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.
- Karachi Building Control Authority vs Sufi Muhammad Ismail And Other1989 MLD 2987 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application arises from concurrent orders passed by the courts below granting a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents, restraining the Karachi Building Control Authority from interfering with their building operations on a plot situated on main Clifton Road, Karachi. The plaintiffs submitted a building plan for a residential-cum-commercial building, which was not processed or refused by the defendant authority within sixty days. Consequently, relying on Regulation 13 of the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations Part I, the plaintiffs claimed the plan was deemed to be sanctioned. The core legal question concerns whether the courts below properly exercised discretion in granting a temporary injunction based on the deeming provision of Regulation 13 and whether interference is warranted under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Sindh High Court held that the lower courts committed no jurisdictional error or material irregularity, as the plan was not refused within sixty days, creating a valid prima facie case and a balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiffs. The revision application was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the main suit.
Questions settled- Whether a building plan submitted to the Karachi Building Control Authority is deemed to be sanctioned if no order of approval or refusal is passed within sixty days under Regulation 13 of the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations Part I?
- Can the High Court interfere in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 with the concurrent discretionary orders of lower courts granting a temporary injunction when no jurisdictional defect is shown?
- Is the issuance of notice before the presentation of an appeal against an interlocutory order under Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandatory?
- Karachi Building Control Authority vs Muhammad Amin And 4 Other1989 MLD 1588 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-14Read full judgment →
- Kanta Rant And Another vs Rama Rani1989 MLD 2906 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-02-08Read full judgment →
- Kaneez Fatima vs Khalil Ahmed1989 MLD 3071 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-13Read full judgment →
- Kaneez Fatima vs Khalil Ahmad Sharar and 2 others1989 SCMR 2041 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant challenging the High Court's dismissal of her writ petition, which arose from eviction orders passed by a Rent Controller. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who claimed ownership of the land beneath the disputed building, could be legally classified as a tenant regarding the superstructure owned by the respondent. The lower courts had consistently found that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant liable for rent for the superstructure, thereby establishing a landlord-tenant relationship. The Supreme Court found no grounds to disturb the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the eviction. However, the Court held that the petitioner could pursue a separate suit in a court of general jurisdiction to seek a declaration of title regarding the land under the building. The Court clarified that this right to litigate title did not entitle the petitioner to regain possession of the property, as the eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller remained valid and enforceable.
Questions settled- Can a tenant claiming ownership of the land beneath a building challenge an eviction order based on the landlord's ownership of the superstructure?
- Does the right to file a suit for declaration of title regarding land entitle a tenant to regain possession after a valid eviction order?
- Is a tenant liable for rent for a superstructure even if they claim ownership of the underlying land?
- Kamla And Others vs Faqir Muhammad And Other1989 CLC 2395 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-22Read full judgment →
- Kamal Khoso vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 611 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-20Read full judgment →
- Kamal Din vs Manzoor Ahmad1989 CLC 2148 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →
- Kamal And Others vs The State1989 MLD 850 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
- Kalu alias Ali Bakhsh vs Hafiz Abdul Rashid and others1989 SCMR 1431 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order regarding a dispute over the sale of agricultural land. The core legal question was whether a party whose sale deed registration was refused by the Registrar is limited exclusively to filing a suit for specific performance, or if they may pursue a remedy under the Registration Act 1908. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the refusal of the Registrar to register a sale deed confers a statutory right upon the aggrieved party to approach a Civil Court for relief. The Court rejected the petitioner's contention that a suit for specific performance was the sole available remedy. The ratio established is that the statutory mechanism provided under the Registration Act 1908 for challenging a Registrar's refusal to register a document remains a valid and independent legal recourse, regardless of the existence of other potential civil remedies. Consequently, the appellate court's decision to remand the case for a decision on merits was upheld as legally sound and free from infirmity.
Questions settled- Is a suit for specific performance the only remedy available when a Registrar refuses to register a sale deed?
- Does the refusal of a Registrar to register a document grant a statutory right to approach a Civil Court under the Registration Act 1908?
- Kalsoom Bibi And Others vs Allah Dad And Other1989 MLD 3317 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-22Read full judgment →
- Kaloo Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2467 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
- Kafeeluddin vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 251 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-26Read full judgment →
- Kabir Khan Etc vs Amir Khan Etc.K.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 118 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
- Kabir Khan And Others vs Amir Khan And Other1989 MLD 289 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
- K.P. Narayanappa Setty & Co. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, A.P. R.C.1989 PTD 1333 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1971-11-05Read full judgment →
- K. Krishna Reddy And Others vs The Special Deputy Collector, Land1989 MLD 1216 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-09-08Read full judgment →
- Jumo vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1235 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by an accused facing trial for offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The applicant sought bail primarily on the ground of statutory delay in the disposal of his case, as he had been incarcerated for a significant period without trial progress. The trial court had previously denied bail, characterizing the applicant as a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal under the fourth proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The High Court examined whether the mere existence of accusations or pending cases constitutes sufficient grounds to label an accused as a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' to deny bail. The Court held that while the fourth proviso allows denial of bail to such individuals, the determination must be based on a cumulative assessment of the nature of the accusation, the accused's conduct during the incident, and available material like police reports. Ultimately, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Court granted bail to the applicant.
Questions settled- Does the term 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' in the fourth proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, require a previous conviction?
- What factors should a court consider when forming an opinion that an accused is a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' for the purpose of denying bail?
- Can an accused be denied the benefit of the third proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, without adequate material placed on record to support the classification of the accused as a dangerous criminal?
- Jummun And Others vs Mst. Hallan And Other1989 MLD 991 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
- Jumma Khan vs The State1989 SCMR 982 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Jumma Khan, for the murder of the deceased, Zamarrud, under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned whether the First Information Report (FIR) was unreliable due to insufficient details regarding the motive, and whether the alleged provocation—the molestation of a girl from the appellant's family—warranted a reduction of the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence. The Court held that the prosecution’s case was established beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular evidence and medical reports. It determined that minor variations in the elaboration of motive during trial do not invalidate an FIR if the core allegation remains consistent. Crucially, the Court ruled that a prior incident of molestation does not serve as a mitigating circumstance for a pre-planned murder committed in retaliation. The judgment reinforces that premeditated acts of vengeance, regardless of prior provocation, do not justify a lesser penalty than the death sentence.
Questions settled- Does the failure to provide detailed motive in an FIR render the testimony of the complainant unreliable?
- Can an incident of molestation of a family member be considered a mitigating circumstance to reduce a death sentence for murder?
- Is a murder considered pre-planned when committed in retaliation for a prior incident of molestation?
- Julius Salik vs Returning Officer And 27 Other1989 CLC 2499 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil miscellaneous petition sought an interim injunction restraining two members of the National Assembly from acting or performing functions as members pending the disposal of an election petition filed under section 52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The core legal question was whether an Election Tribunal should grant a temporary injunction to exclude duly notified elected representatives from the legislature during pending election proceedings. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that while the Election Tribunal possesses the jurisdiction to grant interim relief under the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner failed to satisfy the requisite conditions of establishing a prima facie case, a balance of convenience in his favour, and the likelihood of sustaining irreparable injury. The court laid down the principle that elected office-holders are ordinarily not to be restrained from performing their public functions via interim injunctions prior to a final judgment, as such restraint creates a legislative vacuum and disenfranchises voters, and that discretionary relief will be denied to a party guilty of unexplained delay and indolence in seeking interim remedies.
Questions settled- Whether an Election Tribunal has the jurisdiction to issue a temporary injunction restraining an elected member from performing parliamentary functions during the pendency of an election petition?
- What conditions must be fulfilled by an election petitioner before a temporary injunction can be issued against a returned candidate?
- Does the restraint of a duly notified member of the National Assembly via an interim injunction cause irreparable injury to the electorate by creating a legislative vacuum?
- Can discretionary interim relief be refused on the ground of the petitioner's unexplained delay and laches in approaching the court?
- Johar Din vs The State1989 PLD Peshawar 237 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-07-02Read full judgment →
- Jhunamal Alias Devandas vs The State of Madhya Pradesh And Other1989 MLD 1572 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-08-25Read full judgment →
- Jewan vs Hussain Bakhsh1989 SCMR 1249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's Regular Second Appeal regarding a dispute over the possession of two marlas of land. The petitioner had originally sued for possession based on a consent decree obtained against his father. The respondent contested the suit, claiming title through a purchase from a co-owner, Mehra. The trial court initially decreed the suit in the petitioner's favor, but the Additional District Judge reversed this, finding that the petitioner's father lacked exclusive 'Hissadari' possession, a finding upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could establish exclusive possession and title based on the consent decree despite the lack of evidence regarding his father's exclusive ownership. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the lack of exclusive possession by the petitioner's father and the validity of the respondent's purchase from a co-owner were correct. Finding no error in the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the dismissal of the petitioner's suit.
Questions settled- Can a party claim exclusive possession of land based on a consent decree if the predecessor-in-interest did not have exclusive Hissadari possession?
- Does the sale of a share by a co-owner provide a valid title to a respondent in a suit for possession?
- Is the Supreme Court justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact regarding land possession in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Jewan vs Hassan Muhammad And 2 Other1989 CLC 2393 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-02Read full judgment →
- Jeson International (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer, Company Circle1989 PTD 1141 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged a notice issued under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 by the Income Tax Officer seeking to reopen the petitioner's completed assessment for the year 1984-85. The department sought reopening based on survey reports regarding understated purchase prices of land, salary entries, and an unrecorded loan entry. The core legal questions were whether the Assessing Officer possessed 'definite information' justifying reopening or whether the notice constituted a mere change of opinion on fully disclosed facts, and whether an assessment order passed during the pendency of the petition rendered the challenge infructuous. The High Court held that reopening an assessment based on market rate comparisons of disclosed land transactions and salary entries constituted a mere change of opinion and was without jurisdiction. However, the discovery of a contradictory certificate regarding a loan of Rs. 1,100,000 constituted definite information. Holding the notice severable, the Court declared the notice and subsequent reassessment order illegal regarding the land and salary items, while upholding the proceedings regarding the loan entry.
Questions settled- Whether an assessment can be reopened under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 on a mere change of opinion where all material facts were fully disclosed during the original assessment?
- What constitutes 'definite information' for the purpose of reopening an income tax assessment under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
- Whether a show-cause notice for reopening an assessment that is partially illegal and without jurisdiction can be severed to sustain the legal portions of the notice?
- Does the completion of a reassessment order during the pendency of a writ petition challenging the underlying notice render the constitutional petition infructuous?
- Jehangir and 2 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1060 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
- Jehandar and others vs Muhammad Karim Khan and others1989 SCMR 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendants against the dismissal of their civil revision by the Peshawar High Court, which had affirmed the appellate court's decree declaring ownership of the suit land in favor of the respondents. The core legal question concerned the appreciation of evidence and the identification of land allegedly purchased by the petitioners versus the land claimed by the respondents. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that it is not a fit case for the re-appraisal of material and evidence already considered by the lower courts, thereby dismissing the petition for leave to appeal. However, the Court laid down the principle that the dismissal of the petition does not preclude the petitioners from initiating fresh competent proceedings in accordance with law to resolve any remaining disputes concerning the specific land they claim to have purchased.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact through a re-appraisal of evidence?
- Does the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal preclude parties from initiating fresh proceedings regarding unresolved land disputes?
- Jeh Anzeb Khan vs Muhammad Yaqub and anothers1989 PLD Peshawar 83 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
- Jawaid Akhtar vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 79 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-06Read full judgment →
- Javed Iqbal vs Range Officer, Doongalli Forest Range, Gallies Forest1989 PLC (C.S.) 780 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1989-05-31Read full judgment →
- Javed Iqbal vs Muhammad Iqbal1989 MLD 183 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
- Javed Hashmi vs Returning Officer And Other1989 CLC 763 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
- Javed Akhtar vs The Deputy Director, Food, Sargodha Region, Sargodha and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 368 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1987-01-13Read full judgment →
- Javed Akhtar vs Masudahmad Kirmani And Another1989 MLD 4935 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-04Read full judgment →
- Javed Akhtar Alias Ashiq Hussain vs The State1989 MLD 4464 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-05Read full judgment →
- Javaid and others vs The Australasia Bank Ltd., Chiniot1989 SCMR 1215(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by debtors-defendants against the dismissal of their Regular Second Appeal by the High Court. The underlying dispute originated from a decree passed against the petitioners for the recovery of a disputed amount. The petitioners, having unsuccessfully challenged the decree before the lower courts on both facts and merits, sought intervention from the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact established by the lower courts. Upon examination, the Supreme Court determined that the High Court's refusal to disturb these concurrent findings was legally unexceptionable. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and refused to grant leave to appeal. The judgment reinforces the established principle that the Supreme Court will generally decline to interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts when the High Court has correctly exercised its discretion in upholding those findings, absent any legal error or misappreciation of evidence.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts in a regular second appeal?
- Is a High Court's refusal to disturb concurrent findings of fact by lower courts considered unexceptionable in the absence of legal error?
- Japan Shippers vs Deputy Collector Of Customs (Appraisement) And AnotherPTCL 1989 CL. 319 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Januario Nunes vs The Algemens Bank Netherland N.V., Karachi1989 PLC 586 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-02-23Read full judgment →
- Janna T Bibi and others vs Wali Muhammad1989 SCMR 1679 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the plaintiffs against a judgment of the High Court, which had dismissed their civil revision regarding an inheritance dispute. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts, specifically the first appellate court and the High Court, had committed a material error by misreading evidence concerning the existence of a son of the deceased, Abdul Aziz. The petitioners contended that the deceased left behind a son, while the respondent claimed otherwise. Upon reviewing the record, the Supreme Court found that Exhibit P.1 appeared to support the petitioners' claim and that the first appellate court had prima facie misread this evidence. Furthermore, the High Court failed to adequately address or appreciate this misreading, despite noting the point in its judgment. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these findings, ordered the continuation of the stay, and directed the parties to file necessary additional documents for the appeal process.
Questions settled- Does the misreading of a material document like an exhibit by the first appellate court warrant the granting of leave to appeal?
- Is the High Court required to correct a misreading of evidence by a lower appellate court in a civil revision?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when the lower courts have failed to properly appreciate evidence regarding a disputed fact of inheritance?
- Jani And Others vs Abdul Haq And Other1989 MLD 141 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
- Janat Bibi and others vs Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies) and others1989 SCMR 1128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the legal representatives of a State land allottee against the High Court's dismissal of their writ petition, which challenged the resumption of the allotted land. The core legal questions involve whether the conditions for land cultivation and crop requirements under the relevant scheme were fulfilled, and whether the subordinate authorities and the High Court misread the relevant material, specifically the crop inspection register entries. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding non-cultivation and non-compliance with crop requirements were properly examined by the High Court and did not suffer from any legal infirmity. Consequently, the Court concluded that the controversy stood resolved by these factual findings against the petitioners and refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact by lower forums regarding the violation of land allotment conditions, supported by revenue records such as crop inspection registers, will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court unless tainted by material misreading or legal infirmity.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court's findings on the misreading of crop inspection register entries can be interfered with when based on concurrent factual determinations?
- Does failure to cultivate the prescribed percentage of State land within the stipulated time justify the resumption of the land?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against the resumption of State land when the controversy stands concluded by concurrent findings of fact?
- Jan Muhammad vs Mst. Bashiran Begum1989 SCMR 664 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, which was subsequently upheld by the Sind High Court. The respondent landlady had filed an application under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, seeking the eviction of the petitioner from the disputed premises on the ground of personal need. The Rent Controller and the High Court concurrently found that the landlady had successfully established her requirement for the premises for personal use. The Supreme Court examined the petition and found no error of law or procedure committed by the lower courts. The Court held that the determination of the landlady's personal need is a question of fact, and since the lower courts had concurrently decided this issue against the petitioner, there was no justification for interference by the Supreme Court. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower forums regarding the eviction.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the personal need of a landlady in an eviction case?
- Can a tenant challenge an eviction order based on personal need if the lower courts have concurrently found the need to be established?
- Jan Muhammad vs Judge Family Court and others1989 SCMR 173 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a decree of dissolution of marriage granted by the Family Court in favor of the respondent, Mst. Rashidan Bibi, on the grounds of Khula' and non-maintenance. The petitioner challenged the decree, arguing that the Family Court failed to require the respondent to return benefits received during the marriage as Zar-e-Khula. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition, finding sufficient evidence for the dissolution. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the decree was supported by sufficient material on the record. Regarding the petitioner's grievance concerning the return of benefits, the Court observed that the petitioner had failed to claim or establish before the trial court that he had provided any specific movable or immovable property to his wife. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the lower court's decision. The key principle established is that a claim for the return of benefits (Zar-e-Khula) as a condition for the dissolution of marriage must be substantiated by evidence before the trial court.
Questions settled- Is a husband entitled to the return of benefits as Zar-e-Khula if he fails to prove the provision of such benefits before the Family Court?
- Does a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula require the automatic return of dowry articles if no specific benefits were claimed or proven by the husband?
- Jan Muhammad And Others vs The Claims Commissioner, Lahore1989 MLD 537 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Jan Muhammad alias Jano vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2149 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
- Jamshed Marker Brothers Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone, Karachi1989 PTD 1034 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-15Read full judgment →
- Jamshaid Ahmed vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases. 135 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-07Read full judgment →
- Jamil Yusuf vs Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 158 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-09-07Read full judgment →
- Jamil Akhtar Zahir vs Province of Sind and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 56 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1988-09-13Read full judgment →
- Jamil Ahmad Khan And 4 Others vs Deputy Registrar, Cooperative1989 CLC 2011 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-11Read full judgment →
- Jamia Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1989 PTD 721 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-22Read full judgment →
- Jaman Mash vs Municipal Corporation, Gujranwala1989 PLC 651 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
- Jamal vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 231 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
- Jamal Din vs Additional Settlement Commissioner And Other1989 MLD 916 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-17Read full judgment →
- Jam Jan Muhammad vs The State1989 SCMR 1180 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the expunction of adverse remarks and observations directing the registration of a criminal case against him for forgery and fabrication of judicial records. The core legal question was whether a direction by the High Court and Sessions Court to initiate proceedings or register a case against a person without a prior opportunity of being heard violates procedural law or the principles of natural justice by condemning the person unheard. The Supreme Court held that the petition had no force, finding that the impugned directions, which explicitly instructed the Sessions Judge to act in accordance with law and consider the question of sanction, did not violate any substantive or procedural law nor amount to condemning the petitioner unheard. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that preliminary directions by an appellate or trial court to lower authorities to examine and initiate proceedings in accordance with the law do not inherently require a prior opportunity of hearing at that preliminary stage, provided the subsequent proceedings strictly adhere to legal requirements.
Questions settled- Whether a direction by a court to register a criminal case or initiate prosecution against a person without a prior opportunity of hearing violates the principles of natural justice?
- Can a court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 expunge adverse remarks and directions for prosecution made by a High Court?
- Does an order directing a subordinate judge to act in accordance with law regarding the registration of a case amount to condemning a person unheard?
- Jalaluddin vs Province of Punjab and others1989 SCMR 280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, a Patwari who was dismissed from service following departmental proceedings for preparing a false copy of the Khasra Girdawari, which was utilized by third parties to procure land in Cholistan. The petitioner's appeals before the Commissioner and the Punjab Service Tribunal were dismissed. The core legal question concerns the sustainability of the departmental action and the rejection of the petitioner's explanation regarding his preparation of the false record. The Supreme Court held that since it was undisputed that the petitioner did prepare the false copy and his justification was rightly rejected by the departmental authorities and the Tribunal, no interference was warranted. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the validity of the dismissal from service.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant can be dismissed from service for preparing a false copy of the Khasra Girdawari?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the factual findings of a Service Tribunal regarding departmental proceedings without sufficient justification?
- Jalal vs Muhammad Shafi and another1989 SCMR 1129 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil dispute where the plaintiff sought a declaration against an order of the High Court. The High Court had earlier disposed of a Regular Second Appeal by recording that, pursuant to section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act, 1962, as inserted by Ordinance XIII of 1983, the impugned judgment and decree had become void, inexecutable, and of no legal effect, and the appeal had abated. The petitioner subsequently sought a review before the High Court, contending that the executability of the decree should not have been decided by the appellate court and raising questions of documentary evidence and the religious status of a party, which the High Court dismissed as an afterthought. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in declaring the decree void and abating the appeal under the intervening statutory amendment rather than leaving the question for the executing court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was perfectly justified in recording the legal consequence of a law enacted during the pendency of the appeal, and consequently dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can declare a decree void and record the abatement of an appeal under section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act, 1962 during the pendency of proceedings?
- Should the question of the executability of a decree affected by an intervening statutory amendment be left for the executing court to decide?
- Does a change in law enacted during the pendency of an appeal permit the appellate court to record that the impugned decree has become void and of no legal effect?
- Jalal Din and others vs Ali Muhammad and others1989 SCMR 1265 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court setting aside orders of the Settlement authorities in favor of the petitioners, who had acted as informers under section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The core legal question concerns whether respondent No. 5 was a legitimate heir entitled to the property of the deceased under the Rehabilitation Scheme and whether bona fide purchasers from him could retain the land, thereby defeating the statutory right of the informers. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the applicability of paragraphs 46 and 46-A of the Rehabilitation Scheme and the statutory rights of informers under section 14(1-A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, required thorough examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider the legality of protecting bona fide purchasers against the statutory rights of information suppliers.
Questions settled- Whether a remote heir is excluded from inheritance under the Rehabilitation Scheme?
- Does a mukhbar have a statutory right to obtain land made available through information supplied under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
- Can the rights of bona fide purchasers for value override the statutory claims of informers under land settlement laws?
- Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. And Another vs Union Of India And OtherPTCL1989 FC. 151 · Delhi High Court · 1983-05-11Read full judgment →
- Jahangir and 2 Other vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 172 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
- Jahana And Another vs Muhammad Ali And Another1989 CLC 1174 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-29Read full judgment →
- Jagtar Singh vs State of Punjab And Other1989 MLD 1080 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-01-27Read full judgment →
- Jagdish Sugar Mills Ltd. vs The C.I.T., Lucknow1989 PTD 233 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-07-16Read full judgment →
- Jagan Nath Through Legal Heirs vs Chander Bhan And Other1989 MLD 2071 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-05-11Read full judgment →
- Jagan and otherss vs THS State1989 PLD Karachi 281 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
- Jaffar Hussain vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1457 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
- J.L.Wei & Co. and others vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1989 PTD 271 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
- J.B. Sharma vs The State of Madhya Pradesh And Another1989 MLD 2410 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-02-10Read full judgment →
- Ittehad Chemicals vs Rana Mukhatar Ahmad1989 PLC 951 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-06-07Read full judgment →
- Ittefaq Foundries (Pvt.) Limited. vs Deputy Collector Of CustomsPTCL 1989 CL. 102 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-01Read full judgment →
- Itbar Khan vs The State1989 MLD 736 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-12-14Read full judgment →
- Israr Ahmad Khan vs Government of N.-W.F.P.through Secretary, Services and General Administration Department, Peshawar and 2 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 59 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1988-11-26Read full judgment →
- Israeel And Another vs Hashmat And Other1989 MLD 3528 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
- Ismatullah Khattak vs Manager, Administration Wyeth Laboratories1989 PLC 447 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-04-30Read full judgment →
- Ismail And Others vs Inayat And Other1989 CLC 447 · Board of Revenue · 1988-07-19Read full judgment →
- Islamuddin Ghori vs Abdul Ghafoor and others1989 SCMR 1616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition challenges a Supreme Court judgment that had allowed an appeal and remanded a case to a government-notified officer for the disposal of a transfer application. The petitioner argued that the original Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A.) filed before the High Court was incompetent under the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972, asserting that the initial decision by the Single Judge should have remained intact, thereby barring the subsequent proceedings on the principle of res judicata. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the petitioner failed to raise the objection regarding the competence of the L.P.A. during the hearing of the main appeal, despite having the opportunity to do so. The Court emphasized that a party cannot re-agitate arguments in a review petition that should have been advanced during the original hearing. Consequently, the Court found no valid grounds for interference with the previous judgment, as the petitioner's failure to defend the appeal or challenge its competence at the appropriate time precluded them from doing so in review proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a party raise an objection regarding the competence of an appeal for the first time in a review petition?
- Does the failure to defend an appeal at the hearing stage preclude the party from re-agitating arguments in a subsequent review petition?
- Is a party who was present during an appeal but failed to challenge its competence permitted to challenge it later in review proceedings?
- Islamic Republic of Pakistan vs Speaker, National Assembly of Pakistan and others1989 SCMR 801 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-30Read full judgment →
- Islamic Republic of Pakistan vs Muhammad Sharif Chattha1989 PLC (C.S.) 648 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-22Read full judgment →
- Islamic Republic of Pakistan Establishment Division Through Its1989 MLD 368 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-29Read full judgment →
- Islamic Republic of Pakistan And Others vs Muhammad Afzal And Other1989 MLD 4951 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-12Read full judgment →
- Islam Hussain Zaidi vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2220 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-01Read full judgment →
- Islahi Committee vs Maqsooda Khanum And Other1989 MLD 126 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →
- Ishtiaqur Rehman vs The Chancellor, N. W.F.P. University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar And 5 Other1989 CLC 1303 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
- Ishtiaq Ali vs Superintendent Jail, Sheikhupura1989 P Cr. L J 511 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-05Read full judgment →
- Ishtiaq Ali alias Kaka vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 68 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
- Ishtiaq Ahmed Khan and 4 others vs Messrs Cotton Export1989 PLC 983 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
- Ishtiaq Ahmad vs Mst. Shaista Bibi1989 MLD 9 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-05Read full judgment →
- Ishfaq Hussain vs Ghulam Shabbir and 4 others1989 SCMR 1103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby one respondent was acquitted of murder charges and another respondent's conviction was altered from section 302 to section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code, reducing his sentence. The core legal question is whether the High Court erred in rejecting the prosecution's motive, treating the incident as a sudden fight, and altering the convictions and sentences based on discrepancies in the testimony of related eye-witnesses regarding injuries sustained by the accused. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the conclusions arrived at by the High Court regarding a sudden fight and unreliable eye-witness testimony were correct and proper based on the record, and no interference was warranted. The key principle laid down is that where an occurrence is determined to be a sudden fight and prosecution witnesses fail to plausibly explain injuries on the accused, appellate interference with an acquittal or alteration of conviction by the High Court is unwarranted.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from section 302 to section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 upon finding it a case of sudden fight?
- Can eye-witnesses be considered reliable when they suppress or fail to explain the injuries sustained by the accused party?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal and reduction of sentence handed down by the High Court?
- Ishaque and 3 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1897 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
- Isa Khan and 23 others vs Barkatullah and 9 others1989 PLD Peshawar 67 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges an appellate court's judgment decreeing a suit for possession of specific Khasra numbers. The core legal questions concern whether the plaintiffs, having acquired the land through a pre-emption decree, held valid physical possession, and whether the defendants, claiming as co-owners, could lawfully dispossess them. The court held that the plaintiffs had established their physical possession through revenue records, which carry a presumption of truth under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The court affirmed that while a co-sharer in exclusive possession of joint property cannot be ousted except through partition, this principle does not apply when a co-sharer enters possession as a tenant or licensee of another co-owner, as they are estopped from denying the landlord's title. The court further held that symbolical possession delivered by an executing court is equivalent to actual possession. Consequently, the appellate court's decision to restore possession to the plaintiffs was upheld, as the defendants' dispossession of the plaintiffs was unlawful.
Questions settled- Does a co-sharer in exclusive possession of joint land have the right to retain possession until partition?
- Is symbolical possession delivered by an executing court equivalent to actual possession?
- Can a co-sharer who enters into possession of joint property as a tenant or licensee deny the title of the co-owner landlord?
- Does the presumption of truth attached to revenue records apply to entries in the annual record of rights?
- Isa and 2 others vs The State1989 SCMR 1808 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which maintained the conviction of the respondents for murder and rioting under sections 302, 325, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while reducing the sentence of death to imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involve the reliability of ocular testimony where co-accused were acquitted and the propriety of reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment where multiple assailants acted in furtherance of a common intention and caused numerous injuries. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to both the convicts and the complainant party, holding that the presence of one of the accused required further examination given the motive and partial rejection of ocular testimony, and further noting that where a deceased suffered numerous injuries inflicted in furtherance of a common intention, the inability to attribute the fatal blow to a specific assailant may be immaterial regarding the adequacy of the death sentence. The Court laid down principles concerning the appreciation of ocular evidence and common intention sentencing.
Questions settled- Whether ocular testimony can be safely relied upon against remaining accused when it has been rejected regarding co-accused in the same trial?
- Is it material to identify the specific assailant who caused the fatal injury when the deceased is killed in furtherance of the common intention of all assailants?
- Whether reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life is justified merely because it cannot be ascertained which of the multiple assailants caused the fatal injury?
- Irshad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 636 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
- Irshad Hussain vs The Inspectorgeneral of Police, Punjab and 2 others1989 SCMR 1608 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which dismissed the appellant's service appeal on the sole technical ground that it was misdescribed as a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order 1981 instead of being captioned under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act 1974. The core legal question examined was whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the matter on such technical grounds without deciding it on merits. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal, noting that under section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the Tribunal possesses the general power to amend defects or errors in proceedings to determine the real question in issue. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that courts and tribunals should look to the substance of a pleading rather than its technical form and should allow necessary amendments to advance the cause of justice rather than non-suiting a litigant on mere technicalities.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal was justified in dismissing an appeal on the sole ground that it was misdescribed as a petition under the Provisional Constitution Order 1981?
- Does the Service Tribunal have the power to treat a misdescribed petition as an appeal and decide the matter on merits?
- Can the general power to amend proceedings under section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be invoked by a Service Tribunal to correct defects in pleadings?
- Irshad Begum vs Muhammad Latif1989 MLD 3652 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-04Read full judgment →
- Irshad and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 828 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
- Irshad And Another Shakeel vs The State The StatePTCL 1989 CL. 510 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
- Irshad Ali vs S.M. Rafl1989 MLD 359 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-25Read full judgment →
- Irshad Ahmad vs WAPDA And Other1989 MLD 4232 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-02Read full judgment →
- Irshad Ahmad CH. vs The Superintending Engineer and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 798 · Punjab Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →