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.
- Misdkeen Illahi Shehzada vs Aziz HussainK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 38 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-31Read full judgment →
- Mirzayawarbaig vs Usman Ghani ChippaK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 64 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
- Mirza Tasawar Ali Beg vs Abdur Rashid Khan and another1989 SCMR 868 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two appeals arising from a dispute over the specific performance of an agreement to sell a house owned in equal shares by a husband and wife. The core legal questions were whether the presence of a compensation clause in an agreement precludes a suit for specific performance, and whether a husband can bind his wife's share of property without express authorization or subsequent ratification. The Court held that a compensation clause does not bar specific performance, as Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 allows for such enforcement even where a sum is named as a penalty. Regarding the wife's share, the Court held that since she was not a signatory, had not authorized her husband, and had consistently repudiated the agreement, the contract could not be enforced against her. The key principle laid down is that the mere inclusion of a penalty clause in a contract for the sale of immovable property does not deprive the court of its power to grant specific performance, and a spouse cannot bind the other's property interest without valid authorization.
Questions settled- Does the inclusion of a compensation clause in an agreement to sell immovable property bar a suit for specific performance?
- Can a court grant specific performance of a contract for the sale of immovable property if the contract contains a penalty clause?
- Is a husband's agreement to sell his wife's share of property binding on her in the absence of a power of attorney or subsequent ratification?
- Mirza Muhammad Siddique vs Muhammad Abdullah1989 MLD 54 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged an appellate order where the District Judge decided a dispute based on a referee's statement, despite the petitioner's application to revoke the referee's appointment. The core legal question was whether a party can retract from an agreement to be bound by a referee's statement and whether the court is compelled to enforce such a statement. The High Court held that a referee is not an arbitrator; their status is defined by the parties' agreement. Crucially, an agreement to be bound by a referee constitutes a contract rather than a compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the court retains the discretion to allow a party to retract from such an agreement if valid reasons are presented. The District Judge erred by erroneously assuming he was legally bound to enforce the referee's statement without judicially considering the petitioner's revocation application. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for the District Judge to decide the revocation application on its merits before proceeding with the appeal.
Questions settled- Does an agreement to be bound by a referee constitute a compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a court legally compelled to enforce a referee's statement, or does it retain discretion to allow a party to retract from the agreement?
- Does a referee, by examining accounts and conducting a spot inspection, acquire the legal status of an arbitrator?
- Can a revision petition be treated as an appeal under the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Mirza Muhammad Hanif vs Central Board of Revenues, Government of Pakistan and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 422 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
- Mirza Bashir Muhammad and others vs Muhammad Ali1989 SCMR 596 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their civil revision and review application by the High Court, which had upheld the dismissal of their inheritance declaration suit on the grounds of res judicata and the bar under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to the withdrawal of an earlier suit without obtaining permission. Upon examining the withdrawal application, the Supreme Court observed that a clear prayer for permission to file a fresh suit was indeed made, but the trial court failed to consider that aspect. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the case warranted a re-examination of the points raised, granted leave to appeal, and ordered that the stay should continue.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the lower court failed to consider the prayer for permission to refile a withdrawn suit?
- Does the withdrawal of an earlier suit without formal permission operate as a bar under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when permission was actually sought in the application?
- Mirza Anwar Hussain and others vs Pakistan Broadcasting1989 PLC (C.S.) 256 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Amir and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 180 · Lahore High Court · 1988-02-17Read full judgment →
- Mirza Abdul Ghafoor vs Shafi Woollen Industries Ltd.1989 PLD Lahore 299 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-15Read full judgment →
- Miria Azeem Baig and another vs Managing Director/Manager1989 PLC 874 · Labour Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
- Mirajuddin and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 441 (2) · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-24Read full judgment →
- Mir Wali Shah vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 525 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
- Mir Wali Shah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1671 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
- Mir Sultan vs The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal And 4 Other1989 CLC 1495 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-04Read full judgment →
- Mir Shah Jehan Khan vs The State1989 MLD 4131 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-30Read full judgment →
- Mir Shah Jehan And Another vs Syed Ali And 5 Other1989 CLC 2206 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-07-29Read full judgment →
- Mir Safdar Ali vs Ali Mardan and another1989 P Cr. L J 2459 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
- Mir Sadio Ali vs The State and another1989 P Cr. L J 528 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
- Mir Qadayaz vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1511 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
- Mir Qad Ayaz Etc. vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 586 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
- Mir Muhammad Ibrahim vs District Magistrate, Kalat and others1989 SCMR 185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the dismissal of the appellant's constitutional petition by the High Court of Baluchistan regarding the cancellation of his local certificate for District Kalat. The core legal questions involved whether a local certificate issued to an indigenous tribe member could be cancelled and whether the District Magistrate had the authority to review or cancel the previously issued certificate. The Supreme Court held that the District Magistrate was legally empowered to cancel a local certificate previously issued on erroneous grounds when cogent facts proved the appellant was a permanent resident of Quetta rather than Kalat District. The Court laid down the principle that the correction of an erroneously issued local certificate based on undisputed factual findings of permanent residency elsewhere does not constitute an improper review of an order.
Questions settled- Whether a local certificate issued by a District Magistrate can be subsequently cancelled upon verification of true residency facts?
- Does the cancellation of an erroneously issued local certificate amount to an incompetent review of an earlier order?
- Whether a person permanently residing in Quetta can claim local status in Kalat District merely on the basis of tribal affiliation and ancestral property?
- Mir Ghulam Sarwar vs Engineer-in-Chief GHQ, Rawalpindi1989 PLC (C.S.) 704 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
- Mir Dad Khan vs Afsar Khan and 2 others1989 PLD Peshawar 206 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
- Mir Bahadur vs Hakim Shah1989 SCMR 1022 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenged a Peshawar High Court order upholding a decree in favour of a pre-emptor. The core legal question was whether a husband who facilitated the sale of his wife's land, acting as an agent, could subsequently exercise a right of pre-emption against the vendee, or if his actions constituted waiver or estoppel. The Supreme Court examined evidence showing the husband initiated the sale mutation entry with the local Patwari and facilitated the transaction. The Court held that the husband's active participation in the sale transaction with his consent precluded him from claiming a right of pre-emption. The Court rejected the argument that the husband acted solely in a representative capacity as an agent under the Contract Act, holding that the specific provisions of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1950, as a special law, override the general provisions of the Contract Act. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower appellate and High Court judgments, restored the trial court's dismissal of the suit, and established that a pre-emptor who consents to a sale cannot later pre-empt that same transaction.
Questions settled- Does the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1950 override the general provisions of the Contract Act 1872 regarding agency?
- Can a husband who facilitates the sale of his wife's land subsequently claim a right of pre-emption over that same property?
- Does active participation in the sale of land by a potential pre-emptor constitute waiver or estoppel of the right of pre-emption?
- Mir Aslam Khan and Sons vs Gammon Pakistan Ltd.1989 MLD 3040 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-10Read full judgment →
- Mir Alam vs Mst. Janey and others1989 SCMR 1293 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a dispute over agricultural land involving the inheritance rights of female limited owners under customary law and subsequent statutory changes. The core legal question was whether the respondent's suit, filed in 1972, claiming a share in her father’s estate, was barred by limitation. The respondent’s limited interest in the property had terminated upon her marriage in 1940. Although the N.-W.F.P. Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Amendment) Act, 1950, subsequently recognized the right of female limited owners to succeed to the last full owner, the Supreme Court held that such claims were subject to the law of limitation. Specifically, the Court ruled that the respondent was required to file her suit within twelve years of the termination of her limited interest, which occurred in 1940. Having failed to do so by 1952, the suit instituted in 1972 was hopelessly time-barred. The Court rejected the argument that the existence of a mortgage extended the limitation period, as the mortgage had been redeemed in 1942. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the dismissal of the suit.
Questions settled- Is a suit for inheritance by a female limited owner whose interest terminated in 1940 barred if filed in 1972?
- Does the existence of a mortgage on property extend the limitation period for a suit claiming inheritance rights?
- What is the limitation period for a female limited owner to claim inheritance under the N.-W.F.P. Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Amendment) Act, 1950?
- Mir Akbar Khan. vs Collector, Central Excise And Land Customs, Lahore And OtherPTCL 1989 CL. 341 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mir Akbar Khan vs Collector, Central Excise And Land Customs And Other1989 MLD 3058 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
- Mir Afzal vs Jhangi Khan And Other1989 CLC 1680 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
- Mir Afzal vs Divisional Forest Officer, Siran Forest Division, Mansehra1989 PLC (C.S.) 532 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
- Mir Afzal vs Divisional Forest Officer and OtherK.L.R 1989 Labour and Service Cases 83 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
- Millat Tractors Ltd. vs Muhammad Iqbal Khan1989 PLC 60 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-06-16Read full judgment →
- Miar Bashir Ahmad vs Board of Revenue, Punjab1989 SCMR 1427 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Assistant in the Board of Revenue, was convicted by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore, for forgery of official records but was subsequently acquitted by the High Court. Following his acquittal, the petitioner was reinstated in service; however, the Board of Revenue denied him back benefits, asserting that his acquittal was not honourable. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged this decision before the Service Tribunal and subsequently sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question concerns whether an employee acquitted of criminal charges is entitled to back benefits upon reinstatement, specifically addressing the criteria for determining if an acquittal is considered honourable for the purpose of service benefits. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the petitioner's contention that the High Court's judgment contained no findings suggesting the acquittal was not honourable, and to consider the applicability of prior precedents regarding the entitlement to back benefits. The matter was set for further hearing to determine if the denial of back benefits was legally sustainable.
Questions settled- Is an employee entitled to back benefits upon reinstatement following an acquittal in criminal proceedings?
- What constitutes an honourable acquittal for the purpose of claiming back benefits in service matters?
- Can an employer deny back benefits to a reinstated employee based on a subjective assessment of the acquittal?
- Mian Zahid Sarfraz vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1831 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-13Read full judgment →
- Mian Zahid Sarfraz vs Ch. Fazal Din1989 MLD 2770 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-06Read full judgment →
- Mian Z Afar Iqb Al and others vs Bashir Ahmad and others1989 PLD Lahore 152 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Regular First Appeal arises from a judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Vehari, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated March 29, 1980. The core legal questions involved whether the suit was premature, whether time was of the essence of the contract regarding an intermediate payment, whether minor misdescriptions of Khasra numbers vitiated the agreement, and whether co-plaintiffs who were not parties to the agreement could maintain the suit. The Lahore High Court held that the suit was maintainable even though filed before the final date for completion because the defendants had repudiated the contract, that time was not of the essence of the contract, that misdescription of Khasra numbers did not invalidate the agreement where the entire holding comprising specific Khatas was clearly intended to be sold, but that co-plaintiffs who were strangers to the contract could not obtain specific performance. The appeal of the co-plaintiffs was dismissed, while the appeal of the primary vendee was accepted, granting him a decree for specific performance subject to depositing the balance sale consideration.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale filed before the final date fixed for registration of the sale deed is premature when the vendor has already repudiated the contract?
- Is time of the essence of the contract in agreements for the sale of immovable property regarding an intermediate payment date?
- Does a minor misdescription or discrepancy in Khasra numbers vitiate an agreement to sell where the entire holding comprising specific Khatas is clearly identified and intended to be transferred?
- Can co-plaintiffs who are not parties to the agreement of sale or representatives in interest maintain a suit for specific performance based merely on a clause allowing the primary vendee to join other persons at registration?
- Mian Sultan Muhammad vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner And Other1989 MLD 3113 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
- Mian Shah Ahmad vs Khurshid Alam Bhatti and others1989 SCMR 1267 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the anti-dated pro forma promotions of respondents Nos.1 to 3 as Principals in Government Commercial Training Institutes. The core legal question concerns the computation of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal when successive departmental representations are made against the same grievance. The Supreme Court held that the limitation period begins from the rejection of the first departmental representation and cannot be extended by filing a second representation seeking the same relief. The court affirmed the Tribunal's finding that the appeal was barred by time and dismissed the petition, establishing that repeated representations do not furnish a fresh starting point for limitation.
Questions settled- Whether the filing of a second departmental representation against the same grievance extends the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Does the limitation period for an appeal before the Service Tribunal run from the rejection of the first departmental representation?
- Mian Shafiuddin, Deputy Director and 4 others vs Surat Khan Marri, Director and 41 others1989 SCMR 860 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition seeking leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against an order of the Central Service Tribunal, which had accepted a service appeal filed by the respondent. The primary legal questions raised concerned whether the appeal before the Service Tribunal was severely barred by limitation such that relief ought to have been denied; whether the Government possesses the legal authority to regularise an ad hoc appointment with retrospective effect from the date of initial induction; and whether, in the absence of such power residing in the Government, the Service Tribunal itself can exercise jurisdiction to grant retrospective regularisation. The Supreme Court observed that these issues constituted substantial questions of law of public importance requiring detailed examination. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, ordered the continuation of the interim stay, directed the completion of the record, and ordered the matter to be heard alongside similar cases involving retrospective regularisation of ad hoc appointments.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal that is badly time-barred can be entertained to grant relief?
- Whether the Government has the power to regularise an ad hoc appointment with retrospective effect from the date of the civil servant's original ad hoc induction?
- Whether the Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction or power to order retrospective regularisation of an ad hoc appointment if such power is not available to the Government?
- Mian Riaz Ahmad vs Ali Asghar, A.S.-I. and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 91 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1987-09-30Read full judgment →
- Mian Rasool Shah and others vs Fakharuzzaman Khan through his Legal1989 SCMR 815 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court regarding the implementation of land reform orders. The core legal question is whether the High Court erred in interfering with an order passed by the Member of the Federal Land Commission, which had set aside an earlier, allegedly erroneous order by a successor Chief Land Commissioner. The petitioners contend that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was not permitted to include the disputed area in Form LC-II under Martial Law Regulation 64 of 1959, and that a subsequent administrative order wrongly allowed this inclusion. The Supreme Court found that the petitioners' contentions regarding the impropriety of the administrative interpretation and the High Court's subsequent interference with the Federal Land Commission's corrective order appeared prima facie to have force. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the High Court's judgment and ordered the suspension of the impugned judgment, directing that status quo be maintained pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has the authority to interfere with an order passed by the Member of the Federal Land Commission that corrects a prior administrative error?
- Can land area be included in Form LC-II if it was previously excluded by the Land Commission authorities?
- Mian Muhammad Khalid and Other vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 743 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-24Read full judgment →
- Mian Muhammad Bashir vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1989 PTD 211 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-13Read full judgment →
- Mian Muhammad Bashir and another vs Noor Hussain1989 SCMR 160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a vendees' petition in a pre-emption suit. The petitioners submitted additional grounds by way of an application under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, which was read as part of the amended petition. The core legal question examined by the court was whether the law or any provision prevents the petitioners from pursuing their right of first appeal, given that their appeal had not been heard on merits due to various technical hurdles. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, directing a security deposit of Rs. 5,000 within three weeks and ordering that the appeal be prepared on the existing record with liberty to file additional documents, to be fixed for hearing before the long vacations. The holding establishes that where a party's right of first appeal is obstructed by technical hurdles without a decision on merits, leave to appeal may be granted to examine the application of the law regarding such appellate rights.
Questions settled- Whether the law or any provision prevents a party from pursuing their right of first appeal when it has not been heard on merits due to technical hurdles?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal in a pre-emption matter involving unadjudicated first appeals?
- Mian Muhammad Akram And Others vs Muhammad Rafi1989 CLC 15 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition assailed an order of the District Judge whereby, in revision, the plaint of the petitioners was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the grounds of being barred by the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and by limitation. The core legal question concerned whether the civil suit challenging the transfer of evacuee property by a Notified Officer was maintainable and whether the plaint was rightly rejected. The Lahore High Court held that the writ petition itself was incompetent as the revisional order was neither void nor coram non judice, and the powers of trial and revisional courts under Order VII, Rule 11 and Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are co-extensive. The Court laid down that a pending property form undisposed of by the department prior to the repeal of evacuee laws constitutes a pending proceeding saved under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, and orders passed thereon by a Notified Officer are final and immune from civil court jurisdiction. Furthermore, suits to impeach orders of rehabilitation authorities are governed by Article 14 of the Limitation Act 1908, rather than Article 95.
Questions settled- Whether an order passed by a District Judge in revision rejecting a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be challenged in a writ petition?
- Does an undisposed of transfer form pending before settlement authorities prior to the repeal of evacuee laws constitute a pending proceeding under Section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
- Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to a suit challenging an order passed by a Rehabilitation Officer?
- Can a trial court or revisional court consider material beyond the plaint when deciding an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Mian Miraj Din vs Mian Muhammad Hussain And Other1989 MLD 3262 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-11Read full judgment →
- Mian Manzoor Ahmad vs United Bank Ltd. and another1989 PLC 950 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-06-06Read full judgment →
- Mian Khan vs Aurang Zeb and 12 others1989 SCMR 58 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged an order of the Lahore High Court which dismissed his civil revision regarding the rejection of his appeal for insufficient court-fee. The appellant had filed a suit for declaration of rights, and while the trial court found the court-fee sufficient, the appellate court disagreed, dismissing the appeal without granting time to make up the deficiency. The core legal question was whether the appellate court was obligated to grant the appellant an opportunity to rectify the court-fee deficiency before rejecting the appeal. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that under Order VII, Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, it is mandatory for the court to grant time to supply deficient court-fee before rejecting a plaint or memorandum of appeal. The Court further clarified that rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 does not constitute a decision on merits and therefore does not trigger the principle of res judicata, allowing for the filing of a fresh suit. The appeal was allowed, and the case remanded to the appellate court.
Questions settled- Is it mandatory for a court to grant time to make up a deficiency in court-fee before rejecting a plaint or memorandum of appeal under Order VII, Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 constitute a decision on merits sufficient to trigger the principle of res judicata?
- Can a plaintiff file a fresh suit after the rejection of a previous plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Mian Ghulam Ali vs Ali Nawaz Khan1989 SCMR 276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These petitions were filed by plaintiffs and pre-emptors who had not been able to obtain a pre-emption decree at any stage before 31st of July, 1986. The core legal question involved was whether a pre-emption decree could be passed in favour of pre-emptors after the specified cut-off date. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed all the petitions, holding that no decree could be passed in their favour after 31st of July, 1986, in view of the earlier decision of the Court in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1986 SC 360), which took effect on that date. The key principle laid down is that pre-emption claims failing to secure a decree prior to the operative date of the said constitutional ruling cannot be granted thereafter.
Questions settled- Can a pre-emption decree be passed in favour of a pre-emptor after 31st of July, 1986, if no decree was obtained before that date?
- Does the judgment in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah bar pre-emption petitions where no decree was secured prior to 31st July 1986?
- Mian Azizuddin and another vs The Commissioner of Incometax and others1989 SCMR 1764 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an interim order passed by a Single Judge in a writ petition. The impugned order directed the petitioners to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Tax Recovery Officer to avoid arrest, following a finding that the attached property was insufficient to cover outstanding income tax arrears. The core legal question was whether the High Court's direction requiring the petitioners to furnish security as a condition to avoid arrest was legally improper. The Supreme Court held that the direction for furnishing security was neither against the law nor improper. The Court affirmed the interim order, finding no merit in the petitioners' grievance regarding the security requirement, and consequently dismissed the petition. The judgment reinforces the principle that courts possess the discretion to impose reasonable conditions, such as the furnishing of security, in tax recovery matters to protect the interests of the state while balancing the rights of the taxpayer during pending litigation.
Questions settled- Can a court direct a taxpayer to furnish security to avoid arrest in tax recovery proceedings?
- Is a direction to furnish security in an interim order for tax recovery legally improper?
- Mian Azizuddin and another vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax and others1989 PTD 1184 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against an interim order passed by a Single Judge in a writ petition, wherein the Tax Recovery Officer directed the petitioners to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Tax Recovery Officer within fifteen days to avoid arrest for arrears of income tax, as the attached property was insufficient to clear the dues. The core legal question concerns the legality and propriety of the interim direction requiring the petitioners to furnish security as a condition to prevent arrest. The Supreme Court held that the direction for furnishing security was neither against any law nor propriety. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that interim protective directions requiring security in tax recovery proceedings are lawful and proper.
Questions settled- Whether an interim direction by the court requiring a tax defaulter to furnish security to avoid arrest is lawful?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an interim order directing security for tax arrears when the attached property is insufficient?
- Mian Aziz A. Sheikh vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Investigation, Lahore1989 PTD 894 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns an income tax assessment where the appellant sought to exclude dividend income from his total income, claiming it arose from shares transferred to his wife as part of an increased dower (Haq Mehr). The Income-Tax authorities and the Lahore High Court rejected this claim, ruling that the increase in dower was not proven because the appellant failed to provide contemporaneous documentary evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether this evidentiary requirement was legally sound. The Court held that the requirement for contemporaneous documentary evidence to prove an increase in dower is not a rule of law and contradicts Islamic Law. Under Islamic Law, a husband may increase dower at any time, and his declaration is sufficient proof. The Court established that state functionaries cannot impose evidentiary rules repugnant to Islamic Injunctions. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that the dividend income should not have been included in the assessee's total income, as the evidentiary standard applied was legally incorrect.
Questions settled- Is contemporaneous documentary evidence a mandatory legal requirement to prove an increase in dower under Islamic Law?
- Can state functionaries or tax authorities impose rules of evidence that are repugnant to Islamic Injunctions?
- Does the declaration of a husband regarding an increase in dower constitute sufficient proof of such an increase?
- Are courts duty-bound to apply the principles of Islamic Law in fields not fully occupied by statutory dispensation?
- Mian Aziz A. Sheikh vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax Investigation, Lahore1989 PTD 1169 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns an income tax dispute regarding the inclusion of dividend income in an assessee's total income. The core legal question was whether the Income-tax Authorities and the High Court correctly required contemporaneous documentary evidence to validate an increase in dower (Haq Mehr) under Islamic Law, thereby rejecting the assessee's claim that share transfers were for adequate consideration under Section 16(3)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the lower authorities' insistence on contemporaneous documentary evidence was legally erroneous and contrary to Islamic Law. The Court established that under Islamic Law, a husband's declaration or acknowledgement regarding the increase of dower constitutes sufficient evidence, even in the absence of contemporaneous written records. This rule of evidence is a matter of substantive Islamic Law rather than mere procedure. Consequently, the Court ruled that state functionaries cannot impose evidentiary rules repugnant to Islamic Injunctions. The Court answered the referred question in the negative, concluding that the dividend income was improperly included in the assessee's total income.
Questions settled- Is a husband's declaration regarding the increase of dower sufficient evidence under Islamic Law to prove such increase?
- Can Income-tax Authorities impose rules of evidence that are repugnant to Islamic Injunctions?
- Does the requirement for contemporaneous documentary evidence to prove an increase in dower constitute a valid rule of law?
- Is the rule of evidence regarding the proof of dower increase a matter of substantive Islamic Law or merely procedural?
- Mian Azam vs Ali and another1989 SCMR 1765 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for special leave to appeal filed by a complainant against a High Court judgment that acquitted the respondent, Ali, who had been convicted by the trial court for the triple murder of Muazzam, Mst. Zuhran, and Allah Wassayi. The prosecution alleged that the respondent committed the murders using a hatchet due to a family dispute regarding marriage proposals and alleged illicit intimacy. While the trial court relied on ocular testimony and recovery evidence to convict the respondent, the High Court rejected this evidence, leading to acquittal. The petitioner contends that the ocular witnesses were natural and credible, the FIR was lodged without delay, and the respondent had no motive for false implication. The Supreme Court, upon examining the contentions regarding the reliability of the ocular testimony and the circumstances of the case, found that the arguments warranted further judicial scrutiny. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and issued non-bailable warrants for the arrest of the respondent.
Questions settled- Does the rejection of ocular testimony by a High Court in a murder case warrant the grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court?
- Can a High Court's acquittal based on the rejection of recovery evidence and ocular testimony be challenged on the grounds that the witnesses were natural and the FIR was prompt?
- Mian Altaf Hussain vs Mst. Farida Altaf1989 SCMR 1583 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order regarding maintenance and custody of a daughter, arising from a matrimonial dispute between Mst. Farida Altaf and Mian Altaf Hussain. Following a joint trial of multiple family suits, the Additional District Judge had initially remanded the maintenance suit, subsequently leading to an order for maintenance for both the wife and the daughter. The High Court, in writ jurisdiction, disposed of the matter based on an agreement between the parties granting custody to the petitioner subject to maintenance payments for the daughter's education. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that the original plaint did not explicitly seek maintenance for the daughter and denying the agreement. The Supreme Court held that while the plaint did not explicitly claim separate maintenance for the daughter, the wife's claim for her own maintenance included her responsibilities for the daughter. The Court upheld the High Court's order, finding it based on the parties' consensus, and affirmed that maintenance claims can encompass responsibilities for children even if not explicitly pleaded as a separate head of claim.
Questions settled- Can maintenance be awarded for a child if the original plaint for maintenance was filed by the mother for herself alone?
- Is a High Court order based on an agreement between parties in a writ petition binding on the parties?
- Does a claim for maintenance by a mother include her responsibilities for the care and support of her children?
- Mian Abdur Rehman vs Government of Pakistan1989 SCMR 1109 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by an importer challenging the levy of customs duty on Urea Moulding Compound. The petitioner contended that the customs authorities applied a discriminatory rate of 120% to his imports, while applying a significantly lower rate of 40% to a third party, Qureshi Enterprises, for the same commodity. The petitioner argued that the High Court erred by failing to address this specific allegation of discrimination in its judgment despite noting the issue. Upon reviewing the record and the department's reply regarding the disparity in duty rates, the Supreme Court found the respondent's explanation unsatisfactory. The Court held that the issue of discriminatory treatment required further examination. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the disparity in customs duty rates was legally permissible and whether the High Court's failure to adjudicate upon this point constituted a legal infirmity requiring correction.
Questions settled- Does the application of disparate customs duty rates on identical imported commodities constitute unlawful discrimination?
- Is a High Court judgment legally infirm if it fails to adjudicate upon a specific plea of discrimination raised by the petitioner?
- Mian Abdul Wahid vs The State1989 MLD 4731 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-26Read full judgment →
- Mian Abdul Rashid vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2017 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-04Read full judgment →
- Mian Abdul Kabir vs The State1989 MLD 4033(2) · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-07Read full judgment →
- Mi an Dad GH Anghro vs S.H.O., P.S. Kandhra and others1989 P Cr. L J 1945 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
- Mhadagonda Ramgonda Patil And Others vs Shripal Balwant Rainade1989 MLD 1184 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-04-22Read full judgment →
- Metro Garments Industries, Karachi vs Metro Garments Mazdoor1989 PLC 54 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-03-24Read full judgment →
- Messrs. Shah Construction Company And Others vs Divisional1989 MLD 2872 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-01Read full judgment →
- Messrs. Muhammad Yusuf Iqbal Ahmad vs Central Board of Revenue1989 MLD 1398 · Sindh High Court · 1959-08-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs. Bengal Wool House And Others vs The Eastern Federal Union1989 MLD 1656 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mirza Anwar Ahmad vs Habib Bank Ltd., Faisalabad And Other1989 CLC 2441 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Second Appeal arises from concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts allowing the recovery of Rs. 13,130 by the respondent-Bank against the appellant-defendant. The core legal questions involved whether a promissory note can serve as a valid acknowledgement of liability under section 19 of the Limitation Act, and whether a distinct debt covered by a guarantee can be recovered within the same suit against the principal debtor. The Lahore High Court held that promissory notes executed within the limitation period constitute valid acknowledgements of liability under section 19 of the Limitation Act, extending the period of limitation, and that a creditor is entitled to recover co-extensive liabilities in a single suit against the debtor. The key principles laid down are that an unenforceable or standard promissory note can operate as a valid acknowledgement of debt under the Limitation Act, and that a surety's liability is co-extensive, permitting the creditor to pursue remedies without insisting on prior exhaustion against the principal debtor.
Questions settled- Can a promissory note constitute a valid acknowledgement of liability under section 19 of the Limitation Act?
- Does the inclusion of an item pertaining to a separate guarantee in a balance sheet vitiate a recovery suit where subsequent written acknowledgements cover the debt?
- Is a surety's liability co-extensive, allowing the creditor to proceed against the surety without first exhausting remedies against the principal debtor?
- Messrs. A.B. Sons Ltd. vs Messrs Eastern Express Ltd.1989 MLD 956 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Zulfiqar Associates Limited and others vs Messrs Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited and others1989 SCMR 845 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' appeal regarding the execution of a banking court decree. The core legal question was whether a payment made by one of the co-judgment-debtor companies to avoid the auction of its property could be claimed by another co-judgment-debtor to be adjusted towards the entire decretal liability. The Supreme Court held that the payment made by the said company was a contrivance to avoid the auction of its specific property and was returnable since the auction had already been confirmed, and a co-judgment-debtor lacking interest in that specific payment cannot demand its adjustment against its own share of liability. The key principle laid down is that a co-judgment-debtor cannot compel the adjustment of a specific payment made by another judgment-debtor under distinct arrangement to avoid property auction towards its own separate liability where the property has already been validly auctioned and partitioned.
Questions settled- Can a co-judgment-debtor demand the adjustment of a payment made by another judgment-debtor towards the entire decretal amount?
- Whether a payment made to avoid the auction of property by one company can be claimed by another independent unit as satisfaction of joint liability?
- Does a judgment-debtor have a legal right over funds deposited by a separate entity for the release of its own partitioned property?
- Messrs Yousuf Rerolling Mills vs The Collector of Customs and anothers1989 PLD Supreme Court 232 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These consolidated civil appeals arise from judgments of the High Court of Sind involving the legality of regulatory duty levied under notifications issued pursuant to section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal question is whether the Federal Government has an unfettered alternative discretion under section 18(2) to levy regulatory duty either up to fifty per cent of the rate specified in the First Schedule or up to one hundred per cent of the value of the articles, regardless of whether a rate is specified in the Schedule. The Supreme Court held that the two parts of section 18(2) have restricted, mutually exclusive applications: where an article has a rate of duty specified in the First Schedule, the Federal Government's discretion to levy regulatory duty is strictly capped at fifty per cent of that specified rate, and the second part providing for a levy up to one hundred per cent of the article's value applies only to articles where no rate is specified in the Schedule (such as duty-free items). The key principle laid down is that delegated taxing powers must be construed strictly within their legislative framework and cannot be interpreted to grant untrammelled discretion that creates internal repugnancy.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Government has unfettered discretion under section 18(2) of the Customs Act 1969 to choose between the two alternatives for levying regulatory duty irrespective of the First Schedule?
- Does the phrase 'if any' in the first part of section 18(2) of the Customs Act 1969 impose a restriction limiting regulatory duty to fifty per cent for articles whose rates are specified in the First Schedule?
- Can the second part of section 18(2) of the Customs Act 1969 be invoked to levy regulatory duty up to one hundred per cent of the value of articles that already have a specified rate of duty in the First Schedule?
- Messrs Yaseen Sons vs Federation of Pakistan and anothers1989 PLD Karachi 361 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns writ petitions challenging the application of Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, to import consignments where firm commitments were made prior to its enactment. The core legal question was whether the legislature could retrospectively enact Section 31-A to nullify the effect of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Al-Samrez Enterprise v. The Federation of Pakistan, which protected vested rights against duty increases. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the legislature possesses plenary power to enact curative or remedial legislation, even retrospectively, to remove the basis of a court judgment or validate actions previously found invalid, provided it acts within constitutional limits. The Court affirmed that such legislation does not constitute an encroachment upon judicial power. Furthermore, the Court determined that Section 31-A does not violate Articles 18, 23, 24, or 2-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The key principle established is that while the judiciary interprets the law, the legislature retains the authority to amend the law to render previous judicial decisions ineffective, provided the legislative act itself is constitutionally valid.
Questions settled- Can the legislature enact retrospective legislation to nullify the effect of a Supreme Court judgment?
- Does the application of Section 31-A of the Customs Act 1969 violate the constitutional right to property or freedom of trade?
- Is the legislature competent to validate actions previously declared invalid by a court of law?
- Does the enactment of curative legislation constitute an encroachment upon the judicial power of the courts?
- Messrs Uzin Export and Import Enterprises for Foreign Trade vs Messrs1989 SCMR 225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Division Bench of the Sindh High Court, which affirmed the dismissal of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The dispute arose from a construction contract containing an arbitration clause. The petitioner initially filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent, who subsequently filed a counter-claim. The petitioner moved to stay the counter-claim proceedings under Section 34, but the High Court held that the petitioner had taken 'steps in the proceedings' by accepting notice of an amendment application and filing a compromise application, and further, that the petitioner's own filing of the initial suit indicated an unwillingness to arbitrate. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the issues raised—specifically whether these actions constituted 'steps in the proceedings' and whether the initial suit precluded arbitration—were substantial questions of law. The Court held that since arbitration agreements can give rise to successive proceedings for different disputes, the legal interpretation of these procedural actions required further examination by the Court.
Questions settled- Does the mere acceptance of notice of an application for amendment of a counter-claim constitute a 'step in the proceedings' under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Can the filing of a suit for permanent injunction by a party be construed as an indication to bypass an existing arbitration agreement?
- Does the filing of a compromise application in a suit constitute a step in the proceedings that precludes a party from invoking an arbitration clause in a subsequent related suit?
- Messrs Urdu Academy, Sind vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi1989 PLC 187 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs United Paints (Private) Ltd. vs Workers' Union (C.B.A.)1989 PLC 1016 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-11-02Read full judgment →
- Messrs United Builders Corporation vs Azad Jammu & Kashmir Mineral1989 CLC 1825 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-06-17Read full judgment →
- Messrs Tooti Tanneries Ltd. vs Sardar Raza Ali Khan and 5 others1989 SCMR 1774 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a High Court judgment rendered in writ jurisdiction concerning a settlement dispute. The petitioner raised two primary contentions: first, that the High Court improperly engaged in a detailed factual inquiry regarding the identity of the disputed property and its availability for transfer; and second, that the High Court's findings on these factual issues were incorrect. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court had conducted the detailed inquiry with the express consent of both parties involved. Regarding the factual findings, the Supreme Court found no legal infirmity or error in principle in the High Court's determination. Consequently, the Court held that the High Court did not exceed its jurisdiction given the consensual nature of the proceedings, and the factual findings were upheld. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming that where parties consent to a detailed factual inquiry in writ proceedings, they cannot subsequently challenge the court's jurisdiction to conduct such an inquiry.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge the High Court's exercise of detailed factual inquiry in writ jurisdiction if the inquiry was conducted with the consent of both parties?
- Does the High Court have the authority to resolve factual controversies in writ jurisdiction when parties consent to such a procedure?
- Messrs Textile Winding Machinery Co. Ltd. - vs Government of Sind and 2 others1989 PLC 932 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
- Messrs Taj Textile Mills Ltd. vs Pakistan1989 MLD 4479 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-04Read full judgment →
- Messrs Swiss Air Transport Company Limited vs The Deputy Collector1989 MLD 4896 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
- Messrs Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs Agha Bashir Ahmad And 6 Other1989 CLC 1023 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-15Read full judgment →
- Messrs Squibe (Pakistan) (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Fourth Sind Labour Court, Karachi and another1989 PLC 810 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
- Messrs Spinzar Snacks vs The Joint Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad And 2 Other1989 MLD 335 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs Sind Industrial Trading Estates Ltd. vs Amir Bux Bhutto1989 PLC 305 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-12-08Read full judgment →
- Messrs Sharafali Ghulam Hussain Gani vs Government of Pakistan And 3 Other1989 MLD 1440 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-05Read full judgment →
- Messrs Shams Textile Mills Ltd. Chiniot vs WAPDA Through Chairman, WAPDA1989 CLC 2345 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-12Read full judgment →
- Messrs Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. vs H.C. Sharma And Other1989 MLD 2087 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-11-12Read full judgment →
- Messrs Servis Sales Corporation Ltd. vs Javid Akhtar1989 CLC 1662 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
- Messrs Sebro Pharma Ltd. vs Messrs Commercial Printers & Publishers1989 MLD 4181 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-10Read full judgment →
- Messrs Sargroh Services Ltd. vs Messrs Hoechst Pharmaceuticals1989 SCMR 1834 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court modifying a trial court order that granted conditional leave to defend a summary suit instituted under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for the recovery of money. The core legal question concerns the propriety of imposing conditions, such as furnishing a bank guarantee and a security bond by a director, for granting leave to appear and defend a summary suit where the defendant company disputes liability and the authority of the person who acknowledged the debt. The Supreme Court held that where the promoter director of the defendant company acknowledged the liability on its behalf, the High Court's order modifying the conditions for granting leave to defend did not warrant interference at an intermediary stage. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, establishing that conditional leave to defend in summary suits based on prima facie acknowledgments of liability by company promoters is a matter of discretion that will not be lightly interfered with by the apex court.
Questions settled- Whether conditional leave to defend a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be challenged on the ground that the conditions imposed are too onerous?
- Is a company liable for an acknowledgment of debt made by its promoter director?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere at an intermediary stage with the High Court's modification of security conditions for defending a summary suit?
- Messrs Saif Nadeem Kawasaki Motors Ltd. vs Faisalabad Development1989 CLC 1252 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-01Read full judgment →
- Messrs Sahaf Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. And Others vs Karachi Port Trust1989 MLD 616 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-09Read full judgment →
- Messrs S.N.H. Industries Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Islamabad And 3 Other1989 MLD 1821 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
- Messrs Rose Silk Factory vs Wasiullah1989 PLC 303 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-12-18Read full judgment →
- Messrs Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. vs Rab Nawaz1989 PLC 257 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-01-08Read full judgment →
- Messrs Riaz Masood & Brothers vs Pakistan and another1989 SCMR 787 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal by the High Court. The petitioner had originally filed a suit for rendition of accounts regarding the supply of goods and non-payment of dues. The trial court and the appellate courts dismissed the suit on the grounds that the relief claimed was for a specific amount, necessitating a suit for recovery of a specific amount and the payment of appropriate court fees. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the suit rather than allowing the petitioner to amend the plaint and supply the deficient court fees. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether, in the interest of justice, the petitioner should have been afforded the opportunity to rectify the procedural defects regarding the nature of the suit and the court fee, rather than facing outright dismissal. The Court identified that previous precedents regarding the amendment of pleadings and payment of court fees require further examination in this context.
Questions settled- Should a plaintiff be allowed to amend a plaint for rendition of accounts to a suit for recovery of a specific amount?
- Can a court permit a plaintiff to supply deficient court fees instead of dismissing the suit?
- Is dismissal of a suit appropriate when the form of the suit is technically incorrect but the claim is identifiable?
- Messrs Republic Engineers vs Badruddin Saleh1989 MLD 1239 · Sindh High Court · 1988-01-15Read full judgment →
- Messrs Ravi Rayon Ltd., Kala Shah Kaku vs Workers' Union (Regd.)1989 PLC 119 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-11-01Read full judgment →
- Messrs Rahwali Sugar Mills vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1989 PLC 628 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-04Read full judgment →
- Messrs Raheem Steel Rerolling Mills and 4 others vs Messrs Karim Aziz1989 SCMR 817 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal, where the parties informed the Court that they had reached an out-of-court settlement regarding the subject matter of the dispute. The parties submitted a compromise agreement requesting the disposal of the petition in accordance with its terms, which also resolved a pending First Appeal from Order (F.A.O. No. 49 of 1988) in the Lahore High Court. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it in terms of the compromise. The Court held that the decree dated 31-7-1986 shall not be executed by the respondents, provided the petitioners adhere to a specific payment schedule for the decretal amount ending on 31-12-1989. The Court further established the principle that in the event of default in any agreed installment, the respondents are entitled to recover the entire balance amount through execution proceedings against the assets of the petitioners.
Questions settled- Can a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal based on a compromise between parties?
- Does a court-sanctioned compromise agreement regarding a decree allow for execution proceedings upon default of installments?
- Messrs Raheem Steel Re Rolling Mills And 4 Others vs Messrs Karim Aziz1989 CLC 32 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-26Read full judgment →
- Messrs Rafhan Maize Products Company Ltd., Faisalabad vs Tali B1989 PLC 662 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →