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.
- Qurban Muhammad And Another vs The State1989 MLD 705 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-04Read full judgment →
- Qurban and 5 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1576 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
- Qurban Ali vs The State1989 MLD 4392 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-10Read full judgment →
- Quaid Woollen Mills Ltd. vs Muhammad Akram Khan Niazi1989 PLC 171 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-09-09Read full judgment →
- Qazi Muhammad 1Nayatullah vs Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore1989 PLC (C.S.) 410 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-01-19Read full judgment →
- Qazi Inamul Haq vs Heavy Foundry and Forge Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd.1989 SCMR 1855 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order that dismissed a revision application against the vacation of a temporary injunction. The petitioner, an employee of Heavy Foundry and Forge Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd., was prematurely retired and sought to restrain the company from enforcing this retirement. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to a temporary injunction against the retirement order. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the retirement order had already taken effect prior to the institution of the suit. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the petitioner failed to establish the essential requirements for a temporary injunction, specifically the balance of convenience and the existence of irreparable loss. The Court clarified that personal hardships, such as vacating company-provided housing or the disruption of a child's education, constitute mere inconvenience rather than irreparable loss. The judgment reaffirms the established principle that a temporary injunction requires a prima facie case, a balance of convenience in the plaintiff's favor, and proof of irreparable loss, none of which were satisfied in this instance.
Questions settled- Does the vacation of company-provided housing and the disturbance of a child's education constitute irreparable loss for the purpose of granting a temporary injunction?
- What are the three essential factors that must be satisfied for the grant of a temporary injunction?
- Can a temporary injunction be granted against an order of retirement that has already taken effect?
- Qazi Daood vs Qazi Muhammad Fahim1989 SCMR 238 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises. The ejectment application was instituted by the respondent under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, following a notice served upon the tenant stating that the landlord had retired from government service and required the premises for personal use. The core legal question before the court concerned the validity of the ejectment notice and whether any alleged defect vitiated the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly rejected the plea regarding the defective notice because it was not raised in the initial objections before the Rent Controller and because any defect regarding the statutory period stood cured since the actual proceedings were initiated only after the expiry of that period. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an objection regarding a defective ejectment notice can be raised for the first time before the High Court when it was not pleaded before the Rent Controller?
- Does a defect in the period specified in an ejectment notice stand cured if the eviction proceedings are actually commenced after the expiry of the required period?
- Qazalbash Waqf vs Chief Land Commissioner Punjab, Lahore and others1989 SCMR 2012 (2) · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1989-08-10Read full judgment →
- Qasim vs Commissioner, Sukkur Division and others1989 P Cr. L J 189 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
- Qasim Ali vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 165 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-04Read full judgment →
- Qasam Jan vs The State1989 PLD Peshawar 133 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-13Read full judgment →
- Qamruz Zaman Khan and anothers vs Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division and another1989 SCMR 1587 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition regarding a residential plot in Islamabad. The appellants' father, an allottee of the plot who migrated to Bangladesh, surrendered it, after which the Capital Development Authority allotted it to the appellants subject to clearance under the Abandoned Properties (Taking over and Management) Act 1975. The Deputy Administrator (Abandoned Properties) rejected the appellants' application and declared the plot abandoned property, a decision upheld by the Board of Trustees and the Federal Government. The High Court disposed of the writ petition with observations that the appellants could move the Deputy Administrator for confirmation. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that the appellants' initial application was not properly disposed of by the Deputy Administrator, despite the appellants proving their status as Pakistani citizens. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower orders, and remanded the case to the Deputy Administrator (Abandoned Properties) for a fresh decision on the application.
Questions settled- Whether an application submitted to the Deputy Administrator (Abandoned Properties) regarding the release of an allotted plot was properly disposed of?
- Can the appellants seek a fresh decision and amend their application before the Deputy Administrator (Abandoned Properties) when their Pakistani citizenship is established?
- Whether the High Court was justified in disposing of the constitutional petition with observations instead of addressing the merits of the application?
- Qamaruzzaman vs Ikhtiar Hussain and another1989 SCMR 1093 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a plaintiff decree-holder against the High Court's judgment accepting a civil revision in execution proceedings. The petitioner had previously obtained an uncontested decree for declaration and mandatory injunction regarding the occupancy of a site on Tehbazari basis. During execution, the Chairman of the Municipal Committee passed an order nullifying the decree on the grounds that the site formed part of an open public road and its continued occupation would be against public interest. The core legal question concerned whether this Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal against the interference of the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that given the Chairman's finding that the site is an open road meant for public use and in public interest, it is not a fit case for the exercise of discretionary relief. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, establishing that equitable discretionary relief will be withheld where allowing execution would compromise public interest on public thoroughfares.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will grant discretionary relief in execution proceedings when the disputed site is part of an open public road?
- Can a civil court decree for Tehbazari occupancy be executed if continuation of the arrangement is determined to be against public interest?
- Does the High Court have revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in execution matters arising from uncontested decrees?
- Qamaruzzaman Subhani, Secretary in Maymar Housing Services1989 PLC 416 · Labour Court · 1988-01-09Read full judgment →
- Qamaruzzaman Khan and others vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore, and others1989 SCMR 703 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners regarding the conferment of proprietary rights of land allotted under the Sheep Breeding Scheme. The core legal question is whether a lessee whose lease had expired and who was dispossessed prior to the government policy decision conferring proprietary rights to lessees in possession is entitled to such rights. The Supreme Court held that since the lease had expired in 1969, the land had been allotted to a subsequent allottee who was delivered possession in 1975, and the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest was neither a lessee nor in possession when the 1976 policy was introduced, he was not entitled to proprietary rights. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that eligibility for conferment of proprietary rights under government schemes strictly requires the claimant to be a valid lessee in actual or lawful possession at the time of the policy decision.
Questions settled- Whether a lessee whose lease has expired is entitled to conferment of proprietary rights under government policy?
- Does a subsequent allottee who receives possession prior to a policy decision acquire a superior claim to proprietary rights over a dispossessed former lessee?
- Is possession delivered to a subsequent allottee considered valid to defeat the claim of a previous lessee?
- Qamaruddin vs Messrs Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan1989 PLC 1009 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
- Qamaruddin vs Abdul Ghafoor and 2 others1989 SCMR 1090 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the petitioner challenging a gift made by him in favor of the respondents. The trial court recorded a finding of fact against the petitioner, which led to the dismissal of his suit. This decision was subsequently upheld on appeal. The High Court, in a Regular Second Appeal converted into a Civil Revision, declined to disturb these concurrent findings of fact. Before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the petitioner's counsel contested the findings but ultimately could not sustain any argument against the concurrent appreciation of evidence by the courts below. The Supreme Court held that concurrent findings of fact that are unexceptionable and supported by evidence cannot be disturbed. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the decisions of the lower courts.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts can be disturbed by the Supreme Court when they are found to be unexceptionable?
- Can a petitioner succeed in seeking leave to appeal solely on the ground of reappreciation of evidence where concurrent findings of fact exist against him?
- Qamarud Din And 4 Others vs Taj Muhammad1989 MLD 3059 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
- Qamar-Ud-Din and 4 Other vs Taj MuhammadK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 38 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
- Qamar Sultan and 3 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 402 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-30Read full judgment →
- Qalandar Shah and 3 others vs Ghulam Hussain1989 PLD Revenue 1 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1988-09-07Read full judgment →
- Qaisra Bibi vs The State1989 MLD 118 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-19Read full judgment →
- Qaiser Rehman vs District Magistrate, Rawalpindi1989 MLD 4132 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-29Read full judgment →
- Qadir Bux vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 128 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-25Read full judgment →
- Qadir Bux vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 109 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a case involving charges under section 302/379 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, arising from an incident of cattle theft and subsequent fatal shooting during pursuit. The core legal questions were whether the applicant shared a common intention with the co-accused for the murder committed during retreat, and whether the principle of consistency applied given that a co-accused similarly situated had been granted bail. The Sindh High Court held that the primary objective of theft was already achieved when the murder occurred at a distance, the fatal shot was an individual act of the co-accused without active participation or firearm use by the applicant, and the case required further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that individual criminal liability must be assessed separately where common intention for a subsequent distinct act is not prima facie established, and that the rule of consistency applies when co-accused persons face identical allegations.
Questions settled- Whether bail should be granted when the primary offence of theft is complete and the fatal shooting is committed by a co-accused during retreat?
- Does the principle of consistency apply when a co-accused facing identical allegations has already been released on bail?
- Can a co-accused be held vicariously liable for murder under a shared common intention when the original objective was solely to commit theft?
- Qadir Bakhsh vs Syed Shaukat Ali Shah and 3 others1989 P Cr. L J 1002 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
- Qadir Bakhsh And Others vs Mst. Zeban And Other1989 MLD 4999 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-06Read full judgment →
- Qabil Shah And 2 Others vs The Additional Custodian of Evacuee1989 CLC 2409 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-10-03Read full judgment →
- Raj Muhammad and 2 others vs Munshi Khan and 2 others1989 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 56 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-03-04Read full judgment →
- Q a Sim a LI vs Muhammad Saeed1989 PLD Lahore 230 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-10Read full judgment →
- Punjab Vegetable Ghee And General Mills Ltd. vs Collector Of Central ExcisePTCL 1989 CL. 435 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Punjab Urban Transport Corporation vs Qurban Ali and 24 others1989 PLC 750 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
- Punjab Urban Transport Corporation vs Liaqat Ali1989 PLC 41 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-08-16Read full judgment →
- Punjab Urban Transport Corporation (Now PRTC) through District1989 PLC 608 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-19Read full judgment →
- Punjab Steel Ltd. And Three Other Companies. vs Deputy Collector Of Customs, Dry Port Lahore, EtcPTCL 1989 CL. 289 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Punjab Steel Limited vs Deputy Collector of Customs, Dry Port, Lahore and others1989 PLD Lahore 237 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of eight writ petitions filed by various industrial undertakings challenging assessment orders passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs, Lahore, regarding the levy of customs duty and sales tax on imported shredded iron and steel scrap. The core legal question concerns the applicability and legal effect of notifications issued by the Federal Government on 30-12-1987 altering the rates of customs duty, regulatory duty, and sales tax on the imported goods under PCT heading 73.03. The Lahore High Court held that an exemption notification cannot be used to enhance the tax burden beyond the statutory rate of customs duty, and that sales tax exemption applies in accordance with the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Al-Samrez Enterprise v. The Federation of Pakistan. The court concluded that claiming customs duty in excess of the statutory rate of Rs.418 per metric ton and levying sales tax contrary to settled protections was without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that exemption notifications serve to reduce or remit statutory liability, not to increase tax burdens beyond existing statutory limits.
Questions settled- Can an exemption notification be utilized to charge customs duty in excess of the statutory rate?
- What is the applicable rate of duty for imported goods under section 30 of the Customs Act, 1969, when bills of entry for ex-bonding are filed after a change in duty rates?
- Does the levy of customs duty under subsection (1) of section 18 of the Customs Act, 1969 exhaust the power to levy regulatory duty under subsection (2)?
- Are importers entitled to sales tax exemption on goods imported and in-bonded prior to the withdrawal of such exemption through subsequent notifications?
- Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Lahore through District Manager.1989 PLC 674 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Lahore and another vs Shafique1989 PLC 110 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Faisalabad vs Hafeezullah Niazi1989 PLC 618 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
- Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Bahawalpur vs Ghulam Abbas1989 PLC 49 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-02-28Read full judgment →
- Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Bahawalpur vs Bashir Ahmed1989 PLC 118 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-11-02Read full judgment →
- Punjab Road Transport Corporation vs Muhammad Shaft1989 PLC 267 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-08-04Read full judgment →
- Punjab Road Transport Corporation vs Muhammad Ilyas1989 PLC 836 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-05-07Read full judgment →
- Punjab Road Transport Corporation vs Muhammad Hanif1989 PLC 749 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-08-27Read full judgment →
- Punjab Road Transport Corporation vs Iqbal Akbar1989 PLC 63 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-07-13Read full judgment →
- Punjab Road Transport Corporation vs Barkat Ali and 10 others1989 PLC 30 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-01-26Read full judgment →
- Punjab Road Transport Corporation vs Ali Ahmad1989 PLC 79 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-07-13Read full judgment →
- Punjab Road Transport Board vs Nemat Ali1989 PLC 116 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-11-03Read full judgment →
- Punjab Road Transport Board through its Chairman, Lahore vs Abdul1989 PLD Supreme Court 541 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a Regular First Appeal (RFA) due to the non-joinder of a co-judgment-debtor (the driver) in a suit for damages. The High Court had held that the appeal was improperly constituted because the driver, being jointly and severally liable, was a necessary party who had not been impleaded within the period of limitation. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court failed to properly exercise its powers under Order XLI Rules 4, 20, and 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court emphasized that these rules grant appellate courts wide, discretionary, and beneficial powers to ensure justice, allowing them to reverse or vary decrees even where all parties are not joined or where no formal application is made. The Court clarified that Order XLI Rule 20 allows for suo motu action by the court, and the High Court's reliance on strict limitation constraints to dismiss the appeal was erroneous. The case was remanded for a fresh decision.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court reverse or vary a decree in favor of all defendants under Order XLI Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, even if only one defendant appeals?
- Does an appellate court have the power to implead a necessary party under Order XLI Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, on its own motion?
- Is an appellate court's power under Order XLI Rule 33, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, limited by the fact that a party failed to file an appeal or objection?
- Can a suit or appeal be defeated solely on the ground of non-joinder of parties under Order I Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Punjab Provincial Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Lahore vs Muhammad1989 PLC 621 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Punjab Province and another vs Mian Faqir Sain1989 SCMR 314 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's civil revision, which had challenged an order appointing a sole arbitrator by mutual consent. The core legal question was whether the appointment of the arbitrator by the Senior Civil Judge was made with the valid consent of the petitioner Punjab Province. The Supreme Court held that the question of consent is a question of fact, and where an affidavit challenging the consent fails to allege mala fides against the judge who recorded the consent, no interference is warranted. The court dismissed the petition, establishing that concurrent factual findings regarding consent given before a lower court through counsel or representatives will not be disturbed by the apex court in the absence of substantiated allegations of mala fides.
Questions settled- Whether an order appointing an arbitrator by consent can be challenged in civil revision without alleging mala fides against the judge who recorded the consent?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of consent between parties to an arbitration agreement?
- Punjab Industrial Development Board, Lahore vs Muslim Commercial1989 MLD 467 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Punjab Cables vs Government of Pakistan1989 PLD Lahore 121 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns four miscellaneous applications filed by Punjab Cables Limited seeking to restrain customs authorities from realizing bank guarantees furnished pursuant to interim orders of the High Court. The applicant sought an extension of stay orders pending the disposal of writ petitions challenging fines imposed by the Collector of Customs. The core legal question was whether the six-month limitation on interim orders under Article 199(4-A) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 applies to proceedings involving the confiscation of goods and imposition of fines. The Court held that the limitation period applies, as the Collector’s orders regarding confiscation of goods and imposition of fines relate to 'State property' and 'public revenues.' The Court reasoned that confiscation proceedings under the Customs Act 1969 operate in rem, vesting title in the State, and that the legislative intent of Article 199(4-A) was to prevent the indefinite stay of recoverable state funds. Consequently, the Court dismissed the applications, ruling that the interim orders had ceased to have effect upon the expiration of the statutory period.
Questions settled- Does the six-month limitation period for interim orders under Article 199(4-A) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 apply to proceedings involving customs fines and confiscation of goods?
- Do proceedings for the confiscation of goods under the Customs Act 1969 constitute matters relating to State property?
- Does the term 'public revenues' in Article 199(4-A) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 encompass income derived from fines and penalties imposed by customs authorities?
- Punjab Cables (Pvt.) Limited. vs Govt, Of PakistanPTCL 1989 CL. 164 · Lahore High Court · 1988-01-17Read full judgment →
- Punjab Board of Technical Education vs Muhammad Javid Akhtar1989 MLD 3763 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-29Read full judgment →
- Punjab Agricultural Development Supplies Corporation and another1989 PLC 230 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-09-20Read full judgment →
- Province of. the Punjab and others Ch. Hamad Elahi and anothers vs Ch., Hamid Elahi and anothers the Land Acquisition Collector and anothers1989 PLD Supreme Court 119 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves cross-appeals concerning the acquisition of land by the Provincial Government for the construction of a protection bund on the River Ravi. The core legal question was whether the landowners were entitled to additional compensation for the depreciation in value of their remaining unacquired holding caused by the construction of the bund, alongside the determination of the market value of the acquired land. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the market value of the land, dismissing the landowners' appeal on that issue. Regarding the Provincial Government's appeal, the Court held that under the Land Acquisition Act, landowners are entitled to compensation for damage sustained by their remaining property due to the acquisition. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision to remand the case to the Land Acquisition Collector to assess such damages. The key principle laid down is that when the State compulsorily acquires land for a public purpose that injuriously affects the utility or value of the owner's remaining property, the owner is entitled to additional compensation under the relevant statutory provisions.
Questions settled- Is a landowner entitled to additional compensation for the depreciation of their remaining property caused by the State's acquisition of a portion of their land for a public purpose?
- Does the Land Acquisition Act 1894 provide for compensation for damage sustained by an owner's remaining property due to the acquisition of a part of their holding?
- Can a court remand a case to the Land Acquisition Collector for the determination of additional compensation when the initial award failed to address claims for damages to the remaining holding?
- Province of the Punjab vs Muhammad Nawaz1989 SCMR 1486 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Province of the Punjab filed a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 23-11-1980. The High Court had accepted a constitutional petition filed by the respondent, Muhammad Nawaz, and declared his order of suspension to be of no legal effect. The petitioner, represented by the Additional Advocate-General, challenged the High Court's decision, specifically raising a legal question regarding the scope and limits of the High Court's jurisdiction in such matters. Upon consideration of the petition, the Supreme Court of Pakistan determined that the question of jurisdiction required a deeper examination and formal adjudication. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal. The Court directed that the appeal be prepared based on the existing record, while granting the parties a period of two months to submit any additional documents they deemed necessary for the final determination of the matter.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to set aside an order of suspension in a constitutional petition?
- What are the limits of the High Court's jurisdiction when reviewing administrative suspension orders?
- Province of the Punjab vs Mand and 6 others1989 SCMR 1528 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondents obtained an allotment of State agricultural land under the Ejectment of Tenants Scheme, which was cancelled by the Collector on 3-7-1968 on the grounds of misrepresentation and fraud under the proviso to Section 16 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act. The respondents challenged the cancellation through a civil suit, which was initially dismissed by the trial court but decreed in their favor by the Additional District Judge. The High Court dismissed the Provincial Government's revision petition, relying partly on the fact that the proviso under which the Collector acted had been omitted with retrospective effect by Ordinance XII of 1978. The Provincial Government sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the 1978 omission of the proviso affected an earlier cancellation order and whether respondents found guilty of fraud could seek equitable relief of declaration under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The Court held that leave to appeal ought to be granted to examine these questions.
Questions settled- Whether the omission of the proviso to Section 16 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act in 1978 could affect an order of cancellation made years earlier?
- After respondents had been found guilty of fraud and misrepresentation, could they be permitted to seek the equitable relief of declaration under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act from a Civil Court?
- Province of the Punjab through the Secretary Revenue Department, Lahore vs Awamun Nas of Pakistan1989 SCMR 1358 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1988-01-13Read full judgment →
- Province of the Punjab And Another vs Haji Mirza Jan Muhammad1989 MLD 483 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
- Province of Sind And Others vs Vaseem Construction Co.1989 MLD 1869 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-06Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab vs Syed Dilawar Ali Shah1989 SCMR 1275 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab, through the Director-General and Assistant Director of Social Welfare, challenging a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 18-10-1984. The Service Tribunal had modified the disciplinary penalty imposed on the respondent, Syed Dilawar Ali Shah, by setting aside his removal from service and substituting it with the stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect and a censure, while also directing that the respondent's period of absence be treated as extraordinary leave without pay. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal's findings were supported by the evidence on record and whether it had properly addressed all charges, specifically the allegation of willful absence from duty between 13-9-1983 and 26-9-1983. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner's contentions regarding the Tribunal's failure to discuss the additional charge of willful absence required further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider the merits of the Tribunal's decision.
Questions settled- Does a Service Tribunal's failure to address specific charges in a disciplinary case warrant the granting of leave to appeal?
- Can a Service Tribunal modify a penalty of removal from service to a lesser punishment without addressing all findings of fact?
- Province of Punjab vs Sardar Wali Muhammad Mokal1989 MLD 3890 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab vs Muhammad Tayyab and 2 others1989 SCMR 1621 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a series of petitions for leave to appeal arising from a common judgment dated 7-6-1987 rendered by the Lahore High Court. The Province of Punjab sought leave to appeal against this judgment, noting that several direct appeals had already been filed by both the Government and the affected property owners, specifically Civil Appeals 18 to 22, 54 of 1988, and Civil Appeals 212 and 233 of 1987. The Assistant Advocate-General submitted that the legal issues presented in the current petitions for leave to appeal were identical to those already pending before the Supreme Court in the aforementioned direct appeals. Consequently, the Supreme Court, after condoning the delay in the relevant cases, granted leave to appeal in all the petitions. The Court directed that these appeals be consolidated and heard alongside the previously filed appeals challenging the same High Court judgment. The Court further ordered that the appeals be prepared based on the existing record, with a specific direction for the parties to file all essential documents to facilitate the hearing.
Questions settled- Can petitions for leave to appeal be consolidated with direct appeals challenging the same High Court judgment?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to condone delay in filing petitions for leave to appeal?
- Province of Punjab vs Muhammad Azam1989 SCMR 1419 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondent leased land from the Building and Road Department, incurring an alleged debt of Rs. 4,549.87. The Provincial Government attempted to recover this sum as arrears of land revenue. The respondent challenged this recovery method through a civil suit. While the trial court dismissed the suit, the Additional District Judge decreed it in the respondent's favor, a decision upheld by the High Court in a second appeal. The Provincial Government sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether lease money owed to the Building and Road Department could lawfully be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Provincial Government failed to identify any statutory authority permitting the recovery of such lease money as arrears of land revenue. The judgment affirms that the state cannot invoke the summary procedure for recovering land revenue arrears without explicit statutory authorization for the specific debt in question.
Questions settled- Can lease money owed to the Building and Road Department be recovered as arrears of land revenue?
- Is the Provincial Government required to cite specific statutory authority to recover debts as arrears of land revenue?
- Province of Punjab vs Messrs Syed Shafique Ahmad1989 SCMR 1276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the dismissal of the petitioner's First Appeal from Order (F.A.O.) by the High Court due to the non-appearance of the learned counsel on time, the subsequent refusal by the High Court to restore the appeal on the grounds of insufficient cause despite the counsel's explanation not being found false, and whether a counsel's miscalculation of timings while attending another Bench in the same court constitutes sufficient cause for restoration. The Supreme Court of Pakistan considered previous precedents supporting the petitioner's position and held that it was just and proper to grant leave to appeal. The principle laid down is that a bona fide mistake or miscalculation of time by counsel appearing in another bench of the same court can constitute sufficient cause for the restoration of an appeal dismissed in default.
Questions settled- Whether the dismissal of an appeal for non-appearance of counsel on time constitutes a ground for refusal to restore the appeal when the counsel's explanation is not found to be false?
- Whether a mistake in the estimate of timings by a counsel appearing in another Bench of the same Court constitutes sufficient cause for the restoration of an appeal?
- Province of Punjab vs Asghari Khanum1989 MLD 226 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-14Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab vs Allah Din1989 CLC 2495 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab vs Ahmad Yar And Other1989 MLD 1085 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab through Secretary, Home Department, Lahore and others vs Malik Mukhtar Ahmad (Retd.) A.S.I1989 SCMR 551 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which reinstated a civil servant (a retired Assistant Sub-Inspector) after his dismissal from service. The core legal question was whether a departmental inquiry and subsequent dismissal order are valid when the officer who issued the show-cause notice and acted as the judge was also the complainant and primary witness against the accused. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the departmental proceedings were vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court held that an official cannot simultaneously act as prosecutor, judge, and punishing authority when they are also the complainant. Relying on established precedent, the Court ruled that such a jurisdictional defect is fundamental and cannot be cured by subsequent appellate review. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, confirming that proceedings tainted by such bias are void and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Can a departmental inquiry be sustained where the punishing authority is also the complainant and primary witness?
- Does an appellate authority's review cure a jurisdictional defect arising from bias in the initial disciplinary proceedings?
- What is the legal effect of a departmental inquiry conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice?
- Province of Punjab through Secretary, Government of Punjab and others1989 SCMR 932 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arises from proceedings involving the Provincial Government and a respondent employee concerning service matters. The core legal questions relate to whether an appellate authority can accept a time-barred appeal without explicitly considering and condoning the delay, and whether a reporting officer holding dual charges or jurisdiction across multiple stations is legally competent to author an annual confidential report or conduct evaluation for the total working period exceeding three months. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that these contentions raised by the Provincial Government require further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave or directed that the appeal be made ready on the existing record with liberty for parties to add further documents, scheduling the matter for an early hearing.
Questions settled- Can an appellate authority accept a time-barred appeal without an express order condoning the delay?
- Is a reporting officer competent to report on the conduct of an employee when the working period across stations exceeds three months?
- Province of Punjab Through Secretary, Communication And Works1989 MLD 4087 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab through Divisional Forest Officer, Gujrat and others vs Rafi Ullah Qureshi1989 SCMR 948 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, which had accepted an appeal filed by a forest guard (the respondent) and held that a request for retirement can be withdrawn before it actually takes place. The respondent had served for about 32 years, applied for leave preparatory to retirement due to ill-health and domestic problems, and subsequently sought to withdraw his retirement application before the leave expired. Although initially permitted by the Conservator of Forests, the withdrawal order was later rescinded on the ground of lack of competence. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a Government servant can withdraw an option to retire once it has been made and accepted. Granting leave to appeal for a detailed examination of the contention, the Supreme Court noted the State's reliance on precedent regarding the finality of retirement options and directed that the appeal be made ready for hearing.
Questions settled- Can a Government servant withdraw an application for leave preparatory to retirement or retirement before it actually takes effect?
- Is the Conservator of Forests competent to allow the withdrawal of a retirement order previously sanctioned?
- Does an option to retire become irrevocable once it is exercised by a civil servant?
- Province of Punjab Through District Collector,Vehari vs Rana1989 MLD 1009 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-09Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab through DirectorGeneral, Social Welfare and others1989 SCMR 1993 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Province of Punjab and the Social Welfare Department against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The Tribunal had modified the disciplinary action taken against the respondent, setting aside an order of removal from service and substituting it with the stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect and a censure, while treating the intervening period as extraordinary leave without pay. The petitioners challenged this decision, arguing that the Tribunal's findings were contrary to the evidence on record and that the Tribunal failed to address a specific additional charge regarding the respondent's alleged willful absence from duty between 13-9-1983 and 26-9-1983. The Supreme Court of Pakistan found that the contentions raised by the petitioners regarding the evidentiary findings and the omission of the charge of willful absence warranted further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider these issues, allowing the parties to prepare the appeal on the existing record with the liberty to file additional documents.
Questions settled- Does a Service Tribunal's failure to address a specific charge of willful absence in its judgment warrant the granting of leave to appeal?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when there is a contention that the Service Tribunal's findings are contrary to the evidence on record?
- Province of Punjab Through Collector, Faisalabad And Another vs Muhammad Hussain1989 MLD 3848 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-31Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab through Collector, District Gujrat and others vs Muhammad Sabir and others1989 SCMR 931 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab against a lower court decision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether leave to appeal should be granted in light of similar pending litigation and the initiation of administrative actions pursuant to prior court orders. The Court, noting that leave to appeal had already been granted in analogous cases, including Civil Appeal No. 155 of 1983 and Civil Petition No. 155 of 1986, decided to grant leave to appeal in the present petition as well. The Court directed that the appeal be prepared on the existing record, with parties permitted to file necessary additional documents within a two-month period. Furthermore, the Court ordered that this matter be consolidated and heard alongside other connected cases to ensure consistency in adjudication. The principle established is that where multiple petitions involve similar legal questions and factual matrices, the Court may grant leave to appeal and consolidate such matters for a collective hearing to facilitate judicial efficiency and consistency.
Questions settled- Should leave to appeal be granted when similar matters are already pending before the Court?
- Can the Supreme Court direct the consolidation of connected matters for a joint hearing?
- Province of Punjab through Collector Sialkot and others vs Ch. Khan1989 SCMR 558 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Province of Punjab against the High Court's dismissal of their writ petition challenging an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller. The core legal question was whether the Government, having taken over a school under Martial Law Regulation 118, could be considered a tenant of the premises and thus subject to eviction proceedings, despite the Government's claim that it was not a tenant and that the underlying tenancy agreement was invalid due to lack of registration or proper stamping. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Government, by occupying the premises and assuming the liabilities of the previous school management, established a landlord-tenant relationship. The Court affirmed that the Government could not claim ownership of the building merely based on its occupation under the Martial Law Regulation. Furthermore, the Court held that the lack of registration or proper stamping of the lease agreement, or its formal expiration, did not absolve the Government of its status as a tenant or its liabilities under the existing legal arrangements.
Questions settled- Does the government's occupation of a school building under Martial Law Regulation 118 create a landlord-tenant relationship with the building's owner?
- Can the government claim ownership of a building solely because it continues to occupy it as a school under Martial Law Regulation 118?
- Does the expiration or lack of registration of a lease agreement prevent the establishment of a landlord-tenant relationship between the government and the property owner?
- Province of Punjab and another vs Malik Sarfraz Nawaz1989 SCMR 1421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil revision by the High Court, which originated from arbitration proceedings. The petitioners challenged an arbitration award issued by a sole arbitrator, arguing that although the arbitrator was not required to provide reasons at the time of the award, the High Court erred by failing to direct the arbitrator to rewrite the award to include supporting reasons. The petitioners contended that this action was mandated by the amendment to Section 26-A of the Arbitration Act. The Supreme Court considered the arguments and reviewed the contents of the award. The Court held that the High Court's refusal to exercise its discretion to direct the rewriting of the award was legally sound and free from infirmity. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no justification to interfere with the High Court's decision and refused the leave to appeal. The judgment affirms that the High Court retains discretion regarding the remittal of awards for the inclusion of reasons under the relevant statutory framework.
Questions settled- Is an arbitrator legally bound to provide reasons for an award at the time it is made?
- Does the High Court have the discretion to direct an arbitrator to rewrite an award to include reasons?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's refusal to direct the rewriting of an arbitration award?
- Province of Punjab and 2 others vs Raza Razvi and 72 others1989 SCMR 315 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondent, an Inspector of Police, was denied immediate promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee due to adverse entries in his record, with a directive that his case be reconsidered after obtaining three consecutive good reports. He was subsequently promoted in 1979. Claiming seniority over juniors promoted during the interim period, he appealed to the Service Tribunal, which ruled in his favor, holding that the deferment of his promotion did not constitute a rejection of his case. The Provincial Government petitioned the Supreme Court for leave to appeal, contending that the deferment of promotion effectively amounted to a rejection of the respondent's case, thereby disentitling him to seniority over those promoted earlier. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the deferment of promotion by a departmental committee is legally equivalent to the rejection of a promotion case, thereby impacting the seniority rights of the civil servant. The matter was set for further hearing on the existing record with permission to file additional documents.
Questions settled- Does the deferment of a promotion case by a Departmental Promotion Committee constitute a rejection of the case for promotion?
- Is a civil servant entitled to seniority over juniors promoted during the period his own promotion was deferred?
- Project Director, Karkhana Alaatezari, Bah Aw a Lpur vs The Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court and 6 others1989 PLD Supreme Court 152 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil appeals arise from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the orders of the Labour Courts which set aside the dismissal of the respondent workers and ordered their reinstatement with back benefits. The respondents, employed at Karkhana Alaat-e-Zari, Bahawalpur (originally a cooperative enterprise and later run by an Administrator), were dismissed from service on charges of misconduct, slow-down, and instigating strikes, without proper inquiry or observance of procedural safeguards. They filed applications under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The primary legal question before the Supreme Court was whether employees of such a cooperative industrial concern, whose Administrator and employees are deemed public servants under the West Pakistan Cooperative Board (Dissolution) Act, 1966, fall within the exclusion of persons employed in the 'administration of the State' under section 1(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of labour courts. The Supreme Court held that workers engaged in manual, mechanical, or operational tasks in a commercial or industrial establishment are workmen entitled to the protection of labour laws and are not persons employed in the 'administration of the State', which is restricted to sovereign or executive functions of government. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether employees of a cooperative industrial establishment deemed public servants under the West Pakistan Cooperative Board (Dissolution) Act, 1966 are persons employed in the administration of the State under section 1(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Does the jurisdiction of labour courts under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 extend to workers performing manual or mechanical duties in a state-run or controlled industrial concern?
- What constitutes 'administration of the State' for the purpose of exclusion under section 1(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Project Director Ghotki, WAPDA and others vs Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation and Authority and others1989 PLC 894 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
- Progressive Papers Ltd., Lahore vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal1989 PLC 631 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-03Read full judgment →
- Prof. Shaukat Hussain vs Sarfraz Hussain and 10 others1989 PLD Quetta 89 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-06-15Read full judgment →
- Prof. Shahid Mahmood vs The State1989 MLD 3965 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-01Read full judgment →
- Prof. Mirza Sher Baz Khan vs Chairman M.D.A. Mirpur and 3 others1989 PLD Azad J&K 47 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-01-23Read full judgment →
- Prof. Dr. Syed Adil Hussain vs University of Karachi and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 526 · Sindh High Court · 1988-04-25Read full judgment →
- Private Secretary to the Commissioner, Punjab Employees' Social1989 PLC (C.S.) 332 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
- Pritamdas vs Senior Member, Federal Land Commission And Other1989 MLD 1416 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-01Read full judgment →
- President, National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi and another vs Muhammad Saeed Javed1989 PLC 610 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-01-25Read full judgment →
- President, Employees Union, Public Health Engineering, (Regd.), Rahimyarkhn and another vs Superintending Engineer, Phe, Bahawalpur and others1989 PLC 755 · Labour Court · 1988-10-20Read full judgment →
- President of Pakistan and others vs Ata Muhammad Khan1989 SCMR 273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which set aside the dismissal from service of the respondent, an Assistant Registrar, Joint Stock Companies. The respondent was charged with departmental misconduct, notably registering a finance company in alleged defiance of departmental instructions prohibiting such registrations. An inquiry officer and subsequently the authorized officer examined the charges, but the Establishment Division ultimately recommended the respondent's dismissal to the President based on the premise that he registered the company after receiving telephonic instructions not to do so. The Federal Service Tribunal re-examined the evidence and concluded that the primary charge of registering the company in defiance of instructions was not established, as the company had been registered before the instructions were received. The core legal question was whether the factual findings of the Tribunal regarding the timing of the instructions and registration warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's finding was a pure finding of fact based on the record and declined to interfere, upholding the reinstatement of the respondent. The key principle established is that findings of fact recorded by the Service Tribunal based on an appreciation of evidence will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court unless shown to be unjustified or perverse.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court can interfere with a finding of fact recorded by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the establishment of departmental charges?
- Does the registration of a finance company prior to the receipt of prohibitory departmental instructions constitute misconduct?
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal was justified in setting aside an order of dismissal based on unestablished charges?
- President and General Secretary, Lahore Zoo Mazdoor Union (Regd.)1989 PLC 901 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Premier Tobacco Industries Ltd. vs Deputy Collector of Central1989 CLC 2045 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-07-11Read full judgment →
- Prem Kevalran Shahani vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Togovernment Ministry of Justice and Parlimentaryaffair, Islamabad and AnotherK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 79 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
- Prem Kevalram Shahani vs Go\ f Rnment of Pakistan through Secretary1989 PLD Karachi 123 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-18Read full judgment →
- Prasun Roy vs The Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority And Another1989 MLD 3235 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-07-20Read full judgment →
- Postmaster-General, Northern Circle, Rawalpindi vs Abdul Hayee1989 PLC 744 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-08-29Read full judgment →
- Post Master General, Central Circle, Lahore vs Ali Sher Khan1989 PLC 688 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-06-20Read full judgment →