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.
- Saeed Ahmad Khan vs Government of N.-W.F.P. and 4 others1989 PLD Peshawar 112 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmad Ali vs Director-General, Federal Government Education1989 PLC (C.S.) 600 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-04-17Read full judgment →
- Sadiq Shah and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1330 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
- Sadiq Hussain vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Rawalpindi and another1989 SCMR 650 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an officiating Sub-Inspector of Police, challenged his reduction in rank to foot constable following disciplinary proceedings initiated after he failed to conduct an inquest or arrange a post-mortem examination regarding an unnatural death. A preliminary inquiry by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer found the petitioner negligent in his duties, leading to charges of gross misconduct, inefficiency, and burking. After departmental appeals to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police and the Service Tribunal were unsuccessful, the petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings suffered from any legal infirmity or denial of due process. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had been provided sufficient opportunity to defend his position before the Superintendent of Police. The Court found no question of law of public importance and concluded that the departmental proceedings were conducted without legal infirmity, thereby affirming the penalty imposed.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a police officer to conduct an inquest or arrange a post-mortem for an unnatural death constitute grounds for disciplinary action?
- Can a disciplinary penalty of reduction in rank be upheld if the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to clear their position?
- Does a departmental inquiry into police misconduct necessarily raise a question of law of public importance for the Supreme Court?
- Sadiq Hussain Shah vs The State1989 MLD 4609 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-06Read full judgment →
- Sadiq and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2385(1) · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-26Read full judgment →
- Sadiq Ali H. Lakhani vs The Board of Intermediate and Secondary1989 PLC (C.S.) 536 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-31Read full judgment →
- Sadiq Ali and another vs Mst. Asia Bibi1989 SCMR 1599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' Regular Second Appeal regarding an inheritance dispute. The core legal question concerned the entitlement of a granddaughter to inherit from her grandfather, Fareed, whose son (the granddaughter's father) had predeceased him. The petitioners, the grandfather's surviving son and daughter, had initially excluded the respondent from the inheritance mutation. The respondent successfully challenged this exclusion in civil court, obtaining a decree that was upheld through the appellate stages. The Supreme Court examined the claim and affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which established that the respondent was indeed the daughter of the predeceased son. The Court held that the respondent was entitled to inherit from her grandfather under the provisions of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the petition, thereby upholding the respondent's right to inheritance as a granddaughter of the deceased.
Questions settled- Is a granddaughter entitled to inherit from her grandfather if her father predeceased him?
- Do civil courts have the jurisdiction to adjudicate inheritance claims arising under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
- Sadiq Ali Abbas Bhai and Brothers vs Mst. Saifiya Bai And 3 Other1989 MLD 1371 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-29Read full judgment →
- Sadhu And 2 Others vs The State1989 MLD 2662 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-10Read full judgment →
- Sabze Ali Through His Legal Heirs vs Mahmooda Rizvi1989 MLD 1427 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-11Read full judgment →
- Sabzal and others vs Bingo and others1989 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-19Read full judgment →
- Sabir Masih vs Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore1989 PLC (C.S.) 396 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-01-07Read full judgment →
- Sabir Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1989 Criminal Cases 282 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-30Read full judgment →
- Sabir Hussain vs Gulzar Begum1989 MLD 3084 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
- Sabir Hussain vs Conservator of Forests and another1989 SCMR 707 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated August 16, 1984, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner from his post as Block Officer. The petitioner alleged that his dismissal by the Divisional Forest Officer was actuated by personal animosity and malice following an incident where the petitioner filed a criminal case against the said officer. The core legal questions involve whether dismissal from service without holding a proper inquiry as required by law is sustainable, and whether the entire disciplinary proceeding vitiated due to bias and personal grudge of the punishing authority. The Supreme Court held that the case required further consideration regarding the legality of the dismissal without an inquiry and the role of the authorities, consequently granting leave to appeal to examine the matter on the existing and additional records.
Questions settled- Whether dismissal from service without conducting an inquiry as required by law is legally sustainable?
- Does personal animosity and grudge by a punishing authority vitiate disciplinary proceedings?
- Can an appellate authority act as an inquiry officer to cure defects in original proceedings?
- Sabir Hussain And Others vs Afrasayyab And Other1989 CLC 1591 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the appellants' suit for possession of land belonging to the deceased last male holder, Abbas Khan. The core legal question was whether a concurrent finding of fact based on misreading of evidence and ignoring the initial presumption that a Muslim is a Sunni can be interfered with in second appeal, and whether Abbas Khan was a Shia or Sunni by faith. The Lahore High Court held that concurrent findings of fact are not sacrosanct if vitiated by misreading, misrepresentation of evidence, or material irregularities such as ignoring the legal presumption that every Muslim in Pakistan is presumed to be a Sunni unless proved otherwise. The court found that the lower courts misread the oral evidence and ignored this presumption as well as admissions by certain respondents. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and the appellants were granted a decree for possession to the extent of a one-fourth share. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact based on misreading or ignoring mandatory legal presumptions are open to review in second appeal.
Questions settled- Can a concurrent finding of fact be challenged in second appeal if it is based on a misreading or misrepresentation of evidence?
- What is the initial legal presumption regarding the religious faith of a Muslim in Pakistan in the absence of proof to the contrary?
- Does the principle of res judicata apply when a subsequent suit involves a distinct cause of action and title that did not exist during the previous litigation?
- Sabir Hussain alias Tonchi vs The StatePLD 1989 Supreme Court (AJ&K ) · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-02-26Read full judgment →
- Sabir Ali vs WAPDA and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 239 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1988-05-26Read full judgment →
- Sabir Ali vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 61 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-26Read full judgment →
- Sabir Ali Alias Manna vs The State1989 MLD 4785 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-26Read full judgment →
- Saadat Khan vs N.-W.F.P. Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others1989 PLC 506 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
- Saadat Ali Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 248 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-01Read full judgment →
- Sa. Kureshy vs Secretary, Establishment Division , .1989 PLC (C.S.) 130 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-01-12Read full judgment →
- Sa. Jamil (Jamil Ahmad Sheikh) vs Chamanzar Cooperative House1989 P Cr. L J 1982 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
- Sa Diq Ali and 10 otherss vs Mst. Aisha and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 518 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of the petitioners' civil revision by the High Court, concerning a dispute over the inheritance and property left by Karim Bakhsh. The core legal question involves the validity of an alleged gift (Tamleek) made by the deceased in favour of two sons, and the competence of an attorney to surrender the rights of another beneficiary during proceedings before revenue authorities, leading to a subsequent family settlement. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly rejected the petitioners' plea, emphasizing that a bona fide family arrangement arrived at among the heirs to resolve a dispute regarding a one-sided disposition of property—and which results in a devolution in accordance with Islamic law—should not be interfered with. The key principle laid down is that courts will uphold a mutual family settlement and distribution of property that rectifies an unequal gift, provided the resulting arrangement strictly accords with Islamic law.
Questions settled- Whether an attorney can surrender the rights of a principal in a property dispute before revenue authorities?
- Can a one-sided gift of property to certain heirs be superseded by a subsequent mutual family settlement?
- Whether a family arrangement resulting in a devolution of property according to Islamic law warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
- S.M. Rafiq Through Legal Heirs vs Ajaz Ahmad1989 MLD 2157 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-22Read full judgment →
- S.M. Nazir vs National Industrial Cooperative Finance Corporation, Lahore and 2 others1989 SCMR 1869 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal filed by a debtor challenging the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court concerning debt recovery proceedings. The petitioner sought to contest findings of fact regarding liability and requested relief concerning interest payments. The Supreme Court observed that the findings of fact were against the petitioner and did not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction. However, during the hearing, the parties engaged in discussions regarding potential concessions on interest and payment terms. The Court held that while it could not issue a positive direction to waive interest, it was permissible for the respondent authority to grant such relief if consistent with legitimate banking practices. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, contingent upon the parties reaching an agreed payment formula within 48 hours. If no such undertaking is provided to the Court, the leave granting order shall be deemed withdrawn. This case underscores the Court's limited scope in interfering with factual findings in writ jurisdiction while facilitating potential settlements between parties in debt recovery matters.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with findings of fact in writ jurisdiction?
- Is the Court empowered to issue a positive direction to a creditor to waive interest on a debt?
- Under what conditions can a leave to appeal order be deemed withdrawn if an undertaking is not provided?
- S.M. Nazir vs National Industrial Cooperative Finance Corporation1989 SCMR 1500(2) · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal involving a dispute over financial liability and alleged fraud. The petitioner sought leave to appeal on the condition of providing an undertaking regarding the repayment of funds allegedly withdrawn from the respondent's account. The core legal question addressed was whether the petitioner's submitted undertaking satisfied the court's prior conditions for granting leave and whether the previously granted stay order should continue. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had substantially complied with the conditions, overruling the respondent's objections to the form of the undertaking. Consequently, the court ordered the continuation of the stay order without conditions until the final disposal of the appeal. Furthermore, the court directed that the manager and other parties involved in the alleged fraud be impleaded in the proceedings. The court established the principle that in cases involving multiple parties in a fraud, the parties are at liberty to argue whether recovery should be sought from all involved individuals and whether the failure to pursue others affects the bona fides of the recovery claim.
Questions settled- Does an undertaking submitted by a petitioner satisfy the conditions for leave to appeal if it substantially complies with the court's requirements?
- Can a stay order granted with conditions be continued without conditions upon the grant of leave to appeal?
- In cases of alleged fraud involving multiple parties, is it necessary to implead all individuals involved to determine liability for recovery?
- S.M. Iqbal vs S.M. Azim and others1989 SCMR 1488 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the dismissal of the petitioner's civil revision by the High Court, which arose from the dismissal of an appeal as time-barred in an arbitration matter. The trial court had made an award a rule of the court on 31-1-1978, and the petitioner's appeal was filed on 9-7-1978 along with an application for condonation of delay filed years later. The core legal question was whether an allegedly belated award constitutes a nullity that can override the bar of limitation. The Supreme Court held that the circumstances of the case did not justify treating the award as a nullity, nor could the belated appeal be entertained without valid grounds for condonation of delay. The Court established that an award is not rendered a nullity merely due to alleged delay in its making where extension of time and proper circumstances are not challenged, and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an arbitration award made after the prescribed time is a nullity?
- Can a time-barred appeal against an arbitration award be entertained without sufficient grounds for condonation of delay?
- Does the making of an award a rule of the court warrant interference by the Supreme Court when the lower courts dismissed the appeal on limitation?
- S.M. Hayat vs Federal Service Tribunal and 3 others1989 SCMR 218 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from an appeal by leave against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the appellant's service appeal concerning his dismissal from government employment. The core legal question considered was whether the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the appellant was allegedly exonerated of the original charges and convicted of irrelevant charges of misconduct. The Supreme Court examined the departmental inquiry records and found that the appellant had made contradictory statements regarding material facts, thereby demonstrating a guilty conscience and establishing his culpability beyond doubt. The Court held that the findings of the Federal Service Tribunal were based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and record, disclosing no legal infirmity. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the validity of the departmental proceedings and the Tribunal's judgment upholding the dismissal from service.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant can be held guilty of misconduct based on contradictory statements made during the course of an inquiry?
- Did the Federal Service Tribunal fail to appreciate that the appellant was exonerated of charges by the Inquiry Officer?
- Is a finding of fact recorded by the Federal Service Tribunal liable to interference by the Supreme Court when based on proper appreciation of evidence?
- S.Kuppuswami Mudaliar vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras , .1989 PTD 280 · Madras High Court · 1962-12-10Read full judgment →
- S.J.G. Fazal Elahi Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone, Karachi1989 PTD 579 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This income tax reference relates to the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74, concerning the disallowance of a provision for gratuity created by the applicant assessee pursuant to the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal was right in disallowing the claim for provision for gratuity. The Sindh High Court held that the amounts set apart for gratuity were intended to provide for ascertained liabilities which accrued in the financial years in question and constituted a proper charge on the profit and loss account based on commercial accounting principles. Consequently, the Court answered the referred question in the negative, ruling in favour of the assessee by following established precedent.
Questions settled- Whether the provision for gratuity created under the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 is an ascertained liability?
- Can the amount set apart for gratuity be allowed as a proper charge on the profit and loss account for the assessment years in question?
- S.A. Zuberi vs National Bank of Pakistan1989 PLD Federal Shariat Court 35 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
- S.A. Mukarram vs Government of Sind and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 690 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
- S.A. Jais & Company And Others vs The Gujarat Electricity Board1989 MLD 1053 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-11-17Read full judgment →
- S. Zahid Hasan vs Chairman, Central Board of Revenue and 4 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 656 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-01-31Read full judgment →
- S. Zafar Ali Shah vs Muhammad Younas Elahi And Other1989 CLC 88 · Election Tribunal · 1988-04-06Read full judgment →
- S. Shahid A. Jah-Ery, Factory Manager, M/s. Ark Garments Industries1989 PLC 814 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-01-08Read full judgment →
- S. S. M. Naqvi vs Messrs Pakistan Machine Tool Factory Ltd.1989 PLC 365 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-08-02Read full judgment →
- S. Nawazish Abbas vs Senior Vice-President, United Bank Ltd. and another1989 PLC 363 · Labour Court · 1988-07-23Read full judgment →
- S. Mukhtar Ahmed vs Pakistan Telecommunication Union and 4 others1989 PLC 1022 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-15Read full judgment →
- S. Mukhtar Ahmad vs Pakistan Telecommunication1989 MLD 608 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-15Read full judgment →
- S. Muhammad Din & Sons Ltd. vs The Chairman, Punjab Labour1989 PLC 567 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
- S. Maqbool Ahmad and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 96 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
- S. Iqbal Hussain Shah and anothers vs Mst. Akhtari Begum and others1989 SCMR 1441 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the appellants' second appeal regarding a suit for possession and permanent injunction. The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal should be condoned based on the appellants' claim of ignorance regarding the High Court's judgment, which was announced during summer vacations. The Supreme Court rejected the appellants' explanation, noting that the mere occurrence of summer vacations does not excuse ignorance of a judgment's announcement. The Court emphasized that established practice ensures advocates are notified of judgments even during vacations. Furthermore, the Court observed that the appellants failed to provide any explanation for the period between receiving the certified copies and filing the petition. Consequently, the Court held that the appellants failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The appeal was dismissed as time-barred, affirming the principle that a party seeking condonation of delay must provide a clear, sufficient, and continuous explanation for the entire period of delay.
Questions settled- Does the announcement of a judgment during summer vacations constitute sufficient grounds for condoning a delay in filing an appeal?
- Is a vague assertion of ignorance regarding the date of a judgment's announcement sufficient to satisfy the requirement of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay?
- Must a petitioner provide a continuous explanation for the entire duration of a delay to justify condonation?
- S. Ijaz Hussain vs The Government of the Punjab through Secretary1989 SCMR 281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his service appeal. The petitioner contended that he was unfairly singled out for disciplinary action while his superiors, who allegedly committed serious illegalities, were exonerated due to their official positions. The Supreme Court examined the petition and found that the Tribunal had reached its decision after duly considering the relevant facts and providing cogent reasons for the dismissal. The Court held that the petitioner's argument regarding the culpability of his superiors did not constitute a valid ground for granting leave to appeal. Emphasizing that the Court's jurisdiction to grant leave is contingent upon the existence of an error of law or a question of public importance, the Supreme Court determined that no such grounds were present in this case. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the finality of the Tribunal's decision in the absence of legal infirmity.
Questions settled- Does an allegation that superiors were not punished for similar illegalities constitute a sufficient ground for granting leave to appeal against a service tribunal decision?
- What are the criteria for the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal against a judgment of a Service Tribunal?
- S. Akber Ali vs Government of SINDthrough the Secretary, H.T.P. L.G. &1989 PLC (C.S.) 120 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-02Read full judgment →
- S I K an D Ar vs Muhammad Anwar1989 PLD Peshawar 45 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-03Read full judgment →
- Rulia And Others vs Fateh Muhammad And Other1989 CLC 1705' · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises from a declaratory suit filed by the petitioners regarding 55 Kanals 7 Marlas of land sold to them via a registered sale deed. Subsequently, the vendor (respondent No. 1) challenged the sale's validity under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 (M.L.R. 64), but his civil suit was dismissed. Later, the vendor gifted the land to his sons, leading to Revenue Authorities sanctioning a mutation for the petitioners, which was subsequently reviewed and cancelled by the Assistant Collector under the Collector's permission. The lower trial and appellate courts dismissed the petitioners' suit, holding that civil court jurisdiction was barred and the parties were in pari delicto. The High Court reversed these rulings, holding that under Section 163 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967, an order affirmed on appeal cannot be reviewed by the original authority, rendering the review orders void and subject to civil court jurisdiction. Additionally, the validity of a transaction under M.L.R. 64 lies exclusively within the domain of Land Commission Authorities, and the vendor was barred by res judicata and estoppel from re-agitating the issue.
Questions settled- Does an Assistant Collector have jurisdiction under Section 163 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 to review a mutation order after an appeal against that order has been preferred and dismissed?
- Can a civil court entertain a suit challenging revenue orders that are void and passed without jurisdiction?
- Does the doctrine of res judicata bar a party from re-litigating whether a land sale is void under Land Reforms Regulation 1959 when that issue was previously decided between the same parties?
- Do Civil Courts have jurisdiction to determine whether a land transaction is invalid due to a violation of Land Reforms Regulation 1959?
- Rozi Khan vs Taj Muhammad Khan and others1989 SCMR 1643 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Rozi Khan sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had allowed the writ petition filed by Taj Muhammad Khan and set aside the judgments and decrees passed by the revenue forums under the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Regulation No. II of 1975 regarding a claim for damages for cutting a tree and closing a water course. The High Court had remanded the case for the appointment of a fresh tribunal because the original tribunal members had remained absent and failed to determine the factual controversy properly based on revenue records. The Supreme Court of Pakistan evaluated the contentions and held that the High Court rightly exercised its constitutional jurisdiction in remanding the matter since the crucial bone of contention regarding land and water course ownership had not been legally ascertained from the revenue record by the tribunal, which had instead relied on personal knowledge. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, upholding the remand order for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can remand a case to the Deputy Commissioner for the appointment of a fresh tribunal when the previous tribunal failed to decide the matter in accordance with law?
- Can a tribunal's award be based on personal knowledge without ascertaining facts from the revenue record?
- Does the High Court act within its constitutional jurisdiction when setting aside orders of lower forums that suffer from material irregularity?
- Rozi Khan And 2 Others vs The State1989 MLD 2748 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-11-16Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 339 · Lahore High Court · 1988-03-27Read full judgment →
- Royal Insurance PLC., Karachi vs I.T.O. Cos, Cir a-5, Karachi -87, 3530_KB1989 PTD (Trib.) 1263 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1989-05-02Read full judgment →
- Royal Exchange Assurance vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone, Karachi1989 PTD 69 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-06Read full judgment →
- Royal Book Company vs John Wright & Sons Ltd.1989 MLD 1191 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →
- Rounaq Bi vs Saleeq Khan And Other1989 MLD 1975 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-05Read full judgment →
- Rothan Bacher Peter vs The State1989 PLD Peshawar 47 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-26Read full judgment →
- Roshan Singh And Others vs Zile Singh And Other1989 MLD 2899 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-02-24Read full judgment →
- Roshan Din vs Lal And 8 Other1989 CLC 1219 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-17Read full judgment →
- Roshan and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 609 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal miscellaneous matter where the applicants sought post-arrest bail from the Sindh High Court, having previously had their bail application rejected on the ground of being absconders. In the present application, they invoked the statutory right to bail under the third proviso to section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, based on the completion of two years in custody without delay being attributable to them. The core legal question was whether a subsequent bail application on a fresh statutory ground arising after the dismissal of the first application must be heard by the same judge who decided the earlier application, or if doing so is barred by the rule against reviewing prior orders. The court held that the rule requiring subsequent bail applications to be heard by the same judge applies when reconsideration of merits would amount to reviewing the previous order, but does not bar a new judge from entertaining a bail plea founded on a distinct statutory ground of delay that did not exist when the first application was decided. The court granted bail to the applicants.
Questions settled- Whether a subsequent bail application must be heard by the same judge who dealt with the previous bail application?
- Can bail be sought as of right under the third proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground of statutory delay?
- Does the dismissal of a prior bail application bar a subsequent application based on a ground that did not exist at the time of the first application?
- Roshan Ali Bhimjee vs Standard Insurance Company Ltd.1989 SCMR 234 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld an eviction order issued by a Rent Controller. The respondent-company had sought the petitioner's eviction on two grounds: bona fide personal requirement and unauthorized subletting of the premises to the Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company. While the Rent Controller rejected the claim of bona fide requirement, he ordered eviction based on the finding of unauthorized subletting. The High Court affirmed this decision, concluding that the petitioner had parted with possession of the premises. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that his role as Chairman of the insurance company did not constitute subletting or parting with possession, as he remained in personal possession of the premises. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner's contention regarding the legal interpretation of 'parting with possession' in the context of his corporate role deserved further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and stayed the eviction order pending the final decision of the appeal.
Questions settled- Does a tenant's professional association with a company and the display of that company's signage on the premises constitute 'parting with possession' or 'subletting' under rent control laws?
- Can a tenant be evicted for subletting if they remain in personal possession of the demised premises while acting as an officer of a company using the same space?
- Rosh an Din and another vs Abdul Shakoor and anothers1989 PLD Revenue 8 · Board of Revenue · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
- Roman Catholic Church vs Province of the Punjab through Secretary1989 SCMR 1955 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from an appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal in limine of a Constitution Petition filed by the Roman Catholic Church regarding the nationalization of educational institutions under Martial Law Regulation No. 118. The appellant challenged the government's attempt to change the revenue records and claim ownership over properties attached to these institutions, arguing that the regulation required interpretation, the term 'property attached' was undefined, and the institutions did not own the underlying property. The High Court had dismissed the petition, holding that the dispute required factual inquiry unsuitable for constitutional jurisdiction and that an alternative remedy via a civil suit existed. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition was maintainable given the ouster of jurisdiction and availability of alternative remedies. The Supreme Court held that Article 14 of Martial Law Regulation No. 118 effectively barred ordinary civil courts from determining property titles, leaving the appellant without an adequate or efficacious alternative remedy. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, established that constitutional jurisdiction could be invoked to interpret the regulation and assess the nature of the property rights, and remanded the matter back to the High Court for proper inquiry and decision in light of previously declared precedents.
Questions settled- Whether a Constitution Petition is maintainable for the interpretation of Martial Law Regulation No. 118 when ordinary civil court jurisdiction is barred?
- Does Article 14 of Martial Law Regulation No. 118 oust the jurisdiction of High Courts and civil courts in matters relating to actions taken under the regulation?
- Whether an alternative remedy of a civil suit or revenue appeal can be considered adequate when statutory bars prevent the determination of property title by ordinary courts?
- Robina Kausar vs Abdur RehmanK.L.R 1989.Civil Cases 22 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-07-07Read full judgment →
- Rita Textiles P. Ltd. Etc. Etc. (M/s.) vs Union Of India And OtherPTCL 1989 FC. 30 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-09-23Read full judgment →
- Riazulhassan and 4 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1902 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-28Read full judgment →
- Riazuddin Qureshi vs Director (Esti%) Pakistan National Centre, Directorate General,Islamabad and another1989 SCMR 466 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, filed by a civil servant against a judgment of the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his removal from service, ruling it time-barred. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's appeal before the Service Tribunal was filed within the statutory limitation period, considering his departmental representation and subsequent appeal. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal correctly determined the appeal was time-barred. The Court reasoned that whether the petitioner's initial communication was treated as a representation or an appeal, the limitation period commenced on May 22, 1983. Consequently, the appeal filed on October 6, 1983, was beyond the permissible time limit. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal's factual findings regarding the limitation period were not erroneous and that no question of law of public importance existed to warrant granting leave to appeal. The petition was dismissed accordingly.
Questions settled- Does a departmental representation made by a civil servant constitute the starting point for limitation if no right of appeal exists?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be granted under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 if no question of law of public importance arises?
- Is an appeal before the Service Tribunal competent if it is filed beyond the statutory limitation period without a request for condonation of delay?
- Riazuddin Johar vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2406 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →
- Riaz-Ur-Rehman Kallue vs Inspector-General of Police, Punjab1989 PLC (C.S.) 279 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-05-03Read full judgment →
- Riaz-Ul-Haq Chishti vs Allama Iqbal Open University1989 PLC (C.S.) 109 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-10Read full judgment →
- Riaz vs The State1989 MLD 4402 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-29Read full judgment →
- Riaz vs State1989 MLD 4196 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
- Riaz vs Muhammad Salim and 4 others1989 SCMR 1491 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit for possession of land. The respondent claimed ownership of the disputed property by virtue of a purchase from the previous owner, alleging that the petitioner had unauthorizedly and forcibly taken possession. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, finding that he had successfully proved his title, a decision upheld on appeal. The petitioner's subsequent civil revision in the High Court was dismissed in default for non-prosecution. Instead of seeking restoration, the petitioner filed a second civil revision after the expiry of the unprescribed 90-day limitation period, which was dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that a second revision could be entertained after 90 days upon showing sufficient cause. The Supreme Court declined to resolve the procedural conflict, holding that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the respondent's ownership and the petitioner's illegal possession were based on sound oral and documentary evidence and could not be interfered with in revision. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding ownership of property be interfered with in a civil revision?
- Whether a second civil revision can be filed and entertained after the expiry of the 90-day limitation period if the first revision was dismissed in default?
- Riaz Oadeer vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 841 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
- Riaz Malik vs The State and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 715 · Service Tribunal · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
- Riaz Akhtar vs Deputy Inspectorgeneral of Police and others1989 SCMR 1578 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, challenged his removal from service following an incident where he was caught accepting illegal gratification by a raiding Magistrate. Upon being confronted, the petitioner allegedly maltreated the Magistrate and absconded, later being charged with misconduct. A show-cause notice was issued, and after a hearing, the Superintendent of Police removed him from service, citing misconduct, maltreatment of the Magistrate, and unauthorized absence from duty. The petitioner's appeals to the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the Provincial Service Tribunal were dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the allegation of maltreatment required a formal inquiry rather than a summary procedure and that his absence from duty was not part of the original show-cause notice. The Supreme Court held that the decision to dispense with a formal inquiry was a matter of administrative discretion. Furthermore, the Court found no grounds for interference, noting the petitioner's admitted unauthorized absence. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming that departmental authorities possess discretion regarding the necessity of formal inquiries in disciplinary proceedings.
Questions settled- Is it mandatory to hold a formal inquiry into allegations of misconduct in police disciplinary proceedings, or can the authority exercise discretion to dispense with it?
- Can an authority consider grounds for removal from service that were not explicitly included in the initial show-cause notice?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with the administrative discretion of departmental authorities regarding the necessity of a formal inquiry?
- Riaz AHMADPetit loner vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 842 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-01Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad vs The State1989 PLD Lahore 467 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad vs The State1989 SCMR 626 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a jail petition filed by Riaz Ahmad against his conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentence of death for the murder of his mother-in-law, Mst. Noor Sain, arising from a dispute over sending his wife back to his house. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution case is free from doubt, considering contentions regarding an unsupportive eye-witness and alleged discrepancies between ocular testimony and medical evidence concerning the firearm injuries. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the arguments, holding that the submissions regarding the reliability of the prosecution case require further examination. The principle laid down is that material discrepancies between medical evidence and ocular testimony, along with unsupportive eye-witness accounts, necessitate a deeper review of the conviction in capital punishment cases.
Questions settled- Whether discrepancies between medical evidence and ocular testimony regarding firearm injuries create sufficient doubt to warrant a re-examination of a murder conviction?
- Does the failure of an alleged eye-witness to support the prosecution case affect the reliability of the conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Riaz Ahmad vs Secretary Irrigation and 2 others1989 PLC 275 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-06-21Read full judgment →
- Riasat Hussan vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 253 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-25Read full judgment →
- Riasat Hussain vs The State1989 MLD 764 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-25Read full judgment →
- Riasat Ali vs S.H.O. And Other1989 MLD 4037 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
- Riasat Ali vs Muhammad Ashgar1989 P Cr. L J 1717 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
- Riasat Ali And Another vs Liaquat Ali And 8 Other1989 MLD 323(1) · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-19Read full judgment →
- Rehmatullah vs Mst. Shamim Akhtar1989 CLC 3 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-10-05Read full judgment →
- Rehmatullah through Legal Heirs vs Haji Muhammad Akram and another1989 SCMR 1801 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 3-12-1988, which accepted the respondents' civil revision and decreed their suit for possession against the petitioner. The core legal question is whether the respondents' suit for possession of land was barred by the principle of res judicata under section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in light of previous litigation between the parties. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised regarding the applicability of res judicata and the reversal of factual findings by the High Court made the case arguable and merited a detailed examination. The key principle laid down is that an arguable question regarding the misapplication of res judicata and interference with concurrent findings of fact warrants the grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether a subsequent suit for possession is barred by the principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a previous suit regarding the same land was dismissed?
- Can the High Court reverse findings of fact concurrently recorded by the two courts below in civil revision?
- Does the failure to execute a previous decree within the prescribed time limit extinguish the title and prevent a fresh suit?
- Rehmat vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Criminal Cases 441 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-22Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Ullah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1699 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Sher Alias Ahmad Sher vs The State1989 MLD 755 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Sher Alias Ahmad Sher vs The StateK.L.R. 1989 Criminal Cases 340 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Shah and others vs Bad Shah Khan and others1989 SCMR 1727(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court regarding a pre-emption suit. The respondents had filed a suit based on superior rights of participators in immunities and appendages and ownership of contiguous property. The trial court decreed the suit, and the District Judge subsequently upheld the exemption findings while modifying the market value determination. The petitioners challenged the High Court's dismissal of their revision petition, arguing that the suit was decided after the target date of 31-7-1986, established by the Shariat Appellate Court of the Supreme Court, rendering the plaintiffs ineligible for a decree. Furthermore, the petitioners contended that under section 35(3) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987, the case should have abated, extinguishing the pre-emptive right. Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that the legal arguments raised by the petitioners regarding the impact of the Shariat Appellate Court's judgment and the subsequent statutory enactment required detailed judicial consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine these substantial questions of law.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emption suit decided after the target date of 31-7-1986 is maintainable in light of the Shariat Appellate Court judgment?
- Does section 35(3) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1987 cause the abatement of pending pre-emption suits?
- Rehmat Khan vs Muhammad Ikramul Haq and 2 others1989 SCMR 1984 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning the ownership of land originally allotted to one Umra under the Thal Development Authority Abadkari Scheme. Following Umra's death, his legal heirs acquired proprietary rights and subsequently sold the land to the petitioner in 1976. However, the respondents asserted ownership based on a 1965 consent decree, which the petitioner challenged as fraudulent and collusive, alleging that the original owner had died prior to the purported sale. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of the power of attorney and the resulting consent decree could be disturbed in revision. The Supreme Court held that since the trial court and appellate court had concurrently found that the original owner had validly appointed an attorney who executed the sale, and because the decree had never been challenged, there was no basis for interference. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a power of attorney and a consent decree, when supported by evidence, are generally not subject to interference in revisional or appellate jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a power of attorney be disturbed in civil revision?
- Is a consent decree immune from challenge if the underlying power of attorney was never contested?
- Rehmat Ali vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 70 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-09Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Ali vs Allah Ditta and others1989 PLD Lahore 64 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Ali and another vs Muhammad Munir Ali Khan and 4 others1989 SCMR 1422 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, who were pre-emptors and plaintiffs in two separate cases, sought leave to appeal against two judgments of the Lahore High Court that dismissed their Civil Revision and First Regular Appeal respectively. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a pre-emption decree could be passed in pending suits where the law under which the suits were instituted had ceased to have effect. The Supreme Court held that since the governing law ceased to have effect on 31st July 1986 by virtue of the judgment in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah, no decree for pre-emption could now be passed for the first time in favour of the petitioners. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that pending pre-emption suits cannot culminate in a decree once the underlying statutory law has ceased to be effective.
Questions settled- Can a decree of pre-emption be passed for the first time after the law under which the suit was instituted has ceased to have effect?
- What is the effect of the judgment in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah on pending pre-emption suits?
- Rehmat Ali And 5 Others vs Ameer Muhammad Alias Ameera1989 CLC 1103 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Ali Alias Rehmu vs The State1989 MLD 4219 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
- Rehan Alias Rehanni vs The State1989 MLD 880 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →