue records in a writ petition?
- Are purchasers of land bound by the ownership status reflected in the last Jamabandi?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with findings of fact in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Shahid Mehmood and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1157 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-18Read full judgment →
- Shahid Hussain vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 478 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-07Read full judgment →
- Shahid Ali vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 301 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-13Read full judgment →
- Shahid Ahmad vs Director, P. R. T. C.1989 PLC 269 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-08-04Read full judgment →
- Shaheedur Rehman and 3 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1003 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-13Read full judgment →
- Shahbaz vs The State1989 MLD 4013 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-03Read full judgment →
- Shahbaz Masih vs Zulfioar Alias Zappa And 4 Other1989 MLD 710 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-27Read full judgment →
- Shahbaz Baig vs Bashir Ahmad1989 MLD 3827 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-23Read full judgment →
- Shahbaz Ali vs Judge Family Court and another1989 SCMR 559 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a constitutional writ petition by the High Court, which had challenged a decree of Khula passed in favor of the respondent wife by the Family Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could challenge the dissolution of marriage to obtain a declaration of illegitimacy regarding a child born to the respondent, and whether the proceedings before the Family Court were incompetent in light of the provisions of the Qazf Ordinance. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner's challenge to the Khula decree was motivated by an ulterior motive to brand the child as illegitimate rather than a genuine grievance against the dissolution. The Court observed that the petitioner approached the court with soiled hands and failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional defect in the Family Court's proceedings. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, establishing that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked with ulterior motives or unclean hands to seek collateral, damaging declarations.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge a Khula decree solely for the collateral purpose of establishing the illegitimacy of a child?
- Does an approach to the court with soiled hands and ulterior motives disqualify a petitioner from obtaining discretionary relief under constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether the existence of Section 14 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979 renders dissolution of marriage proceedings before a Family Court incompetent?
- Shahbaz Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 199 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-10Read full judgment →
- Shahb Az Khan vs Poineer Steel Mills Ltd. and another1989 PLC 359 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-10-06Read full judgment →
- Shahadat and others vs Muhammad Hayat and others1989 SCMR 1680 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' civil revision regarding a suit for declaration of title over disputed land. The petitioners, claiming to be the sole sons of the deceased owner, Allah Dad, sought to exclude the respondents, Muhammad Hayat and Sikandar, from the inheritance. The core legal question was whether the respondents were the legitimate sons of Allah Dad, or if they were the sons of another man, Fattu, as the petitioners alleged. The trial court, the District Judge, and the Lahore High Court all concurrently found as a matter of fact that the respondents were indeed the sons of Allah Dad and Mst. Bibi, following her divorce from Fattu and subsequent marriage to Allah Dad. The Supreme Court held that since there was a unanimous finding of fact by the three lower courts regarding the respondents' paternity, there was no ground for interference. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are generally not disturbed in appellate jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts regarding paternity?
- Does the acknowledgment of paternity by a deceased father hold legal weight when the mother was previously married to another man?
- Is a civil revision maintainable against concurrent findings of fact regarding title and inheritance?
- Shahadat Ali and 2 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1683 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-15Read full judgment →
- Shahabuddin. vs Haseena Begum1989 MLD 1852 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-26Read full judgment →
- Shahab Din through Legal Heirs vs Mst. Khudija Begum and others1989 SCMR 1872 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a consolidation matter where the petitioner challenged the Lahore High Court judgment dismissing his writ petition against orders of consolidation authorities. The core legal question is whether a party can challenge a consolidation scheme and claim unauthorized representation after his authorized agent and son actively participated, consented to, and signed the consolidation resolutions and settlement throughout the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner is bound by the conduct of his son who represented him with his implicit authority, especially since the petitioner never appeared personally and had previously accepted similar settlements. The ratio laid down is that a party cannot approbate and reprobate by challenging consolidation proceedings and claiming unauthorized representation when he has accepted benefits under a compromise and when his authorized agent consented to the scheme.
Questions settled- Whether a party can challenge consolidation proceedings on the ground of unauthorized representation when his agent actively participated and signed the settlement?
- Can a petitioner agitate grievances regarding land entitlement that contradict his own conduct and consent given during consolidation proceedings?
- Whether High Court findings based on a minute examination of the consolidation record warrant interference under leave to appeal?
- Shah Pasand vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1966 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
- Shah Nawaz vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 621 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-22Read full judgment →