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.

• Rehan Alias Rehanni vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 26 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
• Reham Din vs Chief Settlement Commissioner And Other1989 MLD 4823 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
• Registrar, Trade Unions, Hyderabad vs Sind Seed Corporation1989 PLC 857 · Labour Court · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
• Reference No.1 of 1988, Made by the President of Pakistan under Article 186 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan vs Not1989 PLD Supreme Court 75 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-24
  alternative remedywrit petitionincome tax assessmentleave to appealFederal Ombudsmandepartmental highhandedness
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against a High Court order that dismissed in limine a writ petition challenging an income tax assessment under the Income Tax Ordinance, on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The core legal question concerns the availability of constitutional writ jurisdiction when an alternative remedy exists, and the appropriate forums for redressing departmental highhandedness. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly refused relief under Article 199 of the Constitution due to the existence of an adequate alternative remedy. However, the Court observed that where departmental authorities act arbitrarily, aggrieved persons may seek prompt and effective redress before alternative quasi-judicial forums such as the Federal Ombudsman, which do not suffer from the procedural technicalities and bars applicable to constitutional courts. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal while outlining the availability of alternative grievance redressal mechanisms.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court is justified in dismissing a writ petition in limine when the petitioner has already filed an appeal before an appellate authority?
  • Can a petitioner invoke constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan when an adequate alternative remedy exists?
  • What alternative forums are available to a taxpayer to seek redress against arbitrary taxation actions when technical hurdles bar access to the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Raziullah Qureshi vs The State and another1989 P Cr. L J 1354 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-13Read full judgment →
• Razak Adamjee and 8 others vs Vith Senior Civil Judge (East), District1989 PLD Karachi 132 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-09Read full judgment →
• Raza Ullah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1862 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
• Raza Muhammad Khan and others vs Government of N.W.F.P. and others1989 SCMR 1305 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-11
  land acquisitionmarket valuecompensation awardParta formulacompulsory acquisitionTarbela Dam Project
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court regarding the determination of compensation for land acquired for the Tarbela Dam Project. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in applying the 'Parta' formula—a method based on land productivity and revenue—to determine the market value of acquired land, rather than utilizing the average sale price method. The Supreme Court held that the 'Parta' formula is not a recognized or statutory mode for assessing the market value of land, as it relates solely to productivity and profitability rather than actual market price. The Court affirmed that the evaluation of land for compensation purposes should prioritize the most equitable method, specifically favoring the use of average sale prices (such as a two-year average if more beneficial to the landowner) over executive instructions that might restrict the valuation to a one-year average. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the compensation rates determined by the Additional District Judge, which were found to be more equitable.

  Questions settled

  • Is the 'Parta' formula a legally recognized method for determining the market value of acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act?
  • Should compensation for acquired land be based on land productivity or the actual market value of the land?
  • Can executive instructions restricting the evaluation of land to a one-year average be overridden if a longer average is more beneficial to the affected landowners?
  Read full judgment →
• Raza Khan vs Abdul Salam1989 MLD 1424 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
• Raza Hussain vs The State1989 MLD 3967 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-30Read full judgment →
• Rawalpindi Club, Rawalpindi vs Registrar of Trade Unions and 2 others1989 PLC 760 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-25
  definition of industryrecreational clubIndustrial Relations Ordinance 1969trade union registrationarmed forces exemptioncollective bargaining agentcantonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional petition was filed by the Rawalpindi Club challenging the communication, registration certificate, and order issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Rawalpindi Region, which registered the club's staff union as a Collective Bargaining Agent under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The main questions before the High Court were whether a social and recreational member club constitutes an 'industry' under Section 2(xiv) of the Ordinance, and whether its services are connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan so as to be excluded under Section 1(3)(a).

  The High Court held that a members' club providing purely recreational and leisure facilities to its members, without engaging in trade, business, manufacture, or profit-earning activities for material service to the community, is not an 'industry'. Furthermore, given the club's history and management structure tied to military personnel in the cantonment, its services were connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces. Consequently, the Registrar acted without jurisdiction, and the impugned registration was declared void.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a private recreational club providing social facilities to its members constitutes an 'industry' under Section 2(xiv) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Whether the Registrar of Trade Unions has jurisdiction to register a trade union for employees of an establishment that is not an 'industry' under the law?
  • Whether services provided by a club established primarily for military personnel in a cantonment fall under Section 1(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 as services connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces?
  Read full judgment →
• Rattan Singh And 2 Others vs State of Punjab1989 MLD 1528 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-03-22Read full judgment →
• Ratallun and another vs Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies), West1989 SCMR 1666 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-20
  State land allotmentWell Sinking Schemecancellation of allotmentcommanded landleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil petitions for leave to appeal were filed against the orders of the Lahore High Court dismissing writ petitions regarding the cancellation of State land allotments made under the Well Sinking Scheme. The core legal question involved whether the revenue authorities rightly cancelled the allotments of State land on the ground that the allotted land was commanded and thus outside the scope of the scheme, and whether an arbitration clause applied to void initial allotments. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the revenue authorities regarding the commanded nature of the land were based on fair departmental interpretation and could not be interfered with, and that the arbitration clause could not be invoked where the basic allotment was initially void and outside the ambit of the scheme. Furthermore, the 20-year lease period for the allotments had expired. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed. The key principle laid down is that allotments made contrary to the provisions of a scheme ab initio as void can be lawfully resumed by the competent authority without resorting to arbitration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether revenue authorities are justified in cancelling an allotment of State land if it is found to be commanded and contrary to the Well Sinking Scheme?
  • Does an arbitration clause in the statement of conditions apply when the basic allotment itself is initially void?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by revenue authorities regarding the nature of land be interfered with in writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasool Khan and 13 others vs Mst. Khurshid Begum and 7 others1989 SCMR 1820 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-13
  ex parte decreesetting aside decreeleave to appealprecedentcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the setting aside of an ex parte decree at the instance of the respondents/defendants. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerned the validity of the order setting aside the ex parte decree. Upon hearing arguments from the counsel for the petitioners, the Court found that the petitioners were unable to distinguish or overcome the legal precedent established by this Court in the case of Messrs Rehman Weaving Factory (Regd.) Bahawalnagar v. Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan (PLD 1981 Supreme Court 21). The Court held that the rule laid down in that cited authority was directly applicable and adverse to the petitioners' position. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, determining that it lacked any legal force or merit. The judgment reinforces the principle of stare decisis, affirming that established precedents regarding the setting aside of ex parte decrees must be followed by lower courts and litigants, thereby precluding the petitioners' challenge in the present circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petition for leave to appeal against an order setting aside an ex parte decree maintainable when it contradicts established Supreme Court precedent?
  • Does the rule laid down in Messrs Rehman Weaving Factory (Regd.) Bahawalnagar v. Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan (PLD 1981 Supreme Court 21) govern the setting aside of ex parte decrees?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashidurrehman vs Akram Khan and 2 others1989 SCMR 1982 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-27
  sale deed interpretationland disputeleave to appealcontractual interpretationproperty boundaries
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed his civil revision regarding a land dispute. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner, as the seller, was entitled to retain a portion of a plot of land sold to the respondents, based on a calculation of the area of a 'marla' (260 square feet versus 272 square feet) despite the sale deed specifying the total area as 5 Kanals and defining the site's boundaries. The Supreme Court examined the sale deed in its entirety and determined that the petitioner had sold the entire plot, leaving no scope to retain any part based on selective calculations. The Court held that where a sale deed specifies both the area and the boundaries, the document must be read as a whole, and the petitioner could not rely on a specific measurement calculation to contradict the clear intent of the sale. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the lower appellate court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Can a seller retain a portion of land sold when the sale deed specifies both the total area and the boundaries of the plot?
  • Should a sale deed be interpreted by reading the entire document together or by focusing on specific measurement calculations?
  • Does a discrepancy in the calculation of a 'marla' allow for the retention of land already conveyed in a sale deed?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid vs The State1989 SCMR 260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-07
  post-arrest bailheinous offenceineffective firingbail refusalcriminal procedurejudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the refusal of bail by the High Court of Sind in a criminal case involving charges under Sections 307 and 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, apprehended with a Klashankov after allegedly firing at a police party, sought bail on the grounds that the firing was ineffective and disputed his possession of the weapon, suggesting it might have belonged to an absconding companion. The High Court denied bail, noting the absence of enmity between the complainant and the accused, the heinous nature of the offence, and the timing of the incident. The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's order and affirmed the decision, holding that the reasons provided by the High Court were sufficient to disentitle the petitioner to bail at the current stage of proceedings. The Court upheld the High Court's direction allowing the petitioner to repeat the bail application before the trial court only after the examination of the complainant and two eye-witnesses, thereby maintaining the established judicial discretion regarding bail in heinous offences.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of enmity between the complainant and the accused justify the refusal of bail in cases involving heinous offences?
  • Can a bail application be repeated before the trial court after the examination of key prosecution witnesses?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon at the time of arrest a relevant factor for the court to consider when deciding on a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Textile Mills Ltd. vs Azad Mazdoor Union, Karachi and another1989 PLC 927 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
• Rashid Khan vs Karachi Development Authority through Director-1989 PLD Karachi 75 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
• Rashid Anwar vs Secretary to Government of Pakistan1989 MLD 4769 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-02Read full judgment →
• Rashid Al I Mad vs Government of Sind and others1989 P Cr. L J 801 · Sindh High Court · 1987-12-07Read full judgment →
• Rashid Akhtar And Others vs The State Through Minister Consolidation1989 MLD 4496 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1774 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad vs Muhammad Jamil and another1989 SCMR 1383 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-10
  culpable homicidesudden fightabsence of motiveleave to appealcriminal appealsentencing reductionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had altered the conviction of the respondent from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The petitioner, the complainant in the original criminal case, challenged the High Court's decision to reduce the sentence and modify the conviction under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the evidence regarding the absence of motive, the sudden nature of the fight, and the lack of cruel or unusual conduct by the accused. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings, noting that the evidence established the incident arose from a sudden quarrel without previous enmity, and the accused caused only a single injury, demonstrating no intention to cause death. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no illegality in its reappraisal of the facts and sentencing, and accordingly dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder when the incident arises from a sudden fight without previous enmity?
  • Does the infliction of a single injury during a sudden quarrel negate the intention to cause death?
  • Is the High Court's assessment of motive and the nature of the fight a valid ground for altering a conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad vs Messrs Friends Match Works1989 PLD Supreme Court 503 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-13
  landlord and tenantagreement of saledefault in rentpart performancespecific performanceeviction petitiontermination of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from an eviction application filed by the appellant-landlord under section 13 of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, against the respondent-tenants on the ground of default in rent payment. The respondents resisted the application by setting up an Agreement of Sale and invoking the protection of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Rent Controller, appellate courts, and the High Court dismissed the appellant's case. The core legal question was whether the relationship of landlord and tenant was restored upon the failure of the respondents to complete the sale within the stipulated time, and whether the respondents were entitled to the protection of part performance under section 53-A. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that since the respondents failed to pay the balance consideration and complete the sale as per the agreement, the agreement stood terminated, earnest and part payments were validly adjusted towards rent in accordance with the contract, and the relationship of landlord and tenant was restored. The Court laid down that a party who is not ready and willing to perform its part of the contract, or who falsely claims full payment of consideration, cannot claim the protection of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant is restored when a prospective vendee fails to complete the sale within the agreed timeframe under an agreement to sell?
  • Can a party who fails to pay the balance sale consideration claim the protection of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  • Whether service of notice sent by registered post is presumed under section 26 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act 1956 when properly addressed?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad Mughal vs Secretary, Manpower Division, Islamabad1989 PLC (C.S.) 745 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-06-03Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1720 · Lahore High Court · 1988-02-06Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad And Others vs Aziz Hussain And Other1989 MLD 4989 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
• Rasheed vs The State1989 MLD 855 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-11Read full judgment →
• Rashad Ehsan and others vs Bashir Ahmad and anothers1989 PLD Supreme Court 146 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-03
  execution proceedingsauction saleActus Curiae Neminem Gravabitdeposit of purchase moneyconfirmation of saleOrder XXI Rule 85banking liquidation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from execution proceedings initiated following money decrees obtained in 1957. In an auction sale conducted pursuant to execution proceedings transferred to the High Court under the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962, the first respondent was the successful auction-purchaser. Although 25% of the purchase price was paid immediately and the sale was confirmed by the High Court, the remaining balance was not deposited within fifteen days of confirmation as prescribed under Order XXI Rule 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Instead, the balance was deposited immediately after the case file was received by the Collector's office. The legal heirs of the judgment-debtor challenged the sale as null and void for non-compliance with mandatory provisions. The Supreme Court affirmed the Division Bench's ruling, holding that the auction notice issued by the court functionary explicitly stated the balance was payable upon confirmation, thereby inducing the delay. Applying the maxim 'Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit', the Court held that a party acting in reliance on an erroneous court direction cannot be penalized.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to deposit the balance of the purchase money within fifteen days under Order XXI Rule 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 invalidate an auction sale when the delay was caused by an erroneous court direction?
  • Can the judicial maxim 'Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit' protect an auction-purchaser who complies with an erroneous public notice issued by an officer of the court?
  • Whether non-compliance with the mandatory time limit under Order XXI Rule 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be excused if a party acts pursuant to orders or notices issued by the court itself?
  Read full judgment →
• Rao Nawaz and 3 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 316 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
• Rao Habib Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 732 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
• Rao Abdur Rashid vs The Secretary, Establishment Cabinet Secretariat, Rawalpindi1989 PLC (C.S.) 479 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
• Ranjeet Singh And Another vs State of Rajasthan1989 MLD 3135 · Supreme Court of India · -Read full judgment →
• Rana Shabbir Ahmad vs Senior Civil Judge And Other1989 MLD 4871 · Lahore High Court · 1959-04-26Read full judgment →
• Rana Rashid Ahmad Khan vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 119 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
• Rana Rashid Ahmad Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 522 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-24Read full judgment →
• Rana Naseerud Din vs Government of the Punjab, Agriculture1989 PLC (C.S.) 606 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1987-12-31Read full judgment →
• Rana Munawar Ahmed vs Secretary to Government of Punjab, Food1989 PLC (C.S.) 94 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1988-09-01Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Sharif And Others vs Naveed Anwar And Other1989 MLD 3167 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Sarwar vs Punjab Agricultural Development and Supplies Corporation, Sargodha Region, Sargodha and another1989 PLC 98 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Latif Khan vs Mst. Akhtar Sultana1989 MLD 3447 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-22Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Iqbal And Others vs The State1989 MLD 3254 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Imtiaz vs S.H.O., Police Station Gojra Saddar1989 MLD 4063 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-14Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Ashraf vs Engineer-in-Chief, GHQ and 3 others1989 PLC (C.S) 179 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-06-20Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Afzal vs Chief Engineer, 500KV (Ehv), WAPDA, Lahore1989 PLC (C.S.) 761 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-01-02Read full judgment →
• Rana Manzoor Ahmad vs Election Tribunal, Jaranwala and others1989 PLD Lahore 133 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
• Rana Mahmood Ahmad vs Water and Power Development Authority1989 SCMR 1707 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-07
  service appeallimitationtime-barredWAPDAleave to appealcondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an ex-Line Superintendent, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal against removal from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. The Tribunal had rejected the petitioner's appeal on the grounds that it was time-barred and declined to exercise discretion in his favour, citing the principle that ignorance of law is no excuse. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner's counsel failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay in invoking the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that in the absence of a valid justification for the delay, the court would not interfere with the Tribunal's refusal to condone the limitation period. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly declined.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal be dismissed solely on the ground of limitation?
  • Is ignorance of law a valid ground for condoning delay in filing an appeal?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with a Tribunal's refusal to exercise discretion regarding limitation when no satisfactory explanation for the delay is provided?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Javed Islam and 2 others vs Hyesons Sugar Mills Ltd. and 3 others1989 PLC 886 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-12-16Read full judgment →
• Rana Bashir Ahmad vs The Directorgeneral, Excise & Taxation, Punjab, Lahore and others1989 SCMR 1141 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-09
  departmental inquiryremoval from servicecivil servanttampering with recordservice tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a former Inspector in the Excise and Taxation Department who was removed from service after being found guilty of tampering with official records. The core legal question concerns whether the departmental proceedings and subsequent removal under the disciplinary rules were lawfully conducted and whether any substantial question of law of public importance warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the departmental action against the petitioner was taken strictly in accordance with the relevant disciplinary rules following a regular inquiry and opportunity of hearing, and that no substantial question of law of public importance arose. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that where departmental proceedings under civil servant efficiency rules are conducted in accordance with law and provide adequate opportunity of defense, concurrent findings by departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal will not be interfered with in the absence of a substantial question of law of public importance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether tampering with official record warrants removal from service under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975?
  • Does an appeal against removal from service under disciplinary rules raise a substantial question of law of public importance when regular inquiry procedures have been duly followed?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Ashfaq Ahmad Khan vs The Senior Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad District, Faisalabad and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 75 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1988-09-03Read full judgment →
• Rana Abdul Ghaffar Khan vs The Punjab Government1989 SCMR 1238 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-22
  annual confidential reportadverse remarksservice tribunalexpunction of remarksjudicial performanceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Magistrate, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his service appeal by the Service Tribunal, which had upheld the rejection of his representation for the expunction of adverse remarks recorded in his annual confidential report by the District and Sessions Judge regarding his judicial work and persistence in wrong views. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal erred in refusing to expunge the adverse remarks based on the assessment of the judicial head of the district. The Supreme Court held that the assessment made by the District and Sessions Judge, founded on orders and judgments reviewed in appeals and revisions, constituted an honest assessment of the petitioner's work that warranted no interference. The court established the principle that a judicial head of a district's honest assessment of a subordinate judicial officer's performance, based on concrete judicial review, carries credence and will not be lightly interfered with by appellate tribunals.

  Questions settled

  • Whether adverse remarks recorded in the annual confidential report of a judicial officer can be expunged when based on the assessment of the District and Sessions Judge?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have the authority to interfere with an honest assessment of a judicial officer's work by the judicial head of a district?
  • Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the Service Tribunal regarding adverse ACR remarks?
  Read full judgment →
• Ramzan Khan and others vs Mst. Janno and others1989 SCMR 1325 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-09
  leave to appealcivil revisiongift in lieu of dowerdeed of conveyanceconcurrent findings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  The defendants sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld the first appellate court's decision in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration regarding the alienation of land through a gift made by her deceased husband in lieu of her dower, accompanied by delivery of possession. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but the appellate court allowed the plaintiff's appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners' counsel contended that the deed of conveyance should be treated merely as an agreement, or that necessary legal formalities were lacking. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact could not be successfully assailed, and that the arguments regarding the legal nature and formalities of the deed of conveyance were contrary to established precedent law. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be successfully assailed in a petition for leave to appeal without strong legal grounds?
  • Whether a deed of conveyance executed for a gift in lieu of dower lacks legal validity if necessary formalities are absent?
  Read full judgment →
• Ramzan Etc. vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 338 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-07Read full judgment →
• Ramzan and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2082 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-07Read full judgment →
• Rakesh Kumar And Another vs Hindustan Everest Tools Ltd.1989 MLD 2081 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-03-07Read full judgment →
• Rajjan And Others vs Noor Muhammad And Other1989 MLD 3526 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
• Rajab Ali vs Mst. Aisha and others1989 SCMR 135 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-06
  land allotmentThal Development Authoritytransfer prohibitionpari delictospecific performancepossession of landagreement to sell
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the possession of land allotted under the Well Sinking Scheme by the Thal Development Authority. The petitioner, the original allottee, sought possession of the land from the respondent, claiming the land had only been leased for two years. The respondent contended that the petitioner had sold the land to her in 1963, and she had fulfilled all payment obligations. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could rely on statutory prohibitions against the transfer of allotted land to reclaim possession after having voluntarily sold the land and received consideration. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, which restored the trial court's judgment in favor of the respondent. The Court held that the petitioner, having received consideration and voluntarily parted with possession, could not invoke statutory prohibitions against transfer to non-suit the purchaser. The key principle laid down is that a party who enters into an agreement to sell and receives consideration cannot rely on statutory restrictions on transfer to invalidate the transaction and reclaim property from the purchaser.

  Questions settled

  • Can an allottee of land under the Thal Development Authority who has received consideration and parted with possession rely on statutory transfer prohibitions to reclaim the land?
  • Is a purchaser of land in possession entitled to defend a suit for possession by relying on an agreement to sell, even if the transfer was technically prohibited by statute?
  • Does the principle of pari delicto prevent a seller from challenging a land transfer agreement they voluntarily entered into?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Zar Khan vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Muzaffarabad and another1989 P Cr. L J 218 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-11-26Read full judgment →
• Raja Sher Ali vs Distt. Judge Jhelum. Etc.K.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 33 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
• Raja Sher Ali vs District Judge, Jhelum and another1989 SCMR 649 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-29
  tenantforcible occupationreconstructionSpecific Relief Actleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal seeking to challenge concurrent findings of lower judicial forums regarding the forcible reoccupation of a shop by a tenant. The petitioner was a tenant who vacated the shop for reconstruction by the landlords but reoccupied it without consent before reconstruction was complete. The landlords filed a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, which was decreed by the trial court, and subsequent revision and writ petitions were dismissed. The core legal question concerned whether the tenant could lawfully reoccupy the property prior to completion based on an alleged undertaking. The Supreme Court held that forcible reoccupation of the premises while reconstruction was still incomplete was unlawful, and any alleged undertaking to relet was to take effect only after completion. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent findings of fact against the tenant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant forcibly reoccupy leased premises before the completion of reconstruction based on an alleged undertaking to relet?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding forcible occupation recorded by the trial court?
  • Does a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 lie against a tenant who reoccupies property without consent?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Sher Ali vs District Judge, Jhelum And 9 Other1989 CLC 219 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
• Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava by Legal Heirs. vs Union of India1989 PTD 811 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-12-11Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Ashraf Kayani vs The Azad Jammu and Kashmir1989 PLC (C.S.) 561 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-05-16Read full judgment →
• Raja Javed Ahmad and 3 others vs Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala and another1989 SCMR 1837 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-13
  police strikedismissal from serviceservice tribunalspecial police proceedingsshow-cause noticestatutory rules violationdisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 examined the legality of the dismissal of police officers who went on strike. The core legal questions involved the effect of non-compliance with Rule 9 of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, concerning special police proceedings for striking officers, and whether the proviso dispensing with show-cause notice was properly invoked. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal orders were unsustainable due to a manifest breach of mandatory statutory rules, as the competent authority failed to provide a written show-cause notice and grounds of action as required under Rule 9, and the proviso regarding the security of Pakistan was neither invoked nor applicable to exempt the written notice requirement. The Court laid down the principle that the proviso in Rule 9 of the 1975 Rules is an exception that must be strictly construed, extending only to the dispensing of a personal hearing or opportunity to show cause in specific security-related situations, but it does not absolve the authority from the mandatory statutory requirement of communicating the charges and proposed action in writing and obtaining an explanation.

  Questions settled

  • What is the effect of non-compliance with Rule 9 of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 regarding striking police officers?
  • Can the proviso to Rule 9 of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 dispense with the requirement of giving notice in writing and obtaining an explanation from the accused officer?
  • Whether an authority other than the competent authority can invoke or claim the benefit of the proviso under Rule 9 of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975?
  • Does summary police procedure under Rule 6(2) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 permit the imposition of dismissal from service?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Ghulam Hussain vs The Additional District Judge and another1989 SCMR 1658 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-03
  Section 12(2) CPCfraudulent decreeadmissibility of documentsstamp dutyconstitutional jurisdictionimpounding documentsspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a property dispute involving a house in Rawalpindi. The petitioner claimed ownership through a gift from his grandmother, Mst. Bano Bibi, which resulted in a consent decree in 1973. In 1986, the grandmother filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, alleging the decree was obtained through fraud. During trial, the grandmother sought to introduce a lease agreement as evidence, but the trial court impounded it for lack of stamp duty, requiring payment of a penalty. The Additional District Judge set aside this order, allowing the document to be exhibited. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition, reasoning that the petitioner could challenge the admissibility later in appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting the petitioner's argument that once a document is admitted into evidence, its admissibility cannot be challenged in higher forums, thereby necessitating immediate judicial review. The Court stayed trial proceedings pending the final appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the authority to decline constitutional jurisdiction on the ground that an alternative remedy exists when the admissibility of a document is at stake?
  • Can a party challenge the admissibility of an impounded document in a higher forum once it has been admitted into evidence by the trial court?
  • Is a revision petition maintainable against an order of a trial court regarding the impounding of an unstamped document?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Amjad Sultan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1133 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
• Raja Abdur Rashid vs The Government of N.-W.F.P. and 4 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 524 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1989-03-25Read full judgment →
• Raja Abdur Rashid and Other vs The Government of NWFPK.L.R.1989 Labour and Service 45 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1989-03-25Read full judgment →
• Railway Workers' Union Open Line Establishment vs National1989 SCMR 1490 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-22
  Collective Bargaining AgentReferendumConstitutional jurisdictionVoter listStatus quoWrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a Constitutional petition concerning a referendum held to determine the Collective Bargaining Agent (C.B.A.) for the Pakistan Railways' Open Line Establishment. The petitioner challenged the referendum results, alleging the exclusion of legitimate voters. The High Court had previously declined to issue a writ, noting the significant margin of votes between the parties. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner acknowledged the practical difficulties in conducting the referendum and the impending nature of the next one, opting not to disturb the status quo. The core legal question concerned the criteria for voter list preparation and the effect of vote margins on the validity of a referendum. The Supreme Court disposed of the petition by consent, establishing that voter lists must be updated to include entries up to three to six months prior to the referendum, given the logistical challenges of the Open Line Establishment. Furthermore, the Court clarified that whether a referendum should be set aside due to defects depends on the specific circumstances of each case, rather than being governed by a universal rule regarding vote margins.

  Questions settled

  • Must voter lists for a referendum be updated to include fresh entries prior to the election?
  • Does a wide margin of votes between winning and losing parties automatically preclude a court from setting aside a referendum?
  • Is the determination of whether a defect warrants setting aside a referendum dependent on the specific circumstances of each case?
  Read full judgment →
• Raid Ali vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2247 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-19Read full judgment →
• Rahmat Ali And Others vs The State1989 MLD 4650 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
• Rahim Khatoon vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1861 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-13Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh vs Mst. Allah Javai (deceased) through her Legal Heirs and others1989 SCMR 1312 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-27
  leave to appealpartition of landsubsistence holdingmartial law regulationcivil court jurisdictionancestral property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's suit regarding the partition of ancestral land. The original owner's property devolved through successive generations, leading to a partition via Mutation No. 1732 dated 30-7-1962. The petitioner challenged the mutation alleging fraud and misrepresentation. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner, and the Additional District Judge dismissed the respondents' appeal. However, the High Court accepted the respondents' regular second appeal, set aside the lower courts' decrees, and dismissed the suit. Before the Supreme Court, the core legal question concerned whether the partition of 45 kanals of land contravened paragraph 23 of Martial Law Regulation No. 64, and the effect of Notification No. SR2104/59/3194-LC dated 28th July, 1959, on the jurisdiction of civil courts. The Supreme Court held that the case raised a question of public importance regarding the statutory bar on partitioning joint holdings equal to or less than a subsistence holding, and consequently granted leave to appeal while ordering status quo.

  Questions settled

  • Does the partition of a joint holding with an area equal to or less than a subsistence holding violate Martial Law Regulation No. 64?
  • What is the effect of Notification No. SR2104/59/3194-LC dated 28th July, 1959, on the jurisdiction of civil courts regarding land partition under Martial Law Regulation No. 64?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh and 4 others vs The State1989 SCMR 161 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-26
  murdercommon intentionself-defencebenefit of doubtocular testimonycriminal appealdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  These connected criminal appeals arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the murder of Khuda Bakhsh. The prosecution alleged that the appellants intercepted the deceased and fired at him, resulting in his death, due to a previous motive involving a marriage dispute and criminal litigation. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing some to death and others to life imprisonment. The High Court confirmed the death sentence of one appellant, dismissed appeals for others, and reduced the sentence of a co-accused to life imprisonment by giving him the benefit of the doubt regarding his pistol shot. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the defence version of self-defence was plausible and whether the sentences of life imprisonment warranted enhancement. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through credible ocular and medical evidence, while the belated plea of self-defence by the accused was uncorroborated and untruthful. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the convictions and sentences upheld by the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a belated and uncorroborated plea of self-defence raised by the accused can be accepted without independent medical or eyewitness corroboration?
  • Can the benefit of the doubt be extended to an accused regarding the fatal nature of a specific gunshot wound where multiple assailants fired at the deceased?
  • Whether ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence is sufficient to prove a murder charge beyond reasonable doubt?
  • When should a sentence of life imprisonment not be enhanced to death upon a complainant's appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahat Javid And Others vs The State1989 M LD 4151 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
• Rahat Farooq of Messrs Muhammad Farooq and Co. vs Inspector of Factories, Hyderabad1989 PLC 860 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-01-15Read full judgment →
• Raham Din and others vs Mst. Fatima Bibi1989 SCMR 1430 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-21
  inheritance mutationrejection of plaintdelay and lachesagricultural propertycollateralscivil revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioners, claiming to be collaterals of the deceased Allauddin, seeking a share in his agricultural property after remaining silent for over twenty-six years. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of a civil suit challenging inheritance mutations and allotments after an extensive delay, where alternative remedies before rehabilitation authorities were available. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petition lacks merit due to the prolonged delay of more than twenty-six years in raising the claim and the failure to pursue remedies before the appropriate rehabilitation and resettlement authorities. The court affirmed the concurrent decisions of the lower courts, which had rejected the plaint, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil suit claiming inheritance rights is maintainable after an unexplained delay of over twenty-six years?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the claimants failed to agitate the matter before the appropriate rehabilitation and resettlement authorities?
  • Is leave to appeal to the Supreme Court warranted against concurrent dismissal of a suit by the lower courts and the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Raghunath Prasad Singh vs Secretary, Home (Police) Department1989 MLD 2153 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-12-11Read full judgment →
• Raghunath And Others vs The State of Maharashtra And Other1989 MLD 2576 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-04-07Read full judgment →
• Rafique vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 642 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
• Rafique Masih vs Chairman, Municipal Committee, Chichawatni1989 PLC 682 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-11-17Read full judgment →
• Rafique And Others, vs Allah Jawai And Other1989 MLD 4878 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-03Read full judgment →
• Rafique Ali vs The State1989 MLD 4788(2) · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-19Read full judgment →
• Rafiq vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 143 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-08Read full judgment →
• Rafiq Masih vs The State1989 MLD 4790 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Rafiq Hussain vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Workshop Division1989 PLC 625 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• Rafiq Ahmad Khan and another vs Mahbub Ahmad and others1989 SCMR 1576 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-25
  inheritancelegitimacyrevenue proceedingscivil court jurisdictionestoppelmutationquestion of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order that affirmed a decree granting the respondent possession of property as the son of the deceased, Rajab Khan. The core legal question was whether the respondent was estopped from claiming inheritance in civil court after previously withdrawing his claim during revenue mutation proceedings based on an oath taken by community elders. The Supreme Court held that the respondent was indeed the legitimate son of the deceased, supported by evidence including witness testimony regarding the marriage of the deceased to the respondent's mother and school admission records. The Court ruled that revenue proceedings are independent and their findings do not bind civil courts regarding inheritance disputes. Furthermore, the Court determined that the matter involved questions of fact that were correctly adjudicated by the lower appellate court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that the findings of the civil courts regarding legitimacy and inheritance take precedence over prior revenue mutation proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Are findings or orders of revenue courts binding on civil courts regarding inheritance disputes?
  • Does a withdrawal of a claim in revenue proceedings based on an oath operate as an estoppel against filing a civil suit for inheritance?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Ali And Another vs Mubarak Ali1989 MLD 241 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →
• Raees Khan and 5 others vs Afridi Khan and 4 others1989 PLD Peshawar 75 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
• Rae Aleem Khan vs The State1989 MLD 861 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-01Read full judgment →
• Rabnawaz and others vs Akbar Ali and others1989 SCMR 93 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-12
  restoration of appealdismissal for non-prosecutioncondonation of delayco-shareralienation of joint propertydiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arose from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' application for restoration of a Regular Second Appeal, which had been dismissed for non-prosecution, alongside an application for condonation of delay. The core legal questions were whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to restore the appeal after a delay of over two years, and whether a co-sharer in a joint holding could validly alienate more than their specific share. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court's refusal to exercise discretion in favor of the petitioners was well-reasoned and warranted no interference. On the merits, the Court affirmed the established legal principle that a co-sharer is not legally entitled to alienate more than their own share in a joint holding, thereby upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court's refusal to restore an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution can be interfered with when the restoration application is filed with significant delay?
  • Can a co-sharer in a joint holding validly alienate more than their own share of the joint property?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs Mst Kanizan And Other1989 CLC 171 · Lahore High Court · 1988-03-14Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz and others vs Lt.Col. Raja Shaukat Mahmood and another1989 SCMR 598 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-14
  land settlementP.I. Unitsland allotmentleave to appealIntra-Court Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' Intra-Court Appeal in a land settlement dispute. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its determination that the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, one Hari Singh, had already received his full entitlement of land units, thereby precluding further allotment in the village of Sahjra. The Supreme Court reviewed the petitioners' contentions regarding the calculation of the predecessor's P.I. Units. Upon consideration, the Court found no legal error in the High Court's reasoning, which concluded that the predecessor's total entitlement had been satisfied by prior allotments in Dehh Punnun. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's dismissal of the appeal was justified. The key principle affirmed is that where a party's total land entitlement has been fully satisfied through verified claims in a specific area, they are not entitled to further allotments elsewhere, and appellate courts will not interfere with factual findings regarding unit satisfaction absent a demonstrable legal error.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party seek further land allotment if their total entitlement in P.I. Units has already been satisfied by prior allotments?
  • Does the dismissal of an Intra-Court Appeal by the High Court regarding land settlement require interference if no legal error is demonstrated?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz And 11 Others vs Faiz Ahmad1989 MLD 3836 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-26Read full judgment →
• Ra K Hma T Jan vs Gul-E-Nargis and 6 others1989 PLD Lahore 506 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-21
  civil revisioninherent powerscross-examinationrecall of witnessesends of justiceprocedural fairnesscounsel absence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a suit for mandatory injunction regarding an alleged encroachment on a street. During the proceedings, the trial court recorded the respondents' evidence in the absence of the petitioner's counsel, who was engaged elsewhere. The petitioner's subsequent application to recall these witnesses for cross-examination was dismissed by the trial court, citing a lack of good grounds for the counsel's absence. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court. The core legal question was whether a court possesses the jurisdiction to recall witnesses for cross-examination when a party's counsel was absent due to professional engagements, and whether such discretion should be exercised. The Court held that while Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 does not explicitly grant a party the right to recall witnesses for cross-examination, the court retains inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to do so for the ends of justice. The Court established that where a party's counsel is absent for reasons not amounting to deliberate negligence, the court should allow the recall of witnesses to ensure a fair trial and the discovery of truth.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court have the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to recall witnesses for cross-examination?
  • Is Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 the exclusive provision governing the recall of witnesses for cross-examination?
  • Can a party be penalized for the absence of their counsel during the recording of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• R.N. Kumar vs R.K. Soral1989 MLD 1235 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-04-13Read full judgment →
• R.M. Rafiq & Sons vs Pakistan Railways1989 MLD 19 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-05Read full judgment →
• R.K. Palshikar (Huf) vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madhya1989 PTD 700 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-05-05Read full judgment →
• R vs Steer1989 MLD 1222 · House of LordsRead full judgment →
• Qutab Din and 4 others vs Mst. Rahim Bibi1989 SCMR 727 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-23
  gift validitydelivery of possessionpleadingsrevenue recordscustomary lawRegular Second Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute over the validity of a gift of land made by the deceased, Barkat Ali, in favor of his daughter, Mst. Rahim Bibi. The petitioners, legal heirs of the deceased's brother, challenged the gift, claiming entitlement to a share of the estate on the grounds that the deceased was governed by custom and that the gift was illegal. The core legal question was whether the gift could be declared void due to the alleged non-delivery of possession. The Supreme Court observed that the plea regarding non-delivery of possession was neither raised in the original pleadings nor framed as an issue during the trial proceedings. Furthermore, the Court noted that the land was in the possession of tenants, and the respondent's name was duly recorded as the owner in the revenue records. Consequently, the Court held that the issue of non-delivery of possession could not be raised for the first time at the Regular Second Appeal stage. The petition was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea regarding non-delivery of possession be raised for the first time at the stage of a Regular Second Appeal?
  • Is a gift of land valid where the property is in possession of tenants and the donee's name is recorded in revenue records?
  Read full judgment →