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.
- Khuda Bakhsh vs Mehdi Hassan1989 PLD Lahore 78 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bakhsh Etc vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 196 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bakhsh and 5 others vs Imam Bakhsh1989 SCMR 1575 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the defendant-appellants against a decree for pre-emption granted in favour of the tenant-respondent under the relevant Land Reforms Regulation. The primary legal question raised was whether the sale of occupancy rights, which constitutes 'land' under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, could also be treated as 'land' for the purpose of a pre-emption suit grounded on tenancy under paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 (MLR 115). The Supreme Court held that the legal requirements and procedure of pre-emption under paragraph 25 of the Regulation are to be derived from the existing law of pre-emption in Punjab. The Court affirmed that paragraph 25(3-D) effectively became incorporated into Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, which expressly visualises pre-emption suits concerning the sale of occupancy rights. Consequently, the argument that the definition of land in the Regulation excluded occupancy rights was rejected, and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can the sale of occupancy rights be subject to a pre-emption claim based on tenancy under Paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972?
- Are the legal requirements and procedure for pre-emption under Paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 to be derived from the existing Punjab Pre-emption Act?
- Does Paragraph 25(3-D) of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 operate as part of Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
- Khuda Bakhsh and 3 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 340 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
- Khizra and 2 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 456 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-11Read full judgment →
- Khizar Hayat Khan vs Additional Deputy Commissioner(G)/Deputy Land1989 SCMR 671 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from leave to appeal granted to examine how the Produce Index Value of land under the Land Reforms Act, 1977 should be calculated when the assessment circle in which the land is located does not appear in the Produce Index Unit Booklet. The appellant challenged the evaluation method used by the Deputy Land Commissioner, which relied on an old abolished assessment circle instead of adjoining circles or statutory provisions. The High Court had dismissed the appellant's constitutional petition in limine. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the definition of 'Produce Index Unit' under section 2(11) of the Act vests the residuary power to determine such units in the Land Commission for the Province where no unit was previously determined. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the case to the Land Commission for the Province of Punjab for a proper decision in accordance with the statute.
Questions settled- How is the Produce Index Unit to be calculated for an assessment circle where no such unit has been determined under the Land Reforms Act, 1977?
- Does the Land Commission possess the residuary power to determine Produce Index Units for areas where no units are explicitly provided in the booklet?
- Can a constitutional petition be maintained directly without availing statutory remedies of appeal and revision under the land reform laws?
- Khawar and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 124 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-10Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Zafar Nizami And Others vs Member (S & R), Board of Revenue1989 MLD 963 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-01Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Saeed Pervaiz vs Secretary, Establishment Division and 31989 PLC (C.S.) 666 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-01-04Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Feroze Din vs Sardar Ali and 3 others1989 PLD Supreme Court 930 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld the refusal of a temporary injunction by the lower courts regarding evacuee property settlement. The core legal question concerns whether a civil court can grant a temporary injunction to restrain a Deputy Settlement Commissioner from giving effect to an order amending a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) after the repeal of evacuee laws, and whether the petitioner made out a case for injunctive relief after losing multiple prior rounds of litigation culminating in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit, affirming that Settlement Authorities constitute an exclusive statutory hierarchy not subordinate to civil courts, thereby barring civil courts from staying their proceedings. The court also held that a temporary injunction cannot be granted where the petitioner has already failed on merits in prior litigation up to the Supreme Court. The key principle laid down is that civil courts cannot issue injunctions to stay proceedings or executive actions of specialized quasi-judicial tribunals and authorities, such as Settlement Authorities, that are not subordinate to the civil court hierarchy.
Questions settled- Can a civil court grant a temporary injunction to restrain proceedings of a Deputy Settlement Commissioner or Settlement Authorities?
- Whether Settlement Authorities are subordinate to civil courts for the purpose of issuing injunctions?
- Does a party who has failed on merits up to the Supreme Court in earlier rounds of litigation make out a prima facie case for a temporary injunction in a subsequent civil suit?
- Kharati And Others vs Muhammad Ibrahim And Other1989 CLC 894 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of a pre-emption suit filed by the petitioners claiming a superior right of pre-emption regarding agricultural land. During the proceedings, the trial court permitted the plaintiffs to implead an omitted vendor as a defendant after finding that the omission resulted from an incorrect certified copy of the sale-deed supplied to them. A revision against this order was dismissed by the District Judge. Subsequently, after trial, the suit was dismissed on merits, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision and accepted the defendants' appeal by reopening the question of limitation and finding against the plaintiffs on the issue of waiver and estoppel. Upon review, the Lahore High Court held that the prior revisional order upholding the amendment and resolving the limitation question had attained finality and operated as res judicata, precluding the lower appellate court from reopening it. The Court further held that the lower appellate court misread the oral evidence and erred on the issue of waiver and estoppel, particularly disregarding that the plaintiff's testimony denying presence at the sale was left uncross-examined. Consequently, the High Court accepted the revision petition, set aside the appellate judgment, and restored the trial court's decree dismissing the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an interlocutory order on limitation that attained finality operates as res judicata preventing an appellate court from reopening the question?
- Does a mistake by a public functionary in issuing an incorrect certified copy of a sale-deed save a pre-emption suit from being barred by limitation when adding a necessary party?
- Does failure to cross-examine a witness on a material point amount to an acceptance of that witness's statement?
- What is the standard of proof required to establish the plea of waiver and estoppel in a pre-emption suit?
- Khanpur and others vs Muhammad Zarin and anothers1989 PLD Supreme Court 485 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a property dispute where the appellants claimed title to land through adverse possession, while the respondents asserted ownership and maintained that the appellants were merely permissive tenants. The core legal question was whether the appellants, recorded as tenants in the Revenue record with the entry 'bila lagan bawaja rishtadari' (without rent due to relationship), could successfully claim adverse possession against the true owners. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants' possession was permissive in nature. The Court affirmed that a tenant cannot acquire ownership rights inconsistent with the landlord-tenant relationship merely through the length of possession or by asserting a larger claim. The Court established that permissive possession cannot be converted into adverse possession unless the occupant proves they asserted an adverse title to the knowledge of the true owners for at least twelve years. Mere non-payment of rent or construction on the land does not suffice to establish adverse possession; the occupant must demonstrate an overt act clearly renouncing the tenancy and asserting ownership, which the appellants failed to do.
Questions settled- Can a tenant acquire title to land by adverse possession against the landlord merely through the length of possession?
- Does the entry 'bila lagan bawaja rishtadari' in the Revenue record establish permissive possession?
- What is required to convert permissive possession into adverse possession?
- Is mere non-payment of rent by a tenant sufficient to establish adverse possession?
- Khanoo Alias Khan Bahadur Through Legal Heirs And Others vs Mumman1989 MLD 4110 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
- Khanimullah and 2 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1289 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
- Khan Zaman Khan vs The State1989 MLD 4368 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-11Read full judgment →
- Khan Sardar vs Rab Nawaz1989 SCMR 1718 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed his civil revision against the appellate court's dismissal of his pre-emption suit appeal. The core legal question concerned whether the appellate court's recorded statement that the appeal was not pressed could be challenged through a belated affidavit filed in revision. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit, reasoning that the affidavit filed weeks later was correctly viewed by the lower court as an afterthought, and upheld the sanctity of the judicial record regarding statements made before a presiding officer. The key principle laid down is that a contemporaneous judicial record of a statement made in court carries solemnity and cannot be easily displaced by a belated affidavit alleging misunderstanding.
Questions settled- Can a statement recorded by a presiding officer of a court that an appeal is not pressed be challenged through a subsequent affidavit?
- Whether a belated affidavit filed in support of a revision petition can displace the official record of the lower appellate court?
- Khan Naeemullah vs United Bank Ltd.1989 CLC 2492 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-20Read full judgment →
- Khan Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 260 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
- Khan Muhammad vs Sher Zaman and others1989 SCMR 619 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the Lahore High Court's judgment, which acquitted the respondents of murder charges by granting them the benefit of the doubt. The High Court based its decision on the premise that two conflicting versions of the incident existed, one implicating the respondents and another involving a third party, Muhammad Ramzan. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly applied the principle of benefit of the doubt in the face of consistent ocular testimony. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the High Court’s reliance on the existence of "two versions" was factually unfounded. The evidence demonstrated that the alternative version involving Muhammad Ramzan was a fabricated defense strategy intended to divert the investigation. The ocular testimony consistently identified the respondents as the actual perpetrators. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s acquittal, restored the trial court’s conviction and sentence, and ordered the respondents to be taken into custody. The judgment reinforces that appellate courts must scrutinize the validity of competing versions rather than mechanically applying the benefit of doubt.
Questions settled- Does the mere existence of an alternative defense theory constitute a second version of an incident sufficient to warrant the benefit of the doubt?
- Can an appellate court set aside an acquittal if the High Court failed to properly evaluate the consistency of ocular testimony?
- Is an acquittal sustainable when the basis for the two versions theory is shown to be a fabricated attempt to divert investigation?
- Khan Muhammad vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Rawalpindi and others1989 SCMR 589 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police dismissed for misconduct, sought leave to appeal against the Punjab Service Tribunal's dismissal of his service appeal on the grounds of limitation and merits. The core legal questions involved whether the time spent pursuing an incompetent departmental revision and subsequent days before filing the appeal should be excluded from the period of limitation as of right, and whether the delay ought to have been condoned. The Supreme Court held that the period spent pursuing an incompetent departmental remedy cannot be excluded as of right from the period of limitation, and found no justification to interfere with the Tribunal's refusal to condone the delay or its findings on merits concerning questions of fact. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that time spent on incompetent remedies does not automatically toll limitation periods in service matters.
Questions settled- Can the time spent pursuing an incompetent departmental revision be excluded as of right from the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Is a Service Tribunal's refusal to condone delay open to interference by the Supreme Court when based on concurrent factual assessments?
- Do observations made by a Service Tribunal on the merits of a factual controversy warrant Supreme Court interference without a legal infirmity?
- Khan Muhammad And Others vs Talib Hussain1989 MLD 1269 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
- Khan Muhammad and others vs Capital Development Authority, Islamabad and others1989 SCMR 656 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their Constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court. Their land was acquired in 1960 by the Capital Development Authority (CDA), and they were compensated with cash and an option for either a residential plot or agricultural land. The petitioners later obtained both benefits through error, which the CDA subsequently cancelled. The petitioners alleged discrimination, citing that landowners in later-acquired sectors received both benefits. The Supreme Court held that the initial scheme provided for alternative benefits, not both. The Court found that the subsequent, more favorable treatment of other affectees was based on different circumstances, specific package deals, and different time periods, thus negating the claim of unjustified discrimination. Furthermore, the Court observed that the fundamental right against discrimination was not applicable to the 1960 acquisition. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming that different treatment based on distinct factual circumstances and timeframes does not constitute actionable discrimination.
Questions settled- Does the provision of different rehabilitation benefits for land acquired at different time periods and under different schemes constitute actionable discrimination?
- Can a petitioner claim a right to both residential plots and agricultural land when the governing rehabilitation scheme explicitly offers these benefits only as alternatives?
- Is the fundamental right against discrimination under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 applicable to administrative actions taken in 1960?
- Khan Muhammad and another vs Muhammad Ramzan and another1989 SCMR 1209 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had refused to restore a civil revision petition that was dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioners, who were rival pre-emptors, had repeatedly failed to pursue their case, leading to multiple dismissals for default in the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's refusal to restore the civil revision, given the history of repeated defaults by the petitioners, warranted interference by the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no justification for granting leave to appeal, noting that the High Court had appropriately handled the restoration application in light of the petitioners' persistent failure to prosecute their case. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioners' case lacked merit. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there were no grounds to interfere with the High Court's order and refused the leave to appeal, affirming the principle that repeated defaults in prosecution justify the refusal of restoration of a dismissed petition.
Questions settled- Does the repeated failure to prosecute a civil revision petition justify the refusal of a restoration application?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against an order refusing restoration of a petition dismissed for non-prosecution where the petitioner has repeatedly committed default?
- Khan Mir vs Amal Sherin alias Kamal and 2 others1989 SCMR 1987 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the Sessions Judge. The core legal question involved whether the High Court and Sessions Judge erred in granting bail and failing to give due consideration to the respondents' alleged abscondence of three months, alongside contradictions between medical evidence and the ocular account regarding multiple firearm shots versus a single wound. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts properly exercised their discretion, noting that further inquiry was warranted due to the medical contradiction, and affirmed that abscondence lacks significant consequence when no formal proceedings under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are initiated against the accused. The key principle laid down is that abscondence is a weak form of corroboratory evidence and carries little weight without formal proclamation proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether abscondence of an accused is of consequence when no proceedings under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 have been taken?
- Does a contradiction between medical evidence showing a single injury and an ocular version alleging multiple effective firearm shots make a case one of further inquiry under bail considerations?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the concurrent exercise of discretion by the lower courts in granting bail without strong grounds?
- Khan Mast vs The StateK.L.R. 1989 Shariat Cases 37 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →
- Khan Iqbal Ahmad Khan and others vs Province of the Punjab and another1989 SCMR 1604 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision regarding the possession of State land allotted under the Horse Breeding Scheme. The original allottee, Asadullah Khan, died in 1968, and his successors-in-interest sought a declaration of their entitlement to possess the land for the unexpired term of the lease and a subsequent ten-year period, alongside a permanent injunction against interference. The High Court dismissed their claim, holding that the lease was not heritable and that the suitability and fitness of the allottee were personal criteria determined by the revenue authorities. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the tenancy was heritable under Section 19-A of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912, citing precedent. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to specifically examine the effect of the cited precedent on the present case, noting that the determination of the legal status of the tenancy and its heritability remains the core question to be resolved.
Questions settled- Is a tenancy granted under the Horse Breeding Scheme heritable by the successors-in-interest of the original allottee?
- Does Section 19-A of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 apply to tenancies granted under the Horse Breeding Scheme?
- Can revenue authorities deny the transfer of a lease to heirs based on the personal suitability of the allottee?
- Khan Bahadur Khan vs Government of Sind and 2 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 208 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-25Read full judgment →
- Khan Badshah Fayyaz vs Secretrary, Establishment Division, Rawalpindi and 3 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 637 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
- Khan Badshah Etc vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 452 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
- Khan Badshah and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2270 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
- Khan alias Khanu and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1880 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-28Read full judgment →
- Khan Alias Khanu and Other vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 349 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-28Read full judgment →
- Khaliq Dad vs Fateh Khan1989 CLC 138 · Lahore High Court · 1987-12-21Read full judgment →
- Khaliq Dad Khan vs Chairman, Punjab Election Authority and another1989 SCMR 1243 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a Constitutional Petition challenging an order by the Punjab Local Councils Election Authority. The Election Authority had directed the inclusion of respondent No. 2, Atta Muhammad, in the list of validly nominated candidates for election to the Town Committee after his nomination was initially rejected by the Returning Officer and the Appellate Authority. The petitioner, who had been declared a returned candidate, contended that the Election Authority lacked jurisdiction to pass the impugned order after he had already been declared elected, arguing that the matter could only be challenged via an election petition. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner further argued that the election should have been postponed due to the late inclusion of the respondent. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the assertion regarding the request for postponement was unsupported by the record and was not raised before the High Court. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere in a matter where the factual assertion regarding a request for election postponement is unsupported by the record?
- Is a plea regarding the postponement of an election maintainable before the Supreme Court if it was not raised before the High Court?
- Khalil Ahmed vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 174 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-21Read full judgment →
- Khalil Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 719 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-21Read full judgment →
- Khalil Ahmad vs New Jubilee Insurance Co. Ltd. And 2 Other1989 MLD 1752 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
- Khalil Ahmad Bashir Ahmed vs Tufelhussein Samasbhai1989 MLD 1068 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-11-13Read full judgment →
- Khalifa Subedar vs Member, Federal Land Commission And Other1989 CLC 2328 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-08-28Read full judgment →
- Khalida Begum vs Messrs Settlers (Pvt.) Ltd.1989 CLC 1718 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-16Read full judgment →
- Khalid Pervez and 2 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1824 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-18Read full judgment →
- Khalid Pervaiz vs Punjab Seed Corporation1989 PLC (C.S.) 444 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-02Read full judgment →
- Khalid Pervaiz vs Amir Akhtar And Other1989 MLD 3845 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-28Read full judgment →
- Khalid Mahmood vs Director, Agricultural Engineering, Faisalabad1989 PLC 637 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Khalid Mahmood Khan vs Iftikhar Ahmed and 2 others1989 PLD Peshawar 41 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-03Read full judgment →
- Khalid Mahmood Baluch and another vs Secretary to Government of Pakistan and others1989 SCMR 692 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two petitions for leave to appeal against the orders of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had upheld the termination of the petitioners' services as Assistant Administrators in Grade 16 within the Evacuee Trust Board. The petitioners were initially appointed in 1976, but their services were terminated in 1979 on the grounds that their appointments were irregular. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners' appointments, which were initially deemed irregular, were regularized by a subsequent Federal Cabinet decision to exclude Grade 16 posts from the scope of review regarding irregular appointments made between 1972 and 1977. Counsel for the petitioners relied upon a demi-official letter from the Establishment Division to argue that the authorities were obligated to implement the Cabinet's decision and review the removal orders. Upon hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court found that the submissions raised substantial points meriting further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal in both matters, thereby allowing the legal challenge against the Tribunal's decision to proceed to a full hearing.
Questions settled- Does a Federal Cabinet decision to exclude specific grade posts from the scope of review of irregular appointments effectively regularize those appointments?
- Are authorities bound to implement Establishment Division directives regarding the review of removal orders based on subsequent policy changes?
- Khalid Javed vs The State1989 MLD 790 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
- Khalid Javed vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 473 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
- Khalid Hussain vs The State1989 MLD 3712(1) · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
- Khalid Hussain vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Criminal Cases 440 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
- Khalid Hasan vs Government of Sind and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 928 · Service Tribunal · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
- Khalid Farooq vs Executive Engineer, WAPDA1989 PLC (C.S.) 485 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
- Khalid and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 742 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-09Read full judgment →
- Khalid alias Bhola vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 313 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-01-13Read full judgment →
- Khalid Aitmad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Ciminal Cases 75 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-21Read full judgment →
- Khalid Ahmed Etc vs Ghulam HussainK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 126 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-15Read full judgment →
- Khair Muhammad vs University of Peshawar through ViceChancellor1989 SCMR 854 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the dismissal of the petitioner's constitutional petition by the High Court, which upheld the cancellation of his admission to the 2nd year Engineering (Agriculture) at the N.-W.F.P. University following the cancellation of his B.Sc. Examination due to the production of a bogus certificate of practical training in Statistics. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioner was afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing, the validity of holding a second inquiry report, and whether relief through extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction can be granted to a person who approaches the court with unclean hands. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings of fact regarding the conduct of inquiry and the provision of opportunity of hearing were unexceptionable, and that a petitioner who relies upon and makes use of a forged document cannot invoke the discretionary constitutional jurisdiction of the court. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking extraordinary discretionary relief must come with clean hands, and the use of a fraudulent or forged document disentitles them to such relief.
Questions settled- Whether a petitioner who uses a forged or fraudulent document is entitled to invoke the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Does participation in an inquiry followed by a subsequent boycott constitute a denial of the opportunity of hearing?
- Can a university take adverse action against a student for producing a bogus training certificate after conducting a due inquiry?
- Khair Gul vs The State1989 SCMR 491 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1988-09-18Read full judgment →
- Khair Din and others vs Ghulam Muhammad and others1989 SCMR 688 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order concerning the redemption of mortgaged land. The core legal dispute involved whether the respondents' application for redemption was time-barred under the Limitation Act. The property, originally mortgaged in 1896, had a portion redeemed in 1945. The respondents argued that this partial redemption triggered a fresh period of limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908, allowing for a sixty-year period from the date of the partial payment. The Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, and subsequently the Custodian, found as a matter of fact that the partial redemption occurred in 1945, thereby extending the limitation period. The High Court dismissed the petitioners' writ petition, upholding these concurrent findings of fact. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, noting that the petitioners failed to controvert the factual finding regarding the 1945 partial redemption. Consequently, the Court held that the application for redemption was within the statutory period and dismissed the petition, confirming the respondents' entitlement to redeem the disputed land.
Questions settled- Does a partial redemption of mortgaged property trigger a fresh period of limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Is the period for redemption of mortgaged property sixty years under Article 148 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can a finding of fact regarding the date of partial redemption be challenged in a petition for leave to appeal if it remains uncontroverted in lower courts?
- Khadim Hussain vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2210 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain vs The State and another1989 P Cr. L J 289 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain vs The Secretary, Establishment Division and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 622 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-04-20Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain vs Climax Engineering Company Ltd.1989 PLC 892 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-01-25Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain Malik And Others vs Land Acquisition Collector And Other1989 CLC 1074 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-03Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1785 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2432 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-12Read full judgment →
- Khadija Bibi And Another vs The State And 2 Other1989 MLD 836 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
- KH. Zahoor Ul Hassan And Another vs Deputy (Plots) Settlement1989 MLD 3090 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
- Kh. Muhammad Sharif vs Federation of Pakistan1989 CLC 1387 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
- Kh. Imtiaz Ahmed vs The State and another1989 P Cr. L J 357 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-12-11Read full judgment →
- Kh. Hamid Hassan vs Muhammad Fayyaz Rashid and another1989 SCMR 1726 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a plaintiff against the judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's Regular Second Appeal regarding a suit for possession of property. The core legal questions presented for the Supreme Court's examination involve whether the petitioner was correctly non-suited due to an alleged failure to pay the proper court fee at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. Additionally, the Court is tasked with determining whether the petitioner's appeal in the first round of litigation was validly instituted by a duly constituted attorney, alongside other related procedural issues. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the petition, found that these issues require a detailed examination and, consequently, granted leave to appeal. The Court directed that the appeal be prepared on the existing record, with instructions for the parties to submit any additional necessary documentation. This order establishes the procedural framework for the subsequent hearing of the appeal, focusing on the validity of court-fee payments and the proper authorization of legal representation in property litigation.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff can be non-suited for failure to pay proper court-fee at the proper stage?
- Whether an appeal filed by a duly constituted attorney in the first round of litigation is valid?
- Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Wealth1989 PTD 93 · Supreme Court of India · 1965-11-24Read full judgment →
- Kausar Mohammad Etc vs Mohammad Maalik EtcK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 124 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
- Kasturi Lal Harlal (M/s.) vs State Of U.P. And OtherPTCL 1989 FC. 49 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
- Kastur I Lal Harlal vs State of U.P. and others1989 PTD 350 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
- Kassim vs Syed Rahim Shah1989 MLD 2327 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
- Kashmeri Devi vs Delhi Administration And Another1989 MLD 2324 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-04-25Read full judgment →
- Kartar Singh vs State of Punjab1989 MLD 1519 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-01-31Read full judgment →
- Karimuddin vs Bachayo and others1989 P Cr. L J 2436 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-28Read full judgment →
- Karim Bakhsh vs Muhammad Nawaz1989 CLC 807 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Karim Bakhsh and 4 others vs Assistant General Manager (R), Attock1989 PLC 639 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Karamat Ali alias Kaman vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1590 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-17Read full judgment →
- Karam Khan vs Alam Sher and 7 others1989 SCMR 1533 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the respondents' sentences from imprisonment for life to death in a murder case. The core legal question concerns the propriety of reducing a sentence of death to imprisonment for life where multiple injuries are inflicted and individual fatal blows cannot be definitively attributed to specific accused persons, coupled with mitigating circumstances such as youthful age, acting under the influence of elders, and a previous background of enmity regarding the murder of the accused party's father. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that no grounds existed to interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower court in reducing the sentence, noting the presence of mitigating circumstances and precedent. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming that uncertainty regarding the specific fatal weapon coupled with mitigating factors justifies withholding the death penalty.
Questions settled- Whether a sentence of death should be reduced to imprisonment for life when it is not clear which of the accused caused the fatal injury?
- Can the influence of elders and youthful age serve as mitigating circumstances for reducing a sentence from death to life imprisonment in a murder case?
- Does uncertainty regarding the attribution of fatal blows combined with mitigating factors justify the refusal of leave to appeal against the reduction of sentence?
- Karam Khan and another vs The State and 2 others1989 SCMR 877 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns criminal petitions arising from a High Court judgment that modified the convictions of the accused from murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(1), Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the High Court erred in law by reducing the conviction, specifically whether the nature of the weapons used and the manner of the attack brought the case within the ambit of murder under Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rather than culpable homicide. The Supreme Court, upon hearing arguments regarding the potential misapplication of the law and the failure to consider the brutality of the offense, granted leave to appeal. The Court held that the contentions raised substantial questions of law requiring a re-appraisal of the evidence to determine if the case was decided in accordance with established principles for the safe dispensation of justice. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the correctness of the High Court's classification of the offense and the resulting sentence reduction.
Questions settled- Does the use of specific lethal weapons and the manner of attack in a land dispute warrant a conviction for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Under what circumstances does the reduction of a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(1), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, constitute an error of law?
- Does the suddenness of an occurrence automatically invoke Exception IV to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regardless of the brutality of the attack?
- When should the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal for the re-appraisal of evidence in a criminal case?
- Karam Hussain vs The ST a Te1989 PLD Shariat Court (AJ&K) 11 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-01-25Read full judgment →
- Karam Din and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 8 · Sindh High Court · 1988-07-01Read full judgment →
- Karam And 9 Others vs Hassan Ashraf And Other1989 CLC 174 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-18Read full judgment →
- Karam Ali And Others vs The State1989 MLD 4040 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-15Read full judgment →
- Karachi Transport Corporation, Karachi vs Nazir Ahmad1989 PLC 97 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-02-04Read full judgment →
- Karachi Transport Corporation, Karachi vs Muhammad Rafique1989 PLC 807 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
- Karachi Transport Corporation, Karachi vs Bakhtiar Gul1989 PLC 29 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-02-04Read full judgment →
- Karachi Transport Corporation vs Taj Bar Een1989 PLC 866 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
- Karachi Transport Corporation vs S. Siddiqur Riza Rizvi1989 PLC 987 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
- Karachi Transport Corporation vs Muiiammad Sarwar1989 PLC 865 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
- Karachi Transport Corporation vs Ghulam Ali1989 PLC 872 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-01-10Read full judgment →
- Karachi Transport Corporation vs Abdul Rehman1989 PLC 864 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-01-10Read full judgment →
- Karachi Sind Development Corporation vs Commissioner of Income-1989 PTD 472 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
- Karachi Electric Supply Corporation vs The State and others1989 P Cr. L J 1369 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
- Karachi Development Authority vs Mrs. Nighat Khan and another1989 SCMR 203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Karachi Development Authority (KDA) against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had set aside the cancellation of a plot allotted to respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 had obtained two plots through successive applications to the Minister Incharge without disclosing the prior allotment, violating the rules against double allotment. The High Court had held that while rule 7(2) of the KDA (Disposal of Land) Rules 1971 barred ineligible persons from applying, it did not explicitly provide for the cancellation of a plot once allotted. The core legal questions involve whether the Minister Incharge was competent to make such allotments, whether the rules permit the cancellation of an allotment obtained through misrepresentation, and whether the High Court correctly interpreted the cancellation powers. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner KDA regarding the illegality of the allotment, the lack of competence of the Minister Incharge to relax rules, and the existence of powers to cancel allotments obtained via untrue statements required deeper consideration. Accordingly, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether rule 7(2) of the KDA (Disposal of Land) Rules 1971 or the terms of the application form empower the competent authority to cancel a plot allotment obtained through concealment of a prior allotment?
- Whether the Minister Incharge was competent to relax the rules regarding the disposal of residential plots without the requisite authority vested in the Chief Minister?
- Whether an allotment of a plot made in violation of the prescribed rules is ab initio void?
- Karachi Development Authority vs Haji Ghulam Ali And Other1989 MLD 2238 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-15Read full judgment →