Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Sardar Ikramullah Khan vs Haji Attaullah Khan And Other1989 MLD 4882 · Election Tribunal · 1988-04-19Read full judgment →
• Sardar Arif Rashid Etc. vs Agricultural Secretary, Government of Punjab AndotherK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases383 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sardar Ali vs The State1989 SCMR 628 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-30
  death sentencemitigating circumstancescriminal appealmurder convictionleave to appealprovocation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner, Sardar Ali, for the murder of Muhammad Ismail. The petitioner was originally convicted under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside charges under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to a reduction in his death sentence based on the argument that the motive for the crime arose from a sudden altercation regarding the disposal of foul water, which allegedly provoked the petitioner. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the deceased was not involved in the prior dispute and had merely intervened to stop the petitioner from abusing women. The Court found no extenuating circumstances to justify a lesser punishment, affirming that the petitioner's actions were unprovoked by the deceased. The principle laid down is that a sudden, minor altercation involving third parties does not constitute a mitigating factor for reducing a death sentence when the victim was not a participant in the initial dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Does a prior altercation between third parties regarding a minor dispute constitute a mitigating circumstance for the reduction of a death sentence?
  • Can a petitioner claim provocation for a murder when the deceased was not a party to the initial dispute?
  • Is the Supreme Court required to grant leave to appeal when the lower court has properly evaluated the evidence and found no extenuating circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali Masood Raza Qazilbash vs Inspecting Assistant1989 PLC (C.S.) 473 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali Etc vs Mukhtar BegumK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 47 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-15Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali and others vs Mukhtar Begum (deceased) represented by L.Rs,1989 PLD Lahore 142 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sardar Ali and others vs Muhammad Ali and others1989 SCMR 1079 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-25
  pre-emptionsuperior right of pre-emptionprinciple of sinkerinheritancecause of actioncivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal concerns a pre-emption suit involving land purchased by the appellants. The core legal question is whether the respondents (pre-emptors) possessed a superior right of pre-emption at the time of the sale, and whether the principle of sinker applies when a qualified pre-emptor joins with non-qualified persons in a suit. The Supreme Court held that the right of pre-emption must vest in the pre-emptor at the time of the sale. Because the respondents were not owners in the estate at the time of the sale and only acquired interest through inheritance afterward, they lacked the necessary superior right. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that when a qualified pre-emptor joins with strangers in a suit, the entire suit is defeated by the principle of sinker. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the trial and appellate courts' dismissal of the suit. The key principle laid down is that a pre-emptor cannot improve their status after the sale through subsequent inheritance, and the joinder of non-qualified persons with qualified ones in a pre-emption suit results in the failure of the entire claim.

  Questions settled

  • Does a pre-emptor have a superior right of pre-emption if they acquire ownership of the estate through inheritance after the date of the sale?
  • Does the principle of sinker apply when a qualified pre-emptor joins with non-qualified persons in a pre-emption suit?
  • Is the right of pre-emption heritable such that a successor can exercise the right if the original owner did not exercise it during their lifetime?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarang vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 517 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-18Read full judgment →
• Sarang vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2352 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-18Read full judgment →
• Sanwal vs Khadim Hussain and another1989 P Cr. L J 469 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
• Sanjay Suri And Another vs Delhi Administration, Delhi And Another1989 MLD 1249 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-12-09Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah. Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Begum Safiya Agha And 3 Other1989 MLD 1963 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-03Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1743 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah Butt vs Government of Pakistan and 3 others1989 PLD Lahore 318 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
• Samual Masih vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 693 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-17Read full judgment →
• Samiullah Ghauri vs Secretary, Population Welfare Division and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 139 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
• Samiuddin Qureshi vs Collector of Customs1989 PLD Supreme Court 335 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-25
  misconductdismissal from serviceno evidenceconjecture and suspiciondisciplinary proceedingscivil servantburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from an appeal filed by a Preventive Officer of Customs challenging his dismissal from service on charges of corruption and misconduct under the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973. The core legal question was whether disciplinary proceedings and an order of removal could be sustained in the absence of positive evidence, solely on the basis of presumptions, conjectures, and suspicions. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of dismissal, and reinstated the appellant. The Court held that an order of dismissal of a civil servant for misconduct, being a serious matter that ruins a career, must be based on tangible and positive evidence rather than mere surmise or suspicion. The key principle laid down is that a finding in disciplinary proceedings is vitiated and liable to be quashed if it is based on 'no evidence', and conjecture or suspicion can never take the place of legal proof.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of dismissal for misconduct against a civil servant can be sustained when it is based on mere conjecture, surmise, or suspicion rather than positive evidence?
  • Does a finding in administrative disciplinary proceedings based on no legal evidence warrant interference by the superior courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Samiuddin And Another vs The State1989 MLD 4985 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-27Read full judgment →
• Samar Khan and 6 others vs Safdar and 9 others1989 PLD Peshawar 102 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-01Read full judgment →
• Samandar Khan vs Nawab Khan and others1989 SCMR 760 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-03
  pre-emptionconditional decreeZar-e-Panjamwithdrawal of depositattorney authorityabandonment of claimdismissal of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court which had upheld a revision order restoring a pre-emption decree in favour of the respondent. The respondent had initially filed a pre-emption suit, which was decreed conditionally, requiring the deposit of the balance sale price by a specific date, failing which the suit would stand dismissed. Subsequently, the respondent’s attorney withdrew the deposited 'Zar-e-Panjam' (one-fifth of the sale price), effectively abandoning the decree. Although the respondent later claimed this withdrawal was fraudulent and collusive, seeking to deposit the full amount, the Additional Commissioner had dismissed the suit. The Supreme Court held that the respondent was bound by the actions of his attorney and counsel, who had signed the withdrawal application. The Court determined that by unconditionally withdrawing the deposit and failing to fulfill the condition of the decree by the specified date, the respondent had expressly abandoned his rights. Consequently, the suit stood dismissed. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring the Additional Commissioner’s order dismissing the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withdrawal of the 'Zar-e-Panjam' deposit by a pre-emptor after a conditional decree has been passed result in the dismissal of the suit?
  • Is a party bound by an application filed and signed by their attorney and advocate?
  • Can a pre-emptor who has withdrawn the 'Zar-e-Panjam' deposit and failed to comply with the terms of a conditional decree subsequently seek to deposit the full amount to revive the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Salimullah Khan and 10 others vs Raqib Khan and 15 others1989 SCMR 1879 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-23
  seniority listservice rulescivil servantsstatutory forceencadrizationpromotionN.-W.F.P. Civil Servants Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the determination of seniority among Executive Engineers in the N.-W.F.P. Irrigation and Public Health Engineering Department. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal correctly invalidated the seniority list and whether the N.-W.F.P. Engineering Service Rules, 1973, were validly enacted and applicable. The Supreme Court held that the 1973 Rules were competently framed by the Provincial Government, as the Chief Minister and Ministers were authorized to act in the Governor's name under the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Governor’s order of 17-5-1972, which encadrized various categories of engineers, possessed statutory force. The Court ruled that the Service Tribunal erred in its approach by ignoring these validly framed rules and the Governor's orders. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, directing that the seniority list be redrawn in accordance with the 1973 Rules, which provided specific seniority benefits to Assistant Executive Engineers but did not displace the appellants who had entered service significantly earlier. The principle established is that validly framed service rules govern seniority, overriding claims of vested rights based on previous, superseded rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the N.-W.F.P. Engineering Service Rules, 1973, were validly framed and possessed statutory force despite not being published in the official gazette?
  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to a particular seniority in a service or cadre?
  • Can the Governor's order regarding the encadrization of engineers be considered to have statutory force under the Constitution?
  • Does the promotion of an officer in an officiating capacity constitute a regular appointment for the purpose of determining seniority?
  Read full judgment →
• Salimco Laboratories and others vs The Drug Inspector, Lahore1989 P Cr. L J 566 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-19Read full judgment →
• Salim Ullah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 641 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-01Read full judgment →
• Salim Ali And Another vs The State And 2 Other1989 MLD 1676 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
• Salim Ahmad Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1118 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-04Read full judgment →
• Salfi Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Muhammad Ramzan and another1989 PLC 124 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-01Read full judgment →
• Salehon Muhammad and another vs Allah Yar1989 SCMR 540 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-29
  leave to appealcivil revisionpre-emptionestoppelprocedural irregularityconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal filed by vendees challenging the dismissal of their Civil Revisions by the High Court. The petitioners raised two primary contentions: first, a procedural objection regarding the trial court's practice of recording evidence in one case and copying it into a connected matter, and writing a judgment in one case while reproducing it in another; and second, a substantive argument regarding the bar of estoppel against the respondent pre-emptor, citing the precedent of Naseer Ahmad v. Arshad Ahmad (PLD 1984 SC 403). The Supreme Court held that regarding the procedural objection, the petitioners failed to demonstrate that they objected to the trial court's mode of recording evidence at the time, and further noted that technical irregularities in judgment writing do not warrant leave to appeal where the questions involved are identical. Regarding the estoppel argument, the Court found the facts of the present case distinguishable from the cited precedent. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Does the practice of copying evidence and judgments between connected cases constitute a sufficient ground for granting leave to appeal?
  • Can a party challenge the mode of recording evidence if no objection was raised before the trial court?
  • Are concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the applicability of estoppel subject to re-examination by the Supreme Court if the facts are distinguishable from precedent?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleh00n vs Muhammad Hussain and others1989 PLD Revenue 18 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1988-10-12Read full judgment →
• Saleh vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Shariat Cases 29 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-30Read full judgment →
• Saleh vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2359 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-30Read full judgment →
• Saleem vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1319 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-27Read full judgment →
• Saleem Cigarettes Industries Ltd. vs The Examiner of Trade Marks and 21989 PLD Peshawar 197 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
• Salamat Masih vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Labour and Service Cases -17 · Lahore High Court · 1988-02-03Read full judgment →
• Salamat Masih vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1989 PLC 7 · Lahore High Court · 1988-02-08Read full judgment →
• Salamat Ali vs Tariq & Company1989 SCMR 1349 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-10
  civil revisioncompromise decreecounsel authorityremand of caseleave to appealfailure to produce evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld a trial court decree. The trial court had originally decreed the respondent's suit due to the petitioner's failure to produce evidence, applying Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Subsequently, the parties entered into a compromise during the appellate stage, wherein the petitioner agreed to deposit the decretal amount and costs in exchange for the case being remanded for the presentation of his evidence. Upon the petitioner's failure to fulfill the deposit condition, he sought to challenge the compromise, alleging his counsel lacked authority to enter into it. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had adequately addressed this factual contention and that no error was present in the lower court's approach. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that a party cannot avoid a compromise agreement by belatedly questioning their counsel's authority when the factual basis for such a claim is unsubstantiated.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party challenge a compromise agreement on the grounds of lack of counsel authority after failing to fulfill the agreed conditions?
  • Does the failure to produce evidence at the trial stage justify the application of Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a High Court's finding on the factual authority of counsel to enter into a compromise subject to interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Salamat Ali and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 978 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-06-05Read full judgment →
• Salahuddin Butt and others vs Punjab Service Tribunal and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 597 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-01
  service tribunalenhancement of penaltydisciplinary proceedingsappellate powercivil servantCode of Civil Proceduredepartmental appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants, Excise and Taxation Inspectors, were initially penalized with the withholding of two increments for inefficiency and misconduct. Following departmental appeals, the Punjab Service Tribunal, during the hearing of their appeals, issued show-cause notices for the enhancement of this penalty. The Tribunal subsequently dismissed their appeals and enhanced the penalty to dismissal from service, relying on its powers under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal, in an appeal filed by a civil servant, possesses the authority to enhance a penalty imposed by the departmental authority in the absence of a cross-appeal or a grievance by the department. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in enhancing the penalty. It ruled that the power under Order XLI, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is intended to be exercised beneficially to adjust rights and prevent injustice, not to impose harsher penalties upon an appellant. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's enhancement order and restored the original minor penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Service Tribunal have the authority to enhance a disciplinary penalty imposed on a civil servant during the pendency of an appeal filed by that civil servant?
  • Can the power of an appellate court under Order XLI, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be exercised to impose a harsher penalty on an appellant?
  • Is the power of a Service Tribunal to vary or modify an order under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974 unfettered?
  Read full judgment →
• Salahuddin And 4 Others vs Additional District Judge, Kohat And 21989 CLC 1658 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-30Read full judgment →
• Salahuddin and 16 others vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary Education and 38 others1989 SCMR 552 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-09
  service seniorityprovincializationministerial staffdepartmental advicestatutory interpretationservice tribunalcontinuous officiation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a service matter regarding the determination of seniority for ministerial staff transferred from Local Councils to the Provincial Government. The core legal question was whether the appellants were entitled to count their seniority in their respective grades from the date of their continuous officiation, or from the date of their merger into the Government Education Department on 1st July 1962. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Service Tribunal. The Court held that the appellants' seniority must be reckoned from the date of their provincialization (1-7-1962) rather than their prior continuous officiation. The Court established that administrative advice or departmental opinions cannot override statutory provisions or formal government decisions made by the competent authority. Furthermore, service rendered under a previous employer cannot be counted as Government service for seniority purposes unless specifically provided for by law. The governing Ordinance did not authorize seniority based on continuous officiation, rendering the appellants' claim legally unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ministerial staff transferred from Local Councils to the Government are entitled to count seniority from the date of their continuous officiation in their grades?
  • Can departmental advice or opinion override a formal government decision or statutory provision regarding seniority?
  • Does the West Pakistan Primary Education Ordinance 1962 authorize the counting of prior service for seniority purposes upon provincialization?
  Read full judgment →
• Salahud Din vs Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary, Education and 84 others1989 SCMR 1210 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-11
  service appealseniority disputeleave to appealservice tribunalprecedent
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a Lecturer challenging an order of the Service Tribunal, N.-W.F.P., which dismissed his service appeal regarding a dispute over seniority. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is to determine the impact and applicability of the precedent established in the case of Muhammad Rahim, Lecturer and 28 others v. Muhammad Aurangzeb, Lecturer and 94 others (1986 SCMR 873) on the petitioner's seniority claim. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the counsel, granted leave to appeal, holding that the case requires a detailed examination of the aforementioned precedent in relation to the petitioner's circumstances. The Court directed that the appeal be prepared on the existing record, with liberty granted to the parties to submit any additional documents deemed necessary for the final adjudication of the dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Does the judgment in Muhammad Rahim v. Muhammad Aurangzeb (1986 SCMR 873) govern the seniority dispute of the petitioner?
  • Is a service appeal regarding seniority subject to further review by the Supreme Court upon the grant of leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sakhi Muhammad vs Munshi Khan1989 CLC 1794 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-20Read full judgment →
• Sakhawat Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1104 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
• Sakhawat Ali vs The State1989 MLD 4982 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-22Read full judgment →
• Sajwara and others vs Federal Government of Pakistan1989 PLD Federal Shariat Court 80 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-06-29Read full judgment →
• Sajwara And Another vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Criminal Cases 438 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Silk and Rayon Mills vs Assistant Collector of Customs And 21989 MLD 1792 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain vs The State1989 SCMR 627 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-30
  leave to appealquantum of sentencemitigating circumstancesdeath sentencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction and death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Sadiq. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether mitigating circumstances existed to warrant a reduction of the sentence of death to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that no extenuating circumstances existed, noting that the petitioner had no right to object to the marriage of his niece to the deceased in the presence of her father and had inflicted seven fatal injuries upon the deceased. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and the death sentence confirmed. The key principle laid down is that the absence of mitigating circumstances, coupled with the brutal nature of the attack and lack of justification for the offender's grievance, justifies the confirmation of the death penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of mitigating circumstances justifies the confirmation of a death sentence for murder?
  • Can a paternal uncle claim a right to object to the marriage of his niece when her father has consented?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain vs Musarat Hussain Shah and others1989 SCMR 1826 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-05
  consent decreelimitation pleaestoppelcompetency of appealremand orderpre-emption suitwaiver of limitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the validity of an appellate court's decision to remand a suit for consideration of a limitation plea after a consent decree had already been passed by the trial court. The core legal question was whether a defendant, having entered into a compromise agreement in the trial court, is estopped from subsequently challenging the suit as time-barred in appeal, and whether such an appeal is competent under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's judgment was a consent decree, and under Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, no appeal lies against such a decree. The Court emphasized that parties who enter into a compromise, thereby inducing the other side to act (such as depositing pre-emption money), are estopped from later raising a limitation plea to invalidate the agreement. The Court ruled that the High Court erred in remanding the case, as the appeal itself was incompetent. The principle laid down is that a consent decree precludes an appeal, and a party cannot approbate and reprobate by challenging a compromise on grounds of limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal lie against a decree passed by a court with the consent of the parties?
  • Can a defendant who enters into a compromise in the trial court subsequently challenge the suit as time-barred in appeal?
  • Is a plea of limitation a pure question of law that can be raised for the first time in appeal despite a prior consent decree?
  • Does the appellate court have the authority to remand a case to allow a party to amend pleadings to include a limitation defense after a consent decree has been recorded?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain And Another vs The State1989 MLD 2798 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-14Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain And 4 Others vs Mehrban And 5 Other1989 CLC 1727 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-02
  pre-emptionex parte decreede novo trialIslamic injunctionstalabsco-sharerconsent decree
  Summary & questions settled

  These connected matters arise out of a pre-emption suit regarding agricultural land sold by registered deed in August 1976. The pre-emptors filed a suit claiming a superior right of pre-emption based on being co-sharers and estate owners. During proceedings, an ex parte decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs before being set aside by consent. Subsequently, a vendor's son obtained a consent decree annulling the sale under custom, and was impleaded as a defendant. The trial and appellate courts eventually decreed the pre-emption suit. The core legal questions involved the effect of setting aside an ex parte decree on intervening changes in law, particularly regarding pre-emption qualifications declared repugnant to Islamic injunctions by the Supreme Court, and the retrospective application of the requirement of 'talabs'. The Lahore High Court held that setting aside an ex parte decree relegates the parties to their original positions and requires a de novo trial, meaning no valid pre-emption decree could be passed after the cutoff date of 31 July 1986 based on ownership alone without performing 'talabs'. The revision petition was allowed and the pre-emption suit dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of setting aside an ex parte decree upon the proceedings and evidence previously recorded?
  • Can a pre-emption decree be passed after 31 July 1986 based on the qualification of ownership in the revenue estate in light of the Supreme Court's pronouncements?
  • Are the requirements of performing 'talabs' applicable retroactively to pre-emption suits instituted prior to 31 July 1986?
  • What is the effect of a consent decree obtained under customary law for annulment of a sale in view of Section 2-A of West Pakistan Act V of 1962?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain and 2 others vs The ST a Te1989 PLD Federal Shariat Court 50 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-02-08Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Haider Malik vs Collector (Revisional Authority), Lahore and 21989 SCMR 1787 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-14
  maintenanceleave to appealfamily lawchild maintenancedivorced wife
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a maintenance matter involving a dispute over maintenance awarded to a divorced wife and children, and the determination of the quantum of maintenance. The core legal questions addressed relate to whether maintenance for children could be awarded on the application of their mother who was subsequently divorced, whether admitted payments made by the husband during the default period were accounted for, and whether the maintenance amount was correctly determined. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the maintenance granted to the wife already took into account her liabilities including the expenses of bringing up the children in her custody, and with the respondent counsel's categorical statement that no separate application for the children's maintenance would be moved, coupled with the agreement for the adjustment of Rs. 9,100 against realized maintenance, the petition lacked force. The Court accordingly refused leave to appeal, laying down that adjustments of admitted payments made during default must be factored into maintenance realization and that composite maintenance determinations covering children's expenses preclude separate subsequent claims.

  Questions settled

  • Whether maintenance for children can be awarded on the application of their mother who has since been divorced?
  • Whether admitted payments made by the husband to the wife during the default period must be taken into account and adjusted?
  • Whether the determination of the amount of maintenance is essentially a question of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Haider Malik vs Collector (Revisional Authority), Lahore And 21989 MLD 222 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-08Read full judgment →
• Sajjad alias SHAHZADs and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1872 · Sindh High Court · 1987-11-24Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad Khan vs The Director, Agricultural Engineering and others1989 SCMR 1247 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-27
  service tribunaldismissal from servicemisuse of government propertypetition for leave to appealdepartmental inquirydrilling supervisor
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Sajjad Ahmad Khan, an Ex-Drilling Supervisor, challenging the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 10-7-1984, which upheld his dismissal order passed by the Director of Agriculture. The petitioner had been charge-sheeted and held responsible for misusing the government's drilling/boring plant and causing shortages of lining pipes. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal's factual findings and dismissal of the appeal warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that the judgment of the Tribunal was not subject to any exception, as the Tribunal had duly examined the relevant record, considered the factual position, and ensured compliance with applicable rules and instructions. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, establishing that factual findings of the Service Tribunal regarding departmental misconduct and misuse of machinery will not be interfered with where no legal infirmity or rule violation is shown.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the factual findings of the Punjab Service Tribunal in a service matter?
  • Does the misuse of official machinery and shortage of departmental material constitute valid grounds for dismissal from service?
  Read full judgment →
• Sain and another vs Salim Ullah, Assistant Subinspector of Police and others1989 P Cr. L J 635 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-14Read full judgment →
• Saifur Rehman vs Mirza Abdur Rahim Baig1989 MLD 2477 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-31Read full judgment →
• Saifur Rehman and others vs S.E. Haveli and others1989 SCMR 785 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-08
  extra water supplyCanal and Drainage Actadministrative authorityprocedural fairnessshareholder rightsIntra Court Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed an Intra Court Appeal concerning the sanctioning of extra water supply for gardens. The core legal questions were whether the Superintending Engineer possessed the authority to sanction extra water supply given the alleged repeal of Rule 9 of the Canal and Drainage Rules, and whether the procedural requirements for such sanctioning, specifically regarding notice and hearing of shareholders under the Canal and Drainage Act, were met. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Superintending Engineer acted within his authority as Rule 9 remained valid following its amendment in 1976. Furthermore, the Court found that the procedural requirements were satisfied because the Superintending Engineer had provided notice to the shareholders and heard their objections before deciding the matter. The judgment affirms that administrative authorities may exercise powers under validly amended rules and that procedural fairness, such as hearing affected parties, validates the exercise of such administrative discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Superintending Engineer have the authority to sanction extra water supply for gardens?
  • Is Rule 9 of the Canal and Drainage Rules currently in force?
  • Must a Superintending Engineer hear shareholders before sanctioning extra water supply under the Canal and Drainage Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Saifullah vs The State1989 MLD 2862 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-03Read full judgment →
• Saifuddin Ghulamali and Sons, Hyderabad vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Hyderabad1989 PTD 1061 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-31Read full judgment →
• Saifuddin Ghulam Ali & Sons vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Hyderabad Zone1989 PTD 1038 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-15Read full judgment →
• Saif Ullah Khan vs Javed Khan And Another1989 MLD 756 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
• Said vs The State1989 MLD 2714 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Said Rasool vs Muhammad Tufail And Other1989 MLD 165 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
• Said Muhammad vs Muhammad Akram and another1989 SCMR 1940 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-30
  civil revisionconcurrent findings of factcancellation of sale-deedforged power of attorneyleave to appealattesting witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld the concurrent findings of fact of the lower courts regarding a suit for the cancellation of a registered sale-deed. The petitioner's core contention was that the power of attorney, which served as the basis for the execution of the sale-deed, was a forgery. Furthermore, the petitioner challenged the reliance placed by the trial court on the testimony of an attesting witness, Muhammad Hassan. The Supreme Court examined the petitioner's arguments regarding these findings of fact. Upon review, the Court determined that the findings of the lower courts did not suffer from any legal infirmity or error. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there was no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact established by the courts below. The petition for leave to appeal was refused, affirming the principle that the Supreme Court will not typically disturb concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be legally infirm.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by the trial court, appellate court, and High Court?
  • Is the testimony of an attesting witness sufficient to uphold the validity of a sale-deed executed through a power of attorney?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Muhammad ano others vs M. Sardar and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 532 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-18
  Order XLI Rule 20 CPCnecessary partylimitation periodcondonation of delaybona fide mistakeinherent powersarbitration award
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from an appeal concerning the refusal of lower appellate courts to implead a necessary party, Abdul Ghafoor, under Order XLI, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, in an appeal filed against a judgment and decree making an arbitration award a rule of the court. The core legal question was whether an appellate court can utilize Order XLI, Rule 20, read with section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 or its inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to add a necessary party as a respondent after the period of limitation has expired, particularly when the omission was due to an inadvertent or bona fide mistake. The Supreme Court held that the rigid view—that a party against whom limitation has run out can never be added under Order XLI, Rule 20—is incorrect. The Court ruled that the provision is not exclusively restricted to suo motu action, and courts possess the discretion to add omitted parties upon application when the omission is a bona fide mistake, as procedural laws are designed to advance justice rather than defeat it. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the case remanded.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court implead a necessary party as a respondent under Order XLI, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after the period of limitation for filing an appeal has expired?
  • Whether the power under Order XLI, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can only be exercised by the court suo motu or whether it can be invoked upon an application by a party?
  • Does a party against whom the right of appeal has become time-barred cease to be interested in the result of the appeal for the purposes of Order XLI, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Malook alias Superdent vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2259 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-05Read full judgment →
• Said Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2056 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-14Read full judgment →
• Said Khan And Others vs Mst. Janat Bibi And Other1989 MLD 3834 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
• Said Karim vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1558 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-15Read full judgment →
• Said Karim vs Inspector-General of Police, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 336 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
• Said Karim Shah vs Member, Board of Revenue, N.W.F.P. and 21 others1989 SCMR 1625 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-15
  pre-emptionleave to appealtenancy qualificationwrit petitionmisreading of record
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a pre-emptor against the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court. The petitioner's pre-emption suit had been initially decreed in part by the Collector on the ground that the petitioner was a tenant. Subsequently, appellate and revisional forums, including the Member, Board of Revenue and the High Court, dismissed the suit, relying on the applicability of the judgment in Said Kamal's case and holding that no prior decree protected the petitioner. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the High Court committed a prima facie error in appreciating the facts, as a decree had indeed been passed in favour of the petitioner prior to the relevant cutoff date. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to seek restoration of the pre-emption decree to the extent granted, in accordance with the principle established in Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others. Leave to appeal was accordingly granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-emptor is entitled to the restoration of a pre-emption decree passed prior to 1-7-1986?
  • Does a High Court commit a reviewable error when it misreads the record regarding the existence of a prior decree in a pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Fiussain Khan vs Muhammad Almas Khan1989 P Cr. L J 2170 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-06-24Read full judgment →
• Said Ali Shah vs Muhammad Shah1989 SCMR 1594 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-09
  specific performanceagreement to sellAbadkari Schemeproprietary rightscolony landcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was directed against an order of the Lahore High Court which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision. The dispute arose from an agreement to sell land allotted to the petitioner under the Abadkari Scheme. The petitioner agreed to sell the land to the respondent for consideration, with the stipulation that the transfer would occur after the petitioner acquired proprietary rights. After receiving the consideration and subsequently obtaining proprietary rights, the petitioner instead transferred the land to a third party. The respondent filed a suit for specific performance. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the agreement illegal and void. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the agreement was legal as it merely undertook to complete the sale after the acquisition of proprietary rights, rendering Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 inapplicable. The High Court upheld this appellate decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that an agreement to sell colony land after acquiring proprietary rights is valid and enforceable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agreement to sell colony land allotted under the Abadkari Scheme is enforceable after the vendor acquires proprietary rights?
  • Does Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 bar the specific performance of an agreement to sell executed before proprietary rights are acquired but to be completed after such acquisition?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Alam vs Karachi Port Trust1989 PLC 241 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-03-02Read full judgment →
• Said Ahmad Khan vs Akram Khan and 3 others1989 PLD Peshawar 201 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
• Sahibzadi Syeda Bevi Badshah Begum vs Mst. Sultana Begum1989 MLD 4763 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-24Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada Muhammad Saeed vs Capt. Mian Khan Malik And Other1989 MLD 1282 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-24Read full judgment →
• Sahib Khan vs Government of Sind through Chief Secretary, Karachi and 4 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 63 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1988-07-19Read full judgment →
• Sahib Jan vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 384 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
• Sahib Jan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1693 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
• Sahib Din and others vs Noor Muhammad and others1989 SCMR 1424 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-14
  leave to appealbar of alienationMartial Law Regulation 64jurisdictioncivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the acceptance of a civil revision by the High Court in a suit for declaration regarding the bar of alienation under Martial Law Regulation 64. The core legal question involves the correct interpretation of the relevant provisions of Martial Law Regulation 64, specifically including those relating to jurisdiction and the bar of certain alienations under Paragraph 25. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court rightly interpreted these provisions, directed the furnishing of security, ordered the preparation of the appeal on the existing record with liberty to file additional documents, and directed that status quo shall continue.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of Martial Law Regulation 64 relating to the bar of certain alienations and jurisdiction have been rightly interpreted by the High Court?
  • Does a suit for declaration regarding the bar of alienation under Martial Law Regulation 64 warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Sahaba alias Shehzada vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1267 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-18Read full judgment →
• Sahaba alias Shahzada vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1312 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
• Saghir Hussain vs Sh. Muhammad Umar And 2 Other1989 MLD 466 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
• Saghir Ahmad Warsi vs Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan1989 MLD 968 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-30Read full judgment →
• Saghir Ahmad vs Riaz Ahmad and another1989 SCMR 1522 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-04
  leave to appealacquittalright of private defenceinterested witnessocular testimonycriminal appealself-defence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted the respondent, Riaz Ahmad, of charges under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the respondent murdered the deceased following a prior dispute. The trial court had initially convicted the respondent, but the High Court overturned this, disbelieving the prosecution's ocular testimony, which it deemed interested and uncorroborated, and rejecting the alleged motive. The respondent had raised a plea of private defence, asserting that the deceased had trespassed into his house and assaulted his sister, necessitating the respondent's actions to protect her. The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's findings, noting that the ocular evidence was unreliable and that the respondent's version of events was supported by evidence of injuries on his sister and the broken door of their house. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's acquittal, holding that no interference was warranted as the lower court's conclusions regarding the insufficiency of evidence and the validity of the self-defence plea were correct.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based solely on the testimony of interested witnesses when such testimony is uncorroborated?
  • Does the presence of injuries on the accused's family member and physical evidence of a broken door support a plea of private defence?
  • Is the Supreme Court justified in upholding an acquittal where the High Court has correctly analyzed the evidence and rejected the prosecution's version?
  Read full judgment →
• Safooran Bibi vs S.H.O. Police Station Misri Shah And Another1989 MLD 4062 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-13Read full judgment →
• Safiullah vs The Managing Director, Agricultural Development1989 PLD Peshawar 124 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
• Safir Ahmad vs Mst. Yasmeen Begum And 9 Other1989 MLD 566 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
• Safia Bibi vs The State1989 MLD 199 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-01Read full judgment →
• Saffar Ali vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 310 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-10Read full judgment →
• Safdar Hussain Shah Etc vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 65 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
• Saeed Qadir And Others vs S. Mukhtar Hassan, And Other1989 MLD 4740 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-18Read full judgment →
• Saeed Muhammad vs Zulfiqar and 5 others1989 SCMR 690 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-20
  enhancement of sentencereduction of sentencesimple and grievous hurtcriminal revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's criminal revision seeking enhancement of sentences of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 and modified their convictions and sentences under sections 325, 147, and 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question involves the appropriateness of the sentence reduction and whether the High Court committed any legal defect in modifying the sentences to already undergone plus enhanced fines. The Supreme Court held that given the medical evidence showing mostly simple injuries, the lack of an X-ray to confirm the grievous nature of a metacarpal fracture, and the absence of intention to kill, the High Court took a judicious view in modifying the sentence. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the period already undergone in prison alongside enhanced fine provisions met the ends of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentences of the respondents to the period already undergone?
  • Does the absence of an X-ray cast doubt on the grievous nature of a bone fracture injury?
  • Whether the evidence established an intention to kill or merely to cause bodily harm?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Akhtar Shah vs Muslim Commercial Bank Limited and 2 others1989 PLC 666 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
• Saeed Akber And Others vs The State1989 MLD 4920 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-25Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad vs Muhammad Anwar And Other1989 MLD 4119 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-22Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad vs Abdul Qadeer and others1989 SCMR 514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-24
  review petitionlachesconstitutional petitionproperty valuationurban property tax
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a review petition filed against the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 17-4-1988, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The core legal questions involved whether the court omitted to consider the leave grant order concerning laches and representations made to authorities, and whether the claim pertained to correct assessment of property price rather than reduction. The Supreme Court held that the review petition is devoid of merit, affirming that the petitioner's conduct after 2-12-1971 suffered from unexplained laches and that futile representations to the same authorities on identical facts do not excuse delay, while also clarifying that the challenge was indeed directed at the valuation decision of the Excise and Taxation Officer for urban property tax. The key principle laid down is that repeated representations on the same facts without additional material cannot explain laches, and no case for review is made out when determinative findings are already rendered on all factual and legal points.

  Questions settled

  • Whether repeated representations to authorities on the same facts constitute a sufficient explanation for delay and laches in filing a constitutional petition?
  • Does a challenge to the valuation of property by an Excise and Taxation Officer for urban property tax purposes warrant a review of an appellate judgment?
  • What constitutes sufficient grounds for entertaining a review petition against a judgment of the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad Qureshi vs Province of the Punjab and 3 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 538 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-03-08Read full judgment →