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.
- M. Jamal Company vs Union Of India & OtherPTCL1989 FC. 217 · Madras High Court · 1984-12-20Read full judgment →
- M. J. A. Gazdar vs The State1989 MLD 1694 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
- M. Iqbal Fasih vs National Bank of Pakistan1989 SCMR 1380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant-debtor against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which had affirmed the decree passed in favor of the respondent bank for a sum of Rs. 993.30. The core legal question concerns whether leave to appeal should be granted where the petitioner admits liability for the original debt but contends that the suit was barred by limitation and challenges the award of interest or penalty. The Supreme Court held that since the liability to pay the original amount is admitted and involves the wrongful appropriation of public money, the discretionary jurisdiction of the court will not be exercised to assist the petitioner on the plea of limitation. Furthermore, the court held that the inclusion of interest or penalty in the decree suffered from no legal defect. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will decline to grant leave to appeal under its discretionary jurisdiction to a debtor who admits liability for public funds, notwithstanding technical pleas of limitation or challenges to ancillary interest.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal based on a plea of limitation where the petitioner admits liability for public money?
- Can a debtor challenge the inclusion of interest or penalty in a decree when the underlying liability is not denied?
- M. Ikramul Haq vs Federation of Pakistan1989 PLC (C.S.) 890 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-10-18Read full judgment →
- M Ukhtar vs The State1989 MLD 757 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
- M Uhammad vs The State1989 MLD 758 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
- M Uh Amnia D Afzal vs The Home Secretary, Government of Sind and anothers1989 PLD Karachi 7 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-03Read full judgment →
- M U H Anima D Jamshed vs Excise and Taxation Officer, Rawalpindi and 2 others1989 PLD Lahore 460 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
- Lt.Gen. FAZLEHAQPetitioncr vs The State1989 SCMR 1724 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the Peshawar High Court refusing him pre-arrest bail, following which he was arrested. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should interfere with a pre-arrest bail refusal after the petitioner had already been arrested. The Supreme Court held that with the arrest of the petitioner, the matter of pre-arrest bail had become academic, and different considerations applied to bail after arrest, which should first be addressed by the subordinate courts. The Court established the principle that observations made in pre-arrest bail matters should not ordinarily prejudice or affect subsequent applications for bail after arrest, and pending matters should be disposed of expeditiously.
Questions settled- Does the arrest of a petitioner render a petition seeking pre-arrest bail academic?
- Whether observations made in pre-arrest bail proceedings prejudice subsequent applications for bail after arrest?
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with the refusal of pre-arrest bail after the accused has already been taken into custody?
- Lt.Gen. (Retd.) Fazle Haq vs The State1989 PLD Peshawar 227 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-07-22Read full judgment →
- Lt.Col. Nafisuddin Ansari vs Qazi Habib Ullah and anothers1989 PLD Lahore 26 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an order by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) allotting disputed land to the respondent. The petitioner, a retired military officer, claimed rights based on an allotment by the Border Area Allotment Committee. The respondent contested the petitioner's locus standi, arguing the petitioner was a member of the committee that granted him the land, rendering the allotment void. The Court held that the petitioner lacked locus standi to invoke constitutional jurisdiction because his own allotment was tainted by a fundamental conflict of interest, violating the principle of "nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa." Furthermore, the Court found the Border Area Allotment Committee lacked the authority to allot the land as it had not been surrendered or taken possession of under the relevant regulations. Consequently, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order, as the petitioner’s own title was based on a patent illegality. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a member of an allotment committee validly participate in a decision to allot land to himself?
- Does a petitioner have locus standi to challenge an allotment order if their own title to the property is based on a patent illegality?
- Is an allotment made by the Border Area Allotment Committee valid if the property was not surrendered or taken possession of under the relevant regulations?
- Is the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 discretionary when the petitioner's own conduct involves a conflict of interest?
- Lt. Genl. (Rtd.). A.A.K. Niazi vs Border Area Committee And Another1989 MLD 3355 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-26Read full judgment →
- Lt. Col. (Rid.) S.M. Hamdani vs Mrs. S.T. Hassan1989 MLD 1178 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →
- LT. Col. (Retd.) M.B. Aazmi vs M/s. Hommee & Jamshed And Other1989 MLD 4691 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-09Read full judgment →
- Lt. Col. (Retd). Amanullah Khan and another vs Pakistan and others1989 PTD 935(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, a husband and wife who are both independent assessees, challenged the Wealth Tax Officer's decision to club their separately owned properties for wealth tax assessment purposes. The authorities relied on the Explanation to Section 2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, which deems immovable property owned by a spouse to belong to the assessee. The petitioners contended that this provision does not authorize the clubbing of income or assets of two independently earning spouses and argued that such interpretation is repugnant to the charging provisions of Section 3 of the Act. Furthermore, they challenged the valuation methodology applied to their properties. The High Court had previously dismissed their constitutional petition on the ground that it was premature as no final order had been passed. Upon petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the case involved substantial questions of law regarding statutory interpretation and the validity of the clubbing provisions. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and ordered that further wealth tax proceedings against the petitioners be held in abeyance pending the final decision.
Questions settled- Does the Explanation to Section 2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act 1963 authorize the clubbing of assets owned by two independently earning spouses?
- Is the clubbing of properties under the definition clause of the Wealth Tax Act 1963 repugnant to the charging provisions of Section 3 of the Act?
- Can a constitutional petition be dismissed as premature when it raises substantial questions of law regarding statutory interpretation, despite the existence of alternate remedies?
- Lt. (Retd.) Hazar Muhammad Malik vs Government Of Islamic Republic Of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance And OtherPTCL 1989 CL. 52 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Loung And Others vs Central Board of Revenue And Other1989 MLD 4596 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
- Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1989 PTD 331 · Bombay High Court · 1987-03-13Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1714 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali vs Messrs Rehmina Glass Bangle Industries, Hyderabad1989 PLC 799 · Labour Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali vs Globe Textile Mills Ltd.1989 PLC 332 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-04-27Read full judgment →
- Liaqat vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1869 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-17Read full judgment →
- Liaqat vs The State1989 SCMR 1067 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which had cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioner by a First Class Magistrate and upheld by the District and Sessions Judge, Swat. The petitioner was accused of attempting to commit zina. The core legal question was whether the High Court exercised its discretion properly in cancelling the bail that had been granted based on the prima facie weakness of the allegations. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court failed to exercise its discretion properly or reasonably in setting aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the bail, directing the appellant to be released upon furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts should not interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion regarding bail unless such discretion was exercised improperly or unreasonably by the lower courts.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the authority to cancel bail granted by a lower court?
- Under what circumstances should an appellate court interfere with an order granting bail?
- Is the prima facie weakness of an allegation a valid ground for maintaining a bail order?
- Liaqat Shah vs Barkat and others1989 SCMR 1953 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from two separate petitions for leave to appeal filed by the complainant and the State against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the convictions and sentences of the respondents and acquitted them of murder and related charges. The core legal question involves the appreciation of evidence regarding the right of private defence of person and property in a clash arising over a water dispute. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no legal error in accepting the respondent's version of self-defence after properly appreciating the evidence and finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond doubt. The key principle laid down is that where an accused presents a plausible version of acting in self-defence without exceeding that right, and the High Court acquits based on cogent reasons and proper appreciation of evidence, the Supreme Court will not interfere with the acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal judgment passed by the High Court based on the appreciation of evidence?
- Does an accused have the right of private defence of person and property when the complainant party attempts to forcibly divert water?
- Whether the High Court was justified in accepting the accused's version regarding the exercise of the right of self-defence?
- Liaqat Hussain Shah and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1985 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-25Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali vs The State1989 MLD 2750 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-26Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2472 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-09Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Criminal Cases 322 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali And 7 Others vs Mst. Jannat And Another1989 MLD 104 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-10Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali and 2 otherss vs The State and another1989 PLD Karachi 481 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings under Section 561-A is ousted by Article 203-G of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, given the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Shariat Court by Article 203-DD. The Court held that the High Court’s jurisdiction remains intact because the Federal Shariat Court lacks the specific inherent powers equivalent to Section 561-A. Consequently, the High Court may entertain such petitions to prevent the abuse of the court's process, provided the allegations are groundless and unlikely to result in conviction. The key principle laid down is that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of superior courts is not to be readily inferred and requires explicit statutory language; furthermore, inherent powers under Section 561-A are distinct from, and not curtailed by, the revisional jurisdiction of other forums.
Questions settled- Does Article 203-G of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 oust the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in cases involving Hudood laws?
- Is the inherent power of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 equivalent to its revisional jurisdiction?
- Can the High Court entertain a petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings pending before a Special Court under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Liaqat Ali and 11 others vs Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad and others1989 SCMR 1436 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard petitions for leave to appeal filed by twelve police constables previously serving under the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad. The petitioners had engaged in a strike on 11 June 1983 and marched through Faisalabad bazars raising slogans against the District Magistrate. Following the issuance of show-cause notices and personal hearings, the Superintendent of Police dismissed them from service. Subsequent appeals before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police and the Service Tribunal were dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the core consideration was whether the dismissals warranted appellate interference and whether any substantial question of law of public importance arose. The Court observed that the petitioners were provided adequate opportunity to defend themselves, failed to submit written replies to the show-cause notices, and merely pleaded for pardon during their personal hearings. Holding that no substantial question of law of public importance was raised and that the cases were not fit for interference, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the dismissal of civil servants who participate in an unlawful strike and fail to contest show-cause notices raises a substantial question of law of public importance?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings upholding dismissal from service where delinquent employees were afforded adequate opportunity of hearing but merely begged for pardon?
- Is leave to appeal maintainable where the petitioners fail to raise any substantial question of law of public importance?
- Lentral Board of Revenue and anothers vs Messrs Kaghan Impex and anothers1989 PLD Supreme Court 463 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal examines the scope and effect of paragraph 7(5) of the Import Policy Order 1979 and a subsequent amendment introduced by S.R.O. 1040(1)/80 dated October 13, 1980, concerning the import of goods of Indian origin by private sector agencies from countries other than India. The core legal question is whether the Import Policy Order 1979 prohibited private importers from importing goods of Indian origin from a third country (such as Dubai) prior to the October 1980 amendment. The Supreme Court held that the restriction under paragraph 7(5) of the Import Policy Order 1979 applied only to direct imports from India and did not ban the import of goods of Indian origin from other countries, which was prohibited for the first time by the amending notification of October 13, 1980. The Court ruled that fiscal or trade restrictions must be strictly construed and cannot operate retroactively to affect past transactions. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether paragraph 7(5) of the Import Policy Order 1979 prohibited the import of goods of Indian origin from countries other than India by private sector agencies?
- Can an amendment introduced via a subsequent S.R.O. be applied retrospectively to affect past transactions and import actions?
- Does the expression 'origin of goods' have the same legal connotation as the 'place from which the goods are imported' under trade policies?
- Legal Heirs of Late Justice M.B. Ahmad comprising Mrs. Rafia Ahmad and others vs Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad and others1989 SCMR 926 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court is directed against a High Court judgment that accepted a review petition and modified an earlier order to allow the appellants to retain land under a notification regarding tractor ownership. Leave was granted to examine whether the review petition was barred by time. The Supreme Court noted that although the review petition was delayed by four days and the objection of limitation was not pressed below, the Court will not exercise its jurisdiction in aid of injustice or interfere with a just order on the merits. The Court observed that the case of the late appellant was covered by the relevant notification and the review order correctly applied the applicable law. Citing consistent practice not to interfere with legally just orders despite technical limitations, the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a review order on the ground of limitation when the resulting order is just on merits?
- Can an error resulting from a failure to draw the court's attention to an applicable notification be corrected in review jurisdiction?
- Laxmi Raj Shetty And Another vs State of Tamil Nadu1989 MLD 2330 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-04-26Read full judgment →
- Laxman Sahu vs State of Orissa1989 MLD 1083 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-09-30Read full judgment →
- Latif Jute Mills Ltd. vs Baluchistan Labour Appellate Tribunal, Quetta1989 SCMR 228 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition upholding the reinstatement of respondent No. 2, a workman, with full back benefits. The workman was dismissed from service after an independent inquiry found him guilty of misconduct for destroying jute yarn and bobbins under Standing Order 15(3)(b) and (c) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. His grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was initially dismissed by the Labour Court, but his subsequent appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal succeeded, leading to multiple rounds of litigation including remands. The core legal question involves whether the Labour Appellate Tribunal's decision was based on no evidence and whether the charges of misconduct were substantiated. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised in support of the petition possessed prima facie force requiring further examination and accordingly granted leave to appeal, while issuing interim orders regarding the deposit and investment of arrears of dues.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate tribunal's decision regarding misconduct can be sustained when allegedly based on no evidence?
- Does the admission of an act under the alleged orders of a superior officer vitiate a charge of misconduct?
- Whether a constitutional petition against the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal warrants leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Latif H. Hamid And 3 Others vs Agha Mohsin Jaffari1989 MLD 2762 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-02Read full judgment →
- Latif Ebrahim Jamal vs The Controller of Estate Duty1989 PTD 1027 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-09Read full judgment →
- Latif and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2061 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Late Ch. Muhammad Ahsan Through Mst. Rasool Bibi And Others vs Pakistan And Other1989 MLD 3423 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-11Read full judgment →
- Lashkar Ali and others vs Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura and another1989 SCMR 1460 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court upholding the decision in favor of respondent No. 2 regarding the purchase of excess land under Martial Law Regulations. The core legal question concerned whether respondent No. 2 had exercised the option for the purchase of the surrendered land within the prescribed time limit. The Supreme Court held that based on overwhelming evidence on record, respondent No. 2 had indeed exercised the option in time, thereby justifying the dismissal of the Intra-Court Appeal by the High Court. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact by the High Court based on overwhelming evidence regarding compliance with prescribed timelines will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether an allottee exercised the option for the purchase of surrendered land within the prescribed time under Martial Law Regulation No. 89?
- Is the High Court justified in dismissing an Intra-Court Appeal when overwhelming evidence supports the timely exercise of an option for land purchase?
- Land Acquisition Collector, Tarbela Dam and others vs Muhammad1989 PLD Supreme Court 589 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals concern land compensation disputes arising from the acquisition of land for the Tarbela Dam project. The core legal questions were whether land subject to irregular river action should be valued identically to land with regular irrigation benefits (Bahir Di Abi), and whether previous compensation awards, which were potentially based on tampered records or withdrawn under government directive, could serve as binding precedents for subsequent claims. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that land lacking regular irrigation benefits cannot be valued at par with Bahir Di Abi land, as the irregularity of river action negates the argument of potentiality. Furthermore, the Court ruled that compensation awards derived from tampered records or withdrawn under specific government orders cannot be treated as valid precedents for determining compensation in other cases. The key principle laid down is that the finality and precedential value of compensation awards depend entirely on the specific circumstances of each case, and courts must exercise caution against relying on awards that lack a sound evidentiary basis or are tainted by irregularities.
Questions settled- Can land subject to irregular river action be valued at the same rate as land with regular irrigation benefits?
- Can a compensation award that was withdrawn by government order be used as a precedent for future land acquisition cases?
- Does the potentiality of land justify equal compensation when the regularity of irrigation benefits differs significantly?
- Land Acquisition Collector, Abbottabad and anothers vs Muhammad1989 PLD Peshawar 77 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
- Land Acquisition Collector vs Malik Sawal Khan Through His Legal1989 MLD 1255 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-10Read full judgment →
- Lallu Mal vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lucknow1989 PTD 248 · Allahabad High Court · 1978-09-07Read full judgment →
- Lala Ayub Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 29 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-01Read full judgment →
- Lal vs The StateK.L.R. 1989 Criminal Cases 51 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-12Read full judgment →
- Lal vs Mst. Ghulam Ilahi and anothers1989 PLD Lahore 93 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
- Lal Shahadat Khan And Another vs Mst. Gul Marjana1989 CLC 803 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges an appellate court's judgment that reversed a trial court's dismissal of a suit concerning a disputed sale mutation. The core legal question is whether the burden of proof regarding the genuineness of a transaction shifts to the defendants when the plaintiff is a 'Pardanasheen' lady, even if this status was not explicitly pleaded in the plaint, and whether the suit was time-barred. The court held that once the 'Pardanasheen' status of the plaintiff is established—even through the defendant's own admissions—the burden of proof regarding the genuineness of the transaction and the passing of consideration shifts to the beneficiaries of the mutation. The court further held that the residuary Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to such declaratory suits, allowing a six-year limitation period from the date of knowledge. The key principle laid down is that the protection afforded to 'Pardanasheen' women is a substantive legal right that courts must recognize once the status is proven, regardless of whether it was formally pleaded, and that the burden of proof for the transaction's validity rests on the beneficiaries.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proof shift to the defendants to prove the genuineness of a transaction when the plaintiff is a 'Pardanasheen' lady?
- Can the benefit of 'Pardanasheen' status be extended to a plaintiff who failed to explicitly plead such status in the plaint?
- Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs a suit for a declaration regarding a disputed sale mutation?
- Is a suit for declaration and possession regarding land governed by the six-year limitation period under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Lal Masih Etc vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 57 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-05-09Read full judgment →
- Lal Khan vs Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner1989 MLD 52 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
- Lal Khan And Others vs Sultan Ahmad1989 MLD 231 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →
- Lal Khan And 3 Others vs Bashir Ahmad1989 CLC 140 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-17Read full judgment →
- Lal Hussain And Others vs Superintending Canal Officer And Other1989 MLD 240 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
- Lal Din and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 498 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-11Read full judgment →
- Lal Baz And Another vs Gulab Represented By Legal Heirs1989 CLC 8 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a pre-emption suit where the plaintiff-respondent successfully claimed a superior right of pre-emption as a co-sharer in the joint khata, obtaining a decree for possession upon payment of the sale price. The appellants raised two primary arguments: first, that no proper determination of the superior right of pre-emption was made; and second, that the appeal filed before the District Judge was unauthorized due to a defective power of attorney. The Lahore High Court held that the plaintiff was indeed a co-sharer prior to the impugned sale and possessed a superior right of pre-emption compared to the defendants who were merely owners of the estate. The Court further held that Section 85 of the Evidence Act 1872 raises a rebuttable presumption regarding powers of attorney authenticated by specified authorities, but it is not exhaustive, and the lack of formal authentication does not automatically invalidate a power of attorney if execution is otherwise established and no objection was raised during the trial. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a co-sharer in a joint khata has a superior right of pre-emption over a mere owner of the estate?
- Does Section 85 of the Evidence Act 1872 exclude other legal modes of proving a power of attorney when it is not authenticated by a designated authority?
- Can an objection regarding the lack of authority of an attorney to file an appeal be raised for the first time in a second appeal without being pleaded in the lower courts?
- What are the limitations on an appellate court's discretion to receive additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Lal and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2380 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
- Lal and another vs Ashiq Hussain Shah1989 SCMR 1131 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a vendees and defendants petition for leave to appeal stemming from a pre-emption suit. During the proceedings, the parties entered into an out-of-court compromise and their respective counsel requested the disposal of the petition in accordance with the terms agreed upon. The core legal question concerned whether the petition and underlying suit could be resolved and disposed of based on a genuine out-of-court compromise between the litigants, especially in light of established case law affecting the sustainability of the lower courts' judgments. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the compromise was genuine and presented no legal impediments, the petition was converted into an appeal and disposed of in terms of the compromise, with the pre-emptors withdrawing their original suit and the lower courts' judgments being set aside. The key principle established is that appellate proceedings may be amicably resolved and disposed of in terms of a lawful out-of-court compromise between parties.
Questions settled- Can a petition for leave to appeal in a pre-emption matter be disposed of on the basis of an out-of-court compromise?
- Whether pre-emptors are permitted to withdraw their original suit pursuant to a compromise between the parties?
- Lal Alias Laloo And Another vs The State1989 MLD 170 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
- Lakson Tobacco Company Ltd. vs The Deputy Registrar of Trade Mark1989 MLD 1598 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-01Read full judgment →
- Lahore Stock Exchange Ltd. vs Fredrick J. Whyte Group (Pakistan) Ltd.1989 SCMR 1508 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's First Appeal from Order, which had challenged a civil court's order referring a dispute to arbitration under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940. The core legal question concerns whether the validity of an agreement containing an arbitration clause—specifically where fraud and lack of a valid signatory are alleged—must be determined by a court of law prior to referring the matter to arbitration, or if such issues can be left for the arbitrator. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions further, directing that arbitration proceedings may continue but no final decision shall be rendered by the arbitrator pending the appeal. The key principle relates to the examination of whether an agreement involving allegations of fraud or voidability necessitates judicial determination before a reference to arbitration is sustained.
Questions settled- Whether the question of the validity of an agreement containing an arbitration clause must be decided by a court of law when fraud is alleged?
- Can a dispute regarding the existence of a valid agreement between parties be left to the decision of the arbitrator?
- Whether an arbitration proceeding should be restrained from reaching a final decision while the validity of the underlying agreement is sub judice?
- Lahore Municipal Corporation vs Messrs Awan Contractors and others1989 SCMR 107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Lahore Municipal Corporation sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of its Civil Revisions by the High Court, which had decided the matter in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs by applying the penal provision under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to the petitioner's failure to file a written statement. The Supreme Court noted that while it initially intended to examine vital questions regarding the nature of the penalty, the conditions necessary for requiring a written statement, and the exercise of discretion, the petitioner and its functionaries failed to provide necessary material or instructions to assist the counsel, including even the copy of the order sheet. Consequently, due to the lack of assistance and the relatively small amount involved, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- What are the conditions necessary for requiring a defendant to file a written statement under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- How is the discretion regarding the application of the penalty under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 exercised?
- Lahore Municipal Corporation vs Barkat Ali and others1989 SCMR 1116 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Lahore Municipal Corporation against an interim order passed by an Intra-Court Appeal Bench of the Lahore High Court. The High Court had admitted an appeal filed by the respondents and issued an interim order directing the petitioner not to disturb the respondents, who were maintaining milch cattle within the municipal boundaries. The petitioner contended that the presence of these cattle caused public nuisance, accidents, and hindered urban development, noting that the respondents had already been provided with alternative arrangements. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the discretionary interim order passed by the High Court pending the final disposal of the Intra-Court Appeal. The Supreme Court held that it would refrain from interfering with the discretionary interim orders of the High Court, consistent with its established practice of minimal interference in such matters. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, with a direction to the High Court to expedite the final disposal of the pending Intra-Court Appeal.
Questions settled- Should the Supreme Court interfere with discretionary interim orders passed by the High Court pending final adjudication?
- Does the Supreme Court have a practice of minimal interference regarding discretionary interim orders of the High Court?
- Lahore Municipal Corporation vs Akbar Ali Akhtar and another1989 SCMR 1121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Lahore Municipal Corporation against the respondents, Akbar Ali Akhtar and another, challenging a judgment of the lower forum. The core legal question concerned whether the reliefs and declaration granted to the plaintiff-respondents provided blanket protection to unauthorized constructions or if municipal authorities retained statutory powers over them. The Supreme Court of Pakistan declined to grant leave to appeal, holding that the petitioner had already been granted sufficiently effective relief in the final paragraph of the impugned judgment. The Court clarified that the declaration and reliefs awarded to the respondents were explicitly subject to provisos stating that the decree would not protect unauthorized structures, that the respondents must obtain sanction from the competent authority before any future construction, and that the Lahore Municipal Corporation remained fully competent to demolish unauthorized structures in accordance with the law. The key principle laid down is that judicial decrees protecting a party's rights do not legitimize unauthorized structures and do not oust the statutory authority of municipal corporations to demolish illegal constructions in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Does a judicial decree in favor of a plaintiff protect unauthorized structures raised by them?
- Is a municipal corporation competent to demolish unauthorized structures despite a declaration granted by a court?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the impugned judgment sufficiently safeguards the petitioner's powers under the law?
- Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore vs Muhammad Sharif Puri Through His Legal Heirs1989 MLD 1275 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
- Lahore Development Authority vs Siraj Din and others1989 SCMR 1996 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Lahore Development Authority against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision and upheld the appellate court's decree in favor of the respondents. The respondents had filed a suit for perpetual injunction to restrain the petitioner from evicting them and demolishing their house pursuant to a notice under the West Pakistan Autonomous Bodies Immovable Property (Ejectment of Unauthorised Occupants) Ordinance, 1965. The core legal question was whether the disputed property was validly acquired and included in a lawful notification for acquisition. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to produce any specific notification under the relevant laws showing that the disputed property of four marlas had been acquired, merely pointing to a general site plan covering a large area. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that without proof of lawful acquisition, ejectment proceedings cannot be sustained against private property owners.
Questions settled- Whether an ejectment notice under the West Pakistan Autonomous Bodies Immovable Property (Ejectment of Unauthorised Occupants) Ordinance, 1965 is sustainable without proving specific acquisition of the disputed property?
- Does a general notification covering a large area suffice to prove the acquisition of a specific property measuring a few marlas?
- Lahore Development Authority vs Mst. Mehraj Begum And Other1989 MLD 4327 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
- Lahore Cycle Industries Workers' Union (Cba) vs Registrar of Trade1989 PLC 235 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Lahore Cycle Industries Workers Union (Cba) vs Registrar of Trade1989 PLC 342 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-08-04Read full judgment →
- Labour Union (C.Ba.), Gojra Sammundri Sugar Mills, Faisalabad vs Mazdoor Ittehad Union, Gojra Sammundri Sugar Mills and 2 others1989 PLC 99 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-05-16Read full judgment →
- Labour Alliance (LDA) vs Ch. Ghulam Muhammad, General Secretary, WASA Director, Admn. WASA (LDA), Lahore1989 PLC 439 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1987-06-24Read full judgment →
- Kuwait Flour Mills Co. Sak Arabian Gulf Kuwait vs m.v. _Kashmir_ and another1989 PLD Karachi 57 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
- Kristopher vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Criminal Cases 206 · Lahore High Court · 1988-01-15Read full judgment →
- Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) And 2 Others vs Ratan Prakash Mangal And Other1989 MLD 2119 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-05-06Read full judgment →
- Krishan Kumar Shardah vs The Chief Secretary, Government of Sind, Karachi and 3 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 47 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1988-07-21Read full judgment →
- Kohinoor Textile Mills vs Allah Dad1989 PLC 908 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-14Read full judgment →
- Kohinoor Textile Mills Ltd. vs Muhammad Saleem1989 PLC 913 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-11-30Read full judgment →
- Kohinoor Textile Mills Ltd. vs Abdul Wahid1989 PLC 912 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-11-30Read full judgment →
- Kohinoor Sugar Mills Limited vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 2 others1989 SCMR 2044 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the refusal of respondent Taxing Authorities under the Laws of Central Excise to allow the petitioner's claim for full abatement of excise duty. The core legal question concerns whether a fresh writ petition is maintainable to re-agitate an issue that was decided against the petitioner in an earlier round of litigation which attained finality because it was not challenged before the Supreme Court, notwithstanding a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in a similar case taking a contrary view. The Supreme Court held that the prior unappealed judgment of the High Court operates as res judicata against the petitioner, barring fresh proceedings to the extent the authorities did not grant relief. The key principle laid down is that a final and binding judgment between the parties operates as res judicata and cannot be reopened merely because a subsequent pronouncement of a superior court takes a different view on the legal question in a different case.
Questions settled- Does a prior unappealed judgment of the High Court operate as res judicata preventing a fresh writ petition on the same matter?
- Can fresh proceedings be initiated to re-agitate an issue settled in an earlier round of litigation because the Supreme Court later took a different view in a similar case?
- Does a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court have the effect of reopening all earlier finalised cases decided by the High Court?
- Liaqat Ali and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 488 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
- Kohinoor Industries Ltd., Faisalabad And Others vs Government of Pakistan And Other1989 MLD 1 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns four writ petitions challenging the imposition of central excise duty by the Central Excise Authorities on man-made (synthetic) yarn and fabrics produced on the same machinery (looms and spindles) already subject to excise duty on production capacity for cotton products. The core legal question is whether the authorities can levy excise duty under Section 3(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, while simultaneously maintaining the levy on production capacity under Section 3(4) of the same Act for the same machinery, without granting abatement, and whether this constitutes impermissible double taxation. The Court held that the levy of excise duty under Section 3(1) without granting abatement for duties paid under Section 3(4) constitutes double taxation and is without lawful authority. The Court struck down the formula in the Central Excise General Order No. 8 of 1968 as unreasonable and directed the authorities to calculate and refund the excess duties. The key principle established is that excise duty on production capacity under Section 3(4) is in lieu of duties under Section 3(1); therefore, taxing both on the same machinery without abatement violates the constitutional mandate against double taxation.
Questions settled- Does the levy of excise duty under Section 3(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, on goods produced on machinery already subject to production capacity duty under Section 3(4) constitute impermissible double taxation?
- Are manufacturers entitled to abatement of excise duty paid under Section 3(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, when the same machinery is used to produce goods subject to duty under Section 3(1)?
- Is the formula prescribed by the Central Board of Revenue under the Central Excise General Order No. 8 of 1968 for granting relief in respect of excise duty valid?
- Khyber And 5 Others vs The State1989 MLD 2693 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-03-09Read full judgment →
- Khushi vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1201 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad vs The State1989 MLD 186 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-30Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 669 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad vs Muhammad Aslam and another1989 SCMR 1806 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by Khushi Muhammad seeking the enhancement of the respondent Muhammad Aslam's sentence from imprisonment for life to death, following concurrent findings of guilt by the trial court and the High Court under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the trial court and upheld by the High Court warrants enhancement to the capital sentence of death. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court's decision to discharge its suo motu notice for sentence enhancement—based on the mitigating circumstance that the respondent had fired at the deceased upon the exhortations of his father and two elder brothers—was not an insubstantial ground. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for enhancement, affirming the sentence of imprisonment for life.
Questions settled- Whether firing at a deceased upon the exhortation of co-accused constitutes a valid mitigating circumstance against the imposition of the death penalty?
- Can the Supreme Court enhance a sentence to death when the High Court has discharged a suo motu notice for enhancement based on judicial discretion?
- Khushi Muhammad vs Mst. Nazir Begum And Other1989 CLC 1984 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from a pre-emption suit filed on 24th September 1970 for the possession of land through an oral sale followed by a mutation attested on 28th September 1969. The petitioner contested the suit as time-barred, arguing first that physical possession was delivered on 20th September 1969, and second that the plaint was improperly presented to the Reader of the court while the Civil Judge was on leave and placed before the judge only on 6th October 1970. The lower courts decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, legal representatives of the original pre-emptor. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the petitioner failed to establish physical possession as of 20th September 1969, making the limitation period run from the date of mutation attestation, thus rendering the suit filed on 24th September 1970 within time. Furthermore, the court held that presentation of a plaint to a court reader during the presiding officer's leave is either valid under court practice or, if unauthorized, treats the court as closed during that period, extending the limitation under section 4 of the Limitation Act.
Questions settled- Whether the limitation period for a pre-emption suit based on an oral sale without a registered deed is reckoned from the date of alleged physical possession or the date of attestation of the mutation?
- Does the presentation of a plaint to the Reader of a court in the absence of the Presiding Officer constitute a valid institution of the suit within the period of limitation?
- Whether a court is deemed to be closed during the absence of its Presiding Officer on leave for the purpose of computing limitation under section 4 of the Limitation Act when no authorized officer is available to receive plaints?
- Khushi Muhammad Khokhar, President, Punjab Irrigation Employees1989 PLC 757 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad And Others vs The State1989 MLD 4959 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-10Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad And Others vs Muhammad Maalik And Other1989 MLD 3753 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Begum vs The State and 2 others1989 P Cr. L J 477 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-01Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Ali And Others vs Syed Muhammad Amin Shah, Deputy1989 MLD 3838 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-23Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Ahmad And Others vs Nisar Ahmad And Other.1989 MLD 3309 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Ahmad and another vs Labour Court and others1989 SCMR 806 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, formerly employees of Attock Refinery, were dismissed from service for misappropriation of company property. Their challenges before the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal were unsuccessful. They subsequently invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court, but their constitutional petitions were dismissed in limine due to the non-appearance of their counsel on the date of hearing. A subsequent application filed under section 151 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 and section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for rehearing was also dismissed. The petitioners then sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arguing that the High Court relied on distinguishable case law and that a difference of judicial opinion existed regarding the question of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court found that a substantial question of law of public importance was involved and accordingly granted leave to appeal in both petitions.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition can be dismissed in limine solely due to the non-appearance of the petitioner's counsel?
- Whether an application under section 151 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 and section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is maintainable for the rehearing of a dismissed constitutional petition?
- Does a difference of opinion on a question of jurisdiction warrant an authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court?
- Khurshid Ahmad and 4 others vs The Senior Member, Federal Land1989 PLD Karachi 610 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-18Read full judgment →
- Khudeja Tul Kubra vs Abid Butt1989 MLD 949 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-29Read full judgment →
- Khudai Rahim and others vs Mst. Noor Jamal and 2 others1989 PLD Quetta 54 · Balochistan High Court · 1988-12-27Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bux vs Government of Sind and others1989 PLD Karachi 85 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner regarding the mutation of agricultural land inheritance. The core dispute involved the alleged birth of a posthumous son and the subsequent re-determination of inheritance shares. The petitioner sought to set aside the revenue officer's order, arguing it was passed without jurisdiction. The High Court, however, addressed the preliminary objection regarding the availability of alternative remedies. The Court held that the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, provides a comprehensive mechanism for appeals and revisions against orders passed by revenue officers, which the petitioner failed to exhaust. Consequently, the Court declined to exercise its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, as the statutory remedies were both adequate and efficacious. Furthermore, the Court noted that while Islamic law recognizes a foetus as an heir if born alive within the minimum gestation period of six months, the factual determination of such matters should be addressed through the prescribed revenue hierarchy rather than through writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 199 when the petitioner has not exhausted the appellate and revisional remedies provided under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967?
- Under Islamic law, what is the minimum gestation period required for a posthumous child to be considered an heir to the deceased's property?
- Does a Revenue Officer have the authority to inquire into the correctness of entries in the register of mutations under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967?
- Khuda Bux and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 654 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bux And Others vs Syed Sadik Ali Shah And Other1989 MLD 909 · Board of Revenue · 1987-11-10Read full judgment →