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.
- Shah Nawaz vs Abdul Razi And Other1989 MLD 2173 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-12Read full judgment →
- Shah Nawaz Solangi vs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd.1989 PLC 324 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-05-31Read full judgment →
- Shah Nawaz Khan vs The Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 329 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-05-17Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad vs The State1989 MLD 2923 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 465 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-29Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 541 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad vs The State1989 MLD 4784 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-22Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad vs Pervaiz Hussain1989 SCMR 789 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a civil dispute over a residential plot, where the respondent filed a suit for possession alleging the petitioner took unauthorized possession. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, a decision that was upheld in appeal by the Additional District Judge and subsequently affirmed by the Lahore High Court through the dismissal of the petitioner's regular second appeal. The core legal question concerns the proper appraisal of evidence regarding ownership and possession of the disputed property. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below regarding the respondent's ownership, supported by documentary evidence including sale-deeds, and the absence of cogent evidence from the petitioner establishing ownership or ancestral right, were unexceptionable. The petition was accordingly dismissed, reaffirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on proper appraisal of evidence will not be interfered with lightly.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below regarding property ownership?
- Is oral assertion of ancestral ownership sufficient without cogent documentary evidence in a suit for possession?
- Whether a regular second appeal can be dismissed when the appellant fails to establish title or lawful possession?
- Shah Muhammad vs Election Tribunal And 3 Other1989 MLD 470 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad Patel vs Haji Waliuddin1989 SCMR 220 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Sind High Court, which allowed a second appeal filed by a landlord, set aside the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and the appellate court, and ordered the tenant to hand over vacant possession of the premises. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal, and whether the tenant had legally established default in the payment of rent and lawful adjustment of municipal taxes. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly concluded that the statutory provisions regarding the adjustment of municipal taxes against rent were not attracted to the facts of the case and that the payment of rent for the disputed period was not proved, thereby making out a clear case of default. The Court affirmed that the High Court was fully competent to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact where the lower courts committed an error in the evaluation of evidence and law. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the lower courts in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the payment of municipal taxes by a tenant automatically absolve them from liability to pay rent without fulfilling the conditions of Section 14 of the Urban Immovable Property Act 1958?
- Whether the acceptance of rent for a subsequent month by money order confirms the payment of rent for preceding periods?
- Shah Muhammad Etc vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 215 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad And Others vs The State And Another1989 MLD 597 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad And Others vs Khan Muhammad And Other1989 CLC 449 · Board of Revenue · 1988-08-17Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad and another vs Haji Muhammad and 6 others1989 SCMR 1420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 26-6-1986, which acquitted the six respondents of charges under sections 148, 302, and 307/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Trial Court had earlier convicted the respondents for murder and causing injuries, sentencing them to various terms of imprisonment including life imprisonment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its re-appraisal of the evidence and in extending the benefit of the doubt to the acquitted respondents. The Supreme Court held that the reasons recorded by the High Court for the acquittal were sound and that the counsel for the petitioners failed to point out any flaw in the appraisal of evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with an acquittal order by the High Court when the appraisal of evidence is sound and no material flaw or legal error is established.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal order when the High Court's appraisal of evidence is sound?
- Does the failure to point out any flaw in the High Court's evaluation of prosecution witnesses warrant the grant of leave to appeal?
- Is an acquittal based on the benefit of the doubt liable to be set aside without establishing a legal error in the reasoning?
- Shah Jehan vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Shariat Cases 9 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
- Shah Jehan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2078 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
- Shah Jahan vs Secretary, Finance Department, N.W.F.P. and 32 others1989 SCMR 1797 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of a service appeal by the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal on the grounds of limitation and merits. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's service appeal before the Tribunal was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the appeal was indeed time-barred and correctly dismissed on that sole ground, rendering any examination of the merits unnecessary. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that when an appeal before a tribunal is established to be time-barred, the tribunal's dismissal on that ground alone is legally sufficient, obviating the need to enter into the merits of the case.
Questions settled- Whether a service appeal dismissed by a Service Tribunal on the ground of limitation warrants interference when found to be time-barred?
- Is it necessary for an appellate court to examine the merits of a case after determining that the underlying appeal was barred by limitation?
- Shah Jahan Khan vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 486 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-10Read full judgment →
- Shah Jahan and 3 others vs Nisar Khan and 7 others1989 SCMR 1110 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the plaintiff side against the dismissal of their Revision Petition by the High Court in a suit for declaration and injunction based on a claim of adverse possession. The core legal questions involve whether concurrent findings of fact regarding adverse possession can be reopened on the grounds of unformatted issues, ostensible gifts, or non-execution of a prior decree by the opposing party. The Supreme Court held that none of the pleas raised justified the grant of leave, finding that the initial entry was not hostile, subsequent possession was never adverse, and the non-execution of an earlier decree by respondents does not establish adverse possession. The court reaffirmed the finality of concurrent findings of fact by lower courts and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding adverse possession be reopened on the ground that an issue regarding estoppel was not properly framed?
- Does the non-execution of a decree by the respondent automatically render the petitioner's continued possession hostile and adverse?
- Whether possession originating from an ostensible gift that was later annulled constitutes adverse possession without a distinct hostile assertion?
- Shah Jahan Alamgir Shahanshah, Advocate vs Haji Muhammad Sharif1989 P Cr. L J 374 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-18Read full judgment →
- Shams vs Winston Bakhsh1989 PLD Lahore 523 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-18Read full judgment →
- Shah Gulzam and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2395 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
- Shah Dad Khan And 7 Others vs Behram Khan And 20 Other1989 CLC 1620 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
- Shah Baig vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 90 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-27Read full judgment →
- Shah Ali vs Muhammad Ibrahim and another1989 P Cr. L J 25 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-29Read full judgment →
- Shah Alam Khan vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 465 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-25Read full judgment →
- Shagufta Begum vs The Income-Tax Officer, Circle-XI, Zone-B, Lahore1989 PLD Supreme Court 360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had challenged a notice issued by an Income-tax Officer under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance for re-opening an assessment. The core legal question was whether a taxpayer can bypass departmental remedies and directly invoke the High Court's writ jurisdiction to challenge a notice of assessment on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that while theoretically, a party might approach the High Court directly if a tribunal lacks jurisdiction, in practice, departmental remedies are often more expeditious. The Court emphasized that litigants should first exhaust normal departmental channels of appeal, revision, and reference unless there is a clear case of mala fides or prejudice. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to raise their objections before the Income-tax Officer, who is expected to decide the jurisdictional issue dispassionately. The Court further clarified that the High Court's previous remarks should not prejudice the departmental proceedings, which are to be decided on their own merits.
Questions settled- Can a taxpayer bypass departmental remedies to challenge an income tax notice directly via a writ petition?
- Does the existence of a jurisdictional challenge allow a party to circumvent the statutory hierarchy of appeal and revision?
- Under what circumstances may a court entertain a writ petition despite the availability of alternative departmental remedies?
- Shagufta Begum vs The Income-Tax Officer, Circle XI, Zone `B', Lahore1989 PTD 544 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court's dismissal of a writ petition challenging a notice issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 for re-opening an earlier assessment. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued without lawful authority and that an aggrieved party could directly invoke the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction when a tribunal's lack of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the record. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that except in cases involving mala fides or systemic prejudice, litigants must first exhaust their speedier departmental remedies before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court emphasized that jurisdictional objections can and should be raised before the departmental officer in the first instance. To prevent prejudice, the Court clarified that the High Court's writ petition shall be deemed dismissed solely on the ground of non-exhaustion of departmental remedies, rendering any other observations in the impugned order non-existent.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner directly invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge an assessment notice without first exhausting available departmental remedies?
- Under what exceptional circumstances, such as allegations of mala fides, is a litigant permitted to bypass departmental remedies and directly approach the High Court?
- How should a departmental officer treat a jurisdictional objection raised by a litigant in response to a statutory notice?
- Shagufta Begum vs The Income Tax Officer Circle-XI, Zone B, LahorePTCL 1989 CL. 695 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition challenging a notice issued by the Income Tax Officer under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance for reopening an assessment. The core legal question concerns whether an aggrieved party can bypass departmental remedies and directly approach the High Court via a writ petition upon the issuance of a notice where jurisdiction is questioned. The Supreme Court held that litigants must first exhaust normal departmental remedies rather than invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court, except in cases of proven mala fides or lack of institutional independence. The Court laid down the principle that premature invocation of constitutional jurisdiction against administrative notices leads to unnecessary delays, and departmental authorities should be allowed to independently and dispassionately examine all objections, including those pertaining to their own jurisdiction, in the first instance.
Questions settled- Whether an aggrieved person can directly approach the High Court through a writ petition against the issuance of a notice without first exhausting departmental remedies?
- Does the requirement to exhaust departmental remedies apply in cases where there are allegations of mala fides or prejudice against the departmental authorities?
- Can a departmental authority examine an objection regarding its own jurisdiction when a party appears before it pursuant to a notice?
- Shafoatullah vs The State1989 MLD 664 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-01Read full judgment →
- Shafique Ahmad vs The State1989 SCMR 1505 (2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed the petitioner's conviction and sentence for rash and negligent driving resulting in death. The petitioner was convicted under sections 304-A and 279 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for an incident involving a trolley collision with a motorcyclist, which resulted in the death of the victim. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts regarding the petitioner's identity as the driver and his culpability for rash and negligent driving warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions, finding no merit in the petitioner's defense that another individual was driving the vehicle. The Court affirmed the lower courts' findings that the petitioner was indeed driving the trolley rashly and negligently at high speed. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, maintaining the sentences while noting that the High Court had already directed the sentences for the two charges to run concurrently and that the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had been granted.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by trial and appellate courts regarding the identity of a driver in a fatal accident case warrant Supreme Court interference?
- Can a sentence for rash and negligent driving be ordered to run concurrently with a sentence for driving a vehicle in a rash or negligent manner?
- Is the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to sentences imposed for rash and negligent driving?
- Shafiq Khan vs The State and another1989 P Cr. L J 2455 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
- Shafiq Ahmad vs Jamiat Icha14 And Other1989 CLC 1356 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
- Shadoo Muhammad Khan vs Ganmoon And 2 Other1989 MLD 4624 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant filed a suit for pre-emption which was initially decreed, but subsequently dismissed after remand. An appeal filed before the District Judge was dismissed on the ground that it had not been presented by a duly authorized person. In the High Court, the core legal question concerned whether defects or omissions in the signing, verification, presentation, or power of attorney relating to plaints, petitions, and memorandum of appeals render them void or merit dismissal. The court held that procedural defects such as non-signing, defective signing, absence of a power of attorney, or improper presentation are merely technical irregularities relating to procedure rather than matters of substance, and they do not furnish a basis for the rejection or dismissal of a plaint, application, or memorandum of appeal since such defects are curable at any stage. The appeal was accordingly accepted and the matter remanded. The key principle laid down is that procedural rules in the Code of Civil Procedure are designed for the advancement of justice and should not be permitted to operate in a manner that defeats the ends of justice.
Questions settled- Does the non-signing or defective signing of a plaint or memorandum of appeal render it a nullity or void?
- Are defects relating to the presentation, signing, and verification of pleadings merely curable procedural irregularities?
- Can a defect in a power of attorney or vakalatnama be rectified or cured subsequently during the proceedings?
- Shadoo alias Shahzado vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1093 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-01Read full judgment →
- Shadi Khan vs Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) and others1989 SCMR 1942 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court regarding the transfer of a plot by the Settlement Authority. The petitioner challenged the decision on the grounds that he was denied an adequate opportunity of hearing, that he was in possession of the plot, and that the respondent was not entitled to the transfer of the plot. The Supreme Court observed that the first two contentions were matters of fact already concluded by the High Court's findings. Regarding the third contention, the Court held that if the petitioner himself was not entitled to the transfer of the plot, he lacked the necessary locus standi to challenge the transfer of that same plot to another party. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming that a party without a valid claim to property cannot challenge the property's transfer to a third party.
Questions settled- Does a petitioner have locus standi to challenge the transfer of a plot to another party if the petitioner themselves is not entitled to the transfer?
- Are findings of fact by the High Court regarding the opportunity of hearing and possession conclusive in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Shabir Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1508 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-29Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Masih And Others vs The State1989 MLD 4643 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Mash vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 694 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Hussain vs Mst. Shahnaz Parveen and another1989 P Cr. L J 1689 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Intra-Court Appeal challenged a Single Judge's order directing the appellant to restore the custody of a minor child to her mother. The appellant contended that the petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 and challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court held that the availability of an alternative remedy before a Guardian Judge does not bar the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly regarding the custody of a minor of tender age. The Court emphasized that the remedy under Section 491 is more efficacious and speedy. Furthermore, the Court found the petition was filed within the proper territorial jurisdiction as the minor was removed from the mother's lawful custody at Arifwala. The Court affirmed the custody order, noting it was without prejudice to the parties' rights to seek final adjudication from a Guardian Judge, and directed that any future custody proceedings be expedited.
Questions settled- Does the availability of an alternative remedy under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 bar a High Court from exercising jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the custody of a minor?
- Can a challenge to territorial jurisdiction be raised for the first time in an Intra-Court Appeal?
- Is the remedy under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 considered more efficacious than proceedings before a Guardian Judge for the custody of a suckling baby?
- Shabbir Hussain and others vs The State1989 SCMR 248 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's order refusing bail to the petitioners in a criminal case involving charges under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the circumstances of the occurrence, the specific allegations in the First Information Report, and the alleged misappreciation of medical evidence by the High Court regarding the number of injuries sustained by the deceased. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's refusal of bail was justified. The Court found that the contention regarding the alleged roping in of an entire family lacked prima facie evidence, and that the High Court's assessment of the overall features of the case, rather than just the medical evidence, was sound. Consequently, the petition for bail was dismissed, affirming the principle that bail is not a matter of right when the overall circumstances of the case, as considered by the High Court, do not support it.
Questions settled- Does the mere allegation that an entire family has been roped into a criminal case constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail?
- Is the High Court's assessment of the overall features of a criminal case sufficient to sustain a refusal of bail, even if there is a dispute regarding the interpretation of medical evidence?
- Can a petition for bail be granted when the petitioners fail to provide prima facie evidence to support their claims of innocence?
- Shabbir Hussain and 3 others vs Punjab Road Transport Corporation1989 PLC 271 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-08-04Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ali Khan vs Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan Ltd.1989 MLD 1144 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-16Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ahmed Khan vs Mst. Maghribi Begum And Another1989 MLD 506 · Sindh High Court · 1987-11-29Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 4988 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-13Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1418 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ahmad vs Deputy Director Food, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 861 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Sh. Nazir Ahmad vs Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore and 2 others1989 SCMR 1217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against an order of the Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal on the grounds that he failed to exhaust departmental remedies and that he had not obtained sanction for his leave. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that the Tribunal's own previous orders acknowledged the petitioner had indeed filed an appeal before the appellate authority, contradicting the finding that he had not availed of departmental remedies. Furthermore, regarding the merits of the case, the Court noted that the petitioner had produced documentary evidence, specifically an order from the Deputy Education Officer, which appeared to grant him leave on private affairs, thereby contradicting the Tribunal's conclusion that his leave was unsanctioned. Finding that these factual discrepancies necessitated a re-examination of the Tribunal's findings, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. The Court held that where a Tribunal's findings on exhaustion of remedies and merits are directly contradicted by the record, the matter requires further judicial review.
Questions settled- Can a Service Tribunal dismiss an appeal for failure to exhaust departmental remedies when the record indicates such an appeal was filed?
- Does the existence of an order granting leave on private affairs contradict a finding of unauthorized absence from duty?
- Is leave to appeal justified when a Service Tribunal's findings are contradicted by the record?
- Sh. Mumtaz Ahmad Through Legal Heir And Others vs Mst. Mubarak1989 MLD 3037 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
- Sh. Muhammad Ya000b Khan vs Municipal Committee and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 837 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-31Read full judgment →
- Sh. Muhammad Sharif and another vs Province of Punjab1989 SCMR 1783(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a Civil Revision by the High Court concerning the execution of a decree for possession of urban land. The petitioners, having purchased a plot of land at a public auction, initiated a suit for possession of a disputed portion of that land, which they successfully obtained a decree for. During execution proceedings, the Government resisted, arguing the disputed area was part of a bungalow occupied by the Superintending Engineer of the Irrigation Department and had been excluded from the auction. The High Court upheld this objection, leading to the dismissal of the petitioners' Civil Revision. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the petitioners retained the vast majority of the auctioned land and that the price for the disputed portion was being refunded. Consequently, the Court held that it was not a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal, as enforcing the decree would improperly require the dispossession of a government-occupied structure. The petition was dismissed accordingly.
Questions settled- Is a decree for possession of land executable when the disputed portion comprises a government-occupied structure?
- Can a court refuse leave to appeal when the petitioners have already received a refund for the disputed portion of the auctioned land?
- Sh. Muhammad Riaz Diwana Through His Legal Heirs vs Sh. Muhammad1989 MLD 3663 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
- Sh. Muhammad Mazhar Ul Haq vs Sh. Ijazulhaq And, Other1989 MLD 3522 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-27Read full judgment →
- Sh. Muhammad Ibrahim Kohli vs Additional District Judge, And Other1989 CLC 49 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-16Read full judgment →
- Sh. Manzoor Ahmad and others vs Mst. Iqbal Begum and others1989 SCMR 949 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, successors-in-interest of the property owner, sought the eviction of the respondent on the grounds of default in rent payment under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The respondent denied the landlord-tenant relationship, claiming possession based on part performance of a contract of sale with the previous owner. The Rent Controller ruled in favor of the petitioners, but the District Judge and the High Court subsequently ruled against them, citing the need to establish title in a civil court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and allowed the petition. The Court held that the petitioners' title was established via a registered sale deed, and the respondent's mere agreement to sell did not create an interest in or charge on the property under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, does not protect a party who has not filed a suit for specific performance against a subsequent transferee for consideration. The eviction order was restored.
Questions settled- Does an agreement of sale regarding immovable property create an interest in or charge on such property?
- Can a tenant rely on Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to resist eviction without having filed a suit for specific performance?
- Does a registered sale deed establish title sufficient to maintain an eviction petition under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Under what circumstances must a landlord be directed to establish title in a civil court before seeking eviction?
- Sh. Mahmood Ahmad vs Secretary to Government of Punjab and others1989 SCMR 1440 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge an award made against him under the Co-operative Societies Act in favour of the Khanewal Central Co-operative Bank Limited, alleging that the Bank had misappropriated the sale proceeds of his mortgaged factory and immovable property given as security for a loan. The departmental authorities had previously rejected this contention after evaluating the evidence, and the High Court declined to interfere with this concurrent finding of fact in writ jurisdiction. Upon hearing the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court found no error in the High Court's refusal to interfere with the factual findings of the departmental authorities. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that findings of fact determined by departmental authorities and upheld by the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction will not be disturbed.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with a finding of fact determined by departmental authorities under writ jurisdiction?
- Whether a petitioner can challenge an award made under the Co-operative Societies Act by raising disputed questions of fact in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Sh. Haneefurrehman vs Muhammad Jalaluddin1989 SCMR 1593 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a compromise application filed by the learned counsel for the parties in an appeal arising from an ejectment proceeding. The core legal question concerns whether an appeal against an ejectment order can be disposed of in terms of an out-of-court amicable settlement wherein the respondent undertakes not to execute the ejectment order and consents to setting aside the impugned orders. The Supreme Court accepted the compromise between the parties, allowing the appeal and setting aside both the impugned judgment of the High Court and the impugned order of the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the appellant. The key principle laid down is that appellate proceedings involving ejectment orders can be resolved and disposed of by the consent of the parties based on a lawful out-of-court compromise.
Questions settled- Can an appeal against an ejectment order be allowed by consent based on an out-of-court compromise between the parties?
- Whether the Supreme Court can set aside impugned judgments and eviction orders pursuant to a settlement reached between the parties outside the Court?
- Sh. Ehsan Ellahi vs Mehar Elahi1989 MLD 510 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-01Read full judgment →
- Sh. Asghar Ali vs District Judge, Sahiwal and others1989 SCMR 783 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as an ejectment application filed by the respondent against the petitioner regarding a shop, based on grounds of default and personal need. The Rent Controller struck off the petitioner's defence under Section 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance due to the petitioner's failure to deposit rent arrears for May and June 1983. This order was upheld by the District Judge in appeal, and subsequently, the Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition challenging these orders. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner merely reiterated contentions already repelled by the High Court and failed to raise any new grounds. Finding that no substantial question of law of public importance was involved in the petition, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal. The judgment affirms the finality of the concurrent findings of the lower courts in the absence of any significant legal question requiring Supreme Court intervention.
Questions settled- Does the failure to deposit rent arrears as ordered by a Rent Controller justify the striking off of a tenant's defence?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when it merely reiterates contentions already rejected by the High Court?
- What constitutes a substantial question of law of public importance sufficient to grant leave to appeal in a rent matter?
- Sh. Abdul Aziz vs Bashir Ahmad1989 CLC 103 · Lahore High Court · 1988-03-16Read full judgment →
- SH a HN Awa Z vs Amir Muhammad and others1989 PLD Lahore 209 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
- Sevenup Bottling (Pvt.) Ltd. and 13 others vs The Collector, Central1989 PLD Lahore 81 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-02Read full judgment →
- Seven Up Bottling (Pvt) Ltd. And Thirteen Other vs The Collector CentralPTCL1989 CL. 127 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Settlement Commissioner (L) and anothers vs Mauj Din and others1989 SCMR 1351 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These connected appeals arise from a long-standing dispute concerning land previously held by non-Muslim members of criminal tribes, which was subsequently occupied by Muslim members of the said tribes and later allotted to refugees. The core legal questions examined the competency of Intra-Court Appeals against orders passed under repealed laws, whether the disputed property was properly acquired and formed part of the compensation pool under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and whether the land vested in the Provincial Government under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. The Supreme Court held that the Intra-Court Appeal before the High Court was incompetent because the notified authority decided the matter under a repealed law that provided for specific remedies, precluding an Intra-Court Appeal pursuant to settled jurisprudence. On the merits, the Court held that the land in question had been validly treated as evacuee property and covered by the acquisition notifications under the land settlement laws. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the judgment of the High Court's Appeal Bench was set aside, and the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the constitutional petitions was restored.
Questions settled- Whether an Intra-Court Appeal is competent against an order passed by a notified authority under a repealed law where no provision for such appeal exists?
- Whether land abandoned by non-Muslim members of criminal tribes constitutes evacuee property forming part of the compensation pool under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
- What is the effect of a notification under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 on evacuee land occupied by members of criminal tribes?
- Whether long-standing possession by Muslim members of criminal tribes exempts land from being treated as evacuee property for rehabilitation and settlement purposes?
- Seth Saifullah vs Appellate Tribunal and 3 others1989 PLD Peshawar 36 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-10-23Read full judgment →
- Seth Banarsi Das Gupta vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi1989 PTD 171 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-04-29Read full judgment →
- Senior Member, Board of Revenue, N.W.F.P. and another vs Sardar Abdur1989 SCMR 1560 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, whereby the respondent's service appeal concerning promotion and seniority was allowed. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by directly ordering the promotion and seniority of the respondent instead of remanding the matter for consideration by the competent departmental authority. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by usurped the function of the competent authority, particularly when the department had agreed to consider the respondent's case for promotion and the respondent had merely prayed for his case to be placed before the Departmental Examination Committee. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, modifying the Tribunal's order to direct the consideration of the respondent's case by the relevant departmental committee.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal can directly order the promotion of a civil servant instead of remanding the matter to the competent authority?
- Does the Service Tribunal exceed its jurisdiction by determining seniority and granting promotion when the prayer in the departmental appeal was only for consideration of eligibility?
- Can the Service Tribunal usurp the functions of the departmental promotion committee?
- Seemab Academy vs Quaideazam Memorial Fund Board And Other1989 MLD 13 · Sindh High Court · 1988-04-04Read full judgment →
- Secretary/General Manager, Colony Cooperative Farming Union Ltd.,1989 PLC 108 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Seabana Enterprises vs The Income-Tax Officer Circle XVII a S T Zone, Karachi and 3 others1989 PTD 687 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-25Read full judgment →
- Sayyed Ali Hussain Shah And Others vs Town Committee And Other1989 MLD 1982 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-20Read full judgment →
- Sattu Khan and anothers vs The State1989 SCMR 985 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning convictions under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, originating from a fatal land dispute. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the appellants acted in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence of person and property without exceeding it. The core legal question was whether the complainant party or the appellants held lawful possession of the disputed land at the time of the occurrence and whether the appellants were entitled to the right of self-defence after sustaining injuries during an attempt to forcibly oust them. The Supreme Court held that the evidence established that the appellants were in possession of the property and were attacked first by the complainant party, thus vesting the right of private defence in the appellants rather than the trespassers. The Court laid down that mere temporary ploughing by a trespasser does not confer a right of private defence upon them or extinguish the owner's right to defend their property and person against forcible ouster.
Questions settled- Does the mere temporary ploughing of land by a trespasser constitute effective possession so as to confer a right of private defence upon the trespasser?
- Whether an owner in possession of land retains the right of private defence of person and property when confronted with a forcible attempt to oust them.
- Does receiving multiple injuries prior to firing establish that an accused acted in the valid exercise of the right of self-defence without exceeding it?
- Sarwar vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 756 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-29Read full judgment →
- Sarwar Sultana and 5 others vs Ilam Din and 3 others1989 PLD Supreme Court 371 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court order restoring a writ petition that had been dismissed for non-prosecution. The High Court had accepted a review application filed by the respondents, condoned the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908, and restored the writ petition for regular hearing. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the High Court erred in condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 and whether a counsel's genuine mistake in estimating the time required to reach a court constitutes sufficient cause for recalling a dismissal order passed in their absence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's exercise of discretion in condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 was free from legal error. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed the principle that where a counsel commits an innocent, genuine mistake in estimating timings while attending to another bench within the same court premises, such absence constitutes a valid and sufficient reason to recall the dismissal order and restore the case.
Questions settled- Whether a counsel's genuine mistake in estimating timings while appearing before another bench of the same court constitutes sufficient cause for restoring a petition dismissed for non-prosecution?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the discretionary power of the High Court to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 in the absence of an error of law or principle?
- Sarwar And Another vs The State1989 MLD 841 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-06Read full judgment →
- Sarfraz Khan vs The State1989 MLD 2794 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-25Read full judgment →
- Sarfraz Khan vs The State1989 MLD 4981 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
- Sarfraz alias Sharfa and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1854 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-04Read full judgment →
- Sarfraz Alam vs Government of Sind and 2 others1989 P Cr. L J 633 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-20Read full judgment →
- Sarfaraz Ahmed vs Government of Sindh through the HomeK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 30 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Sareed Khan vs The State1989 PLD Peshawar 80 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
- Sardar vs The State1989 MLD 842 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-14Read full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad vs The Settlement Commissioner, Peshawar1989 PLD Peshawar 155 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-22Read full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad vs The Chief Administrator, Auqaf1989 PLC (C.S.) 262 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad vs Muhammad Hafiz and another1989 SCMR 1941(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the High Court exercising its writ jurisdiction in a dispute regarding the appointment of a Lambardar. Upon examining the merits of the case, the Supreme Court determined that the High Court had correctly declined to interfere in the matter. The Supreme Court upheld the decision, noting that the High Court's refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction in the context of a Lambardari appointment was consistent with established legal precedents, specifically citing the principle laid down in Sharaf Din v. Qazi Abdul Jalil and another (1986 SCMR 1368). Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, thereby affirming the High Court's stance that such administrative appointments generally fall outside the scope of writ jurisdiction. The judgment reinforces the principle of judicial restraint regarding the interference of superior courts in administrative appointments of this nature.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the authority to exercise writ jurisdiction in matters concerning the appointment of a Lambardar?
- Is the appointment of a Lambardar a suitable subject for interference by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction?
- Sardar Muhammad vs Addl. District Judge And Other1989 MLD 4879 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-25Read full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan vs The Azad Jammu and Kashmir1989 PLD AzadJ&K 1 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-04-06Read full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad Aslam vs Raja Muhammad Karamatullah1989 CLC 60 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-21Read full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad Anwar Khan vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir1989 PLC (C.S.) 16 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1987-12-15Read full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad and others vs Member (Cons.), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others1989 SCMR 308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court in a consolidation case. The core legal question concerns whether the Haveli in dispute, being originally an evacuee property in the possession of the petitioners, stood automatically transferred to them under Settlement Scheme No. VII without requiring a formal order or payment. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the automatic transfer of the evacuee property under Settlement Scheme No. VII require deeper examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the legal aspects surrounding the automatic disposal of evacuee property and directed that the appeal be heard along with other similar cases.
Questions settled- Whether an evacuee property in possession of a party stands automatically transferred under Settlement Scheme No. VII without a formal order or payment?
- Can a Haveli claimed as evacuee property be included in the consolidation pool?
- Does Settlement Scheme No. VII dispense with the need for making payment for the transfer of evacuee property?
- Sardar Muha.Mmad vs The State1989 MLD 851 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
- Sardar Khan vs Muhammad Hanif and others1989 SCMR 500 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 7th October 1984, which accepted the respondents' writ petition. The respondents had been acquitted of charges under Sections 307, 109, 148, 149, and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by a Magistrate. The complainant filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, who set aside the acquittal and remanded the case for retrial on the ground that the trial was vitiated due to the omission to frame a charge. The Lahore High Court accepted the respondents' writ petition challenging that order. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine questions regarding whether an omission to frame a charge alone warrants setting aside an acquittal at the instance of a complainant, whether the Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction to set aside an acquittal and order retrial under Section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the High Court judgment should be disturbed.
Questions settled- Whether by omission to frame a charge, alone the acquittal could have been set aside on the asking of the complainant party?
- Whether the Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to set aside acquittal and order retrial under section 439-A, Cr.P.C.?
- Whether the High Court judgment notwithstanding any legal defect should be disturbed?
- Sardar Khan vs Mst. Irshad Begum and others1989 SCMR 1374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's challenge to the acquittal of the respondents. The core legal question concerns whether the concurrent findings of acquittal recorded by the courts below warranted interference by the Supreme Court on grounds of alleged misreading of evidence. The Supreme Court held that both lower courts properly appraised the evidence on record, found no misreading of the record, and declined to order a retrial nearly nine years after the alleged occurrence. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal based on a proper appraisal of evidence where no misreading of the record is established.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal based on an appraisal of evidence?
- Does a misreading of the record justify setting aside an acquittal and ordering a retrial?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be maintained against the dismissal of a special leave petition by the High Court in a criminal matter?
- Sardar Khan vs Government of the Punjab1989 MLD 900 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
- Sardar Khan vs Abdul Ghani1989 MLD 3656 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
- Sardar Khan and others vs The State1989 SCMR 624 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Three criminal petitions were filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the conviction of the petitioner Sardar Khan under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while altering his sentence of death to life imprisonment. The prosecution case alleged that the convict inflicted fatal hatchet blows on the deceased due to previous enmity and a recent altercation regarding trespassing cattle. The core legal question concerned the reliability of ocular testimony, the corroboration through weapon recovery, and the appropriateness of the sentence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the eye-witnesses provided a consistent version, the recovery of the blood-stained hatchet corroborated the prosecution case, and the High Court had exercised valid discretion in commuting the death sentence based on strained relations and background enmity. The petitions for leave to appeal were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether ocular testimony corroborated by the recovery of a weapon is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can long-standing enmity and strained relations serve as a mitigating circumstance to alter a sentence of death to life imprisonment?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the sentence reduction discretion exercised by the High Court when the sentence awarded is legal and adequately reasoned?
- Sardar Khan And Others vs Ghulam Sarwar And Other1989 MLD 1089 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →
- Sardar Khan and others vs Abdur Rahim and others1989 SCMR 569 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant of urban property against a High Court judgment that allowed the landlords' constitutional petition and restored an ejectment order originally passed by the Rent Controller. The core legal questions addressed were whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the landlord's bona fide requirement and whether an agreement to sell, executed between the landlord and a third party during the pendency of the writ petition, should invalidate the ejectment order. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment contained no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error. The Court affirmed that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in evaluating the evidence regarding the landlord's bona fide requirement and in determining whether to consider subsequent developments, such as the alleged agreement to sell, during the writ proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's decision and refused leave to appeal, thereby upholding the ejectment order.
Questions settled- Does an agreement to sell executed during the pendency of a writ petition automatically invalidate a prior ejectment order?
- Is it within the discretionary power of the High Court to ignore or notice developments occurring during the pendency of a writ petition?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment on the basis of alleged misreading of evidence regarding the bona fide requirement of a landlord?
- Sardar Khan And Another vs Sh. Atta Ullah And 10 Other1989 CLC 1845 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-07-04Read full judgment →
- Sardar Jahangir Khan and others vs Nasrullah1989 SCMR 752 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a dispute over the transfer of a house under settlement laws. The core legal question was whether the respondent, Nasrullah, had validly filed a transfer form entitling him to the disputed property, which had otherwise been validly auctioned and confirmed in favor of the predecessor of the appellants. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the findings of the departmental authorities, as the record clearly established that the respondent's alleged transfer form was undated, unrecorded in the official register, and surreptitiously placed on the file at a later stage, whereas a vested right had already accrued to the auction-purchaser. The ratio decidendi is that a party cannot claim entitlement to the transfer of property based on a dubious, unrecorded form introduced belatedly after the property has been lawfully auctioned to a third party. The court laid down the principle that concurrent departmental findings regarding the absence of a validly filed application in official registers cannot be lightly interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether a High Court can interfere with findings of settlement authorities regarding the validity of a transfer form when supported by official registers?
- Does an auction-purchaser acquire a vested right that cannot be defeated by a belatedly introduced transfer form?
- Whether the absence of an entry in the official receipt register undermines the authenticity of a settlement transfer form?