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.
- Hukam Din vs Superintending Engineer and 2 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 327 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
- Hukam Chand And Others vs Union of India And Other1989 MLD 2589 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-12-10Read full judgment →
- Hotson vs East Berkshire Area Health Authority1989 MLD 2103 · House of Lords · 1987-07-02Read full judgment →
- Hoshang B. Patel vs M.V. 'Ashar'1989 MLD 3005 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-18Read full judgment →
- Homes Limited vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Zone-5, Karachi and another1989 PTD 1044 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-08Read full judgment →
- Hindu Kanya Maha Vidyalaya, Jind And Another vs Municipal Committee, Jind Anti Other1989 MLD 3169 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-03-22Read full judgment →
- Hilton International, Lahore vs Collector of. Central Excise, and Customs (Appeals), Lahore1989 MLD 1565 · Board of Revenue · 1988-07-30Read full judgment →
- Hidayat Ali and others vs Mst. Azizan Bibi and others1989 SCMR 1723 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, involving private parties who subsequently resolved their dispute entirely out of court. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether the pending judicial proceedings could be concluded on the basis of a lawful out-of-court compromise reached between the contesting parties. Holding that both learned counsel were fully satisfied regarding the genuineness and legality of the settlement, the court exercised its jurisdiction to resolve the matter accordingly. The court decided to convert the petition into an appeal and allow it in exact terms of the compromise agreement submitted by the parties, with no order as to costs. The key principle laid down is that the apex court may dispose of pending matters by converting petitions into appeals and granting relief in accordance with a genuine and lawful out-of-court settlement reached by the litigants.
Questions settled- Can a petition before the Supreme Court be converted into an appeal and decided on the basis of an out-of-court compromise?
- Whether the Supreme Court can record a lawful settlement reached between parties and dispose of the matter in terms thereof?
- Hazur Bakhsh vs Allah Dad and others1989 P Cr. L J 1758 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-28Read full judgment →
- Hazrat Imam and 3 others vs Messrs Star Mills Ltd., Karachi1989 PLC 88 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-03-24Read full judgment →
- Hazrat Ali Khan vs The State1989 MLD 3246 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-10Read full judgment →
- Hazoor Bakhsh vs The State1989 MLD 4987 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-12Read full judgment →
- Hazoor Bakhsh vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1856 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
- Hayat vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 185 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
- Hayat And Another vs The State1989 MLD 651 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-14Read full judgment →
- Hatim Ali Bhatti vs The Excise and Taxation Officer And Other1989 MLD 948 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-29Read full judgment →
- Hatam Ali vs Inayat and others1989 SCMR 2032 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charge of murder. The core legal question concerns the correctness of the High Court's appraisal of evidence resulting in the acquittal of the accused by granting the benefit of the doubt. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in acquitting the respondents after properly evaluating the weak ocular testimony, disbelieved motive, unreliable recoveries, unexplained delay in lodging the first information report, and the questionable character of the deceased. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with a well-reasoned judgment of acquittal rendered by a High Court based on a proper appraisal of evidence and the grant of the benefit of the doubt, unless the findings are perverse or arbitrary.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court based on the appraisal of evidence?
- Does uncorroborated ocular testimony of interested witnesses warrant an acquittal when the motive is disbelieved and recoveries are unreliable?
- Whether unexplained delay in lodging the first information report affects the credibility of the prosecution case?
- Hassan Muhammad vs The State1989 MLD 837 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
- Hassan Muhammad vs The State1989 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 5 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
- Hassan Muhammad Etc. vs Muhammad Bakhsh Etc.K.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 76 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-13Read full judgment →
- Hassan Muhammad And Others vs Muhammad Bakhsh And Other1989 MLD 3314 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-13Read full judgment →
- Hassan Din vs Hassan Din1989 MLD 4245 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
- Hassan Din vs 'R'K.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 105 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
- Hassan Ali vs Babu And 2 Other1989 CLC 1014 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-17Read full judgment →
- Hassan Ali Khan and 3 others vs Messrs Pfizer Laboratories Ltd.1989 PLC 173 · Labour Court · 1988-04-03Read full judgment →
- Hassan Ahmad alias Muhammad Hussain vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1344 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-06Read full judgment →
- Hashmi Can Company Ltd. vs Government of Sind through the Secretary, Labour and Cooperative and 3 others1989 PLC 193 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-09Read full judgment →
- Hashmi Can Company Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi1989 PTD 570 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-16Read full judgment →
- Hashmi Can Company Limited (M/s.). vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,PTCL 1989 CL. 500 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Hashmat Ali vs Abdul Hameed And 2 Other1989 CLC 2084 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-21Read full judgment →
- Hashmat Ali and others vs Munshi Khan1989 SCMR 967 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit decreed by the trial court, which decisions were subsequently upheld by the District Judge in first appeal and by the High Court in second appeal. The petitioners argued before the Supreme Court that the disputed property fell within the municipal limits of Sarai Sidhoo, thereby acquiring the character of urban immovable property. Consequently, they contended that the respondent could not succeed unless it was established that the right of pre-emption existed in that locality at the commencement of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913. The Supreme Court found the contention worthy of examination, granted leave to appeal, directed security for costs in the sum of Rs. 5,000, and permitted the appeal to be made ready for hearing on the existing record with liberty to file additional documents if necessary.
Questions settled- Does property falling within the municipal limits of an area acquire the character of urban immovable property for the purposes of pre-emption?
- Must it be shown that the right of pre-emption existed in the locality at the commencement of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 for a pre-emption suit regarding urban immovable property to succeed?
- Haseena Mumtaz vs Mushtaq Ahmad1989 MLD 448 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
- Harsan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 809 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
- Haroon Rashid And Others vs The State1989 MLD 4370 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-15Read full judgment →
- Haroon Kassem and another vs Azam Suleman Madha1989 SCMR 246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, tenants facing eviction on the ground of bona fide personal requirement, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Sindh High Court which had reversed the Rent Controller's order dismissing the ejectment petition. The core legal question was whether the landlord's plea for personal requirement lacked good faith given that multiple flats in the landlord's building were re-let to new tenants during the pendency of the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the transfer of tenancies to new tenants implied the landlord's participation and amounted in law to a surrender of possession, which materially reflected upon the bona fides of the landlord's claim and was not properly considered by the High Court. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and suspended the eviction order subject to regular payment of rent, laying down the principle that the termination and creation of tenancies during litigation constitutes a surrender of possession relevant to the assessment of a landlord's good faith.
Questions settled- Whether the re-letting of flats to new tenants during the pendency of ejectment proceedings affects the bona fides of a landlord's personal requirement plea?
- Does the termination of one tenancy and the beginning of another amount to a surrender of possession in favour of the landlord?
- Hare Krishna Singh And Others vs State of Bihar1989 MLD 1716 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-02-24Read full judgment →
- Harbans Lal. vs M.L. Wadhawan And OtherPTCL 1989 FC. 80 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- Harbans Lal vs M.L. Wadhawan And Other1989 MLD 1646 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- Haque Nawaz vs Sultan and others1989 SCMR 1201(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a vendee in a pre-emption matter, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court. The original suit had been decreed against the petitioner on the basis of a statement made by his counsel, constituting a consent decree. In the petition for leave to appeal, the petitioner challenged the decree on the ground that his counsel had misconducted and made a false statement when conveying the consent. The core legal question was whether a writ petition is an appropriate remedy to challenge a consent decree based on the alleged misconduct of a counsel. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the petitioner might have a remedy against the counsel, the High Court acted rightly in declining to interfere in its writ jurisdiction regarding the consent decree. The key principle laid down is that a consent decree resulting from a statement of counsel cannot be effectively challenged through writ jurisdiction on the grounds of counsel misconduct, and the aggrieved party must pursue other appropriate remedies.
Questions settled- Can a consent decree based on a statement of counsel be challenged in writ jurisdiction on the ground of counsel misconduct?
- What is the appropriate remedy for a party aggrieved by the alleged false statement or misconduct of their counsel in making a consent decree?
- Haq Nawaz vs The State1989 MLD 4797 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
- Haq Nawaz vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 656 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
- Haq Nawaz vs Muhammad Abdullah And 3 Other1989 CLC 1106 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
- Haq Nawa Z and 2 others vs Abdul Hamid and 2 others1989 PLD Lahore 100 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
- Hanumant Kumar Talesara vs Mohan Lal1989 MLD 1058 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-12-01Read full judgment →
- Hanif Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 4369 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-23Read full judgment →
- Hamzo Khan Palijo and 6 others vs The State and 2 others1989 P Cr. L J 2009 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-18Read full judgment →
- Hamza Ali vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 519 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-15Read full judgment →
- Hamza Ali Khan and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1665 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-15Read full judgment →
- Hamid-Ur-Rehman vs The Commissioner, D.I. Khan Division, D.I. Khan1989 PLC (C.S.) 442 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1989-03-11Read full judgment →
- Hamid Rasheed vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1742 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-25Read full judgment →
- Hamid Khan vs Wali Muhammad 4 And Other1989 CLC 2273 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-07-03Read full judgment →
- Hameedullah vs Messrs Kotri Textile Mills Ltd., Kotri1989 PLC 552 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-02-02Read full judgment →
- Hameedullah Khan vs Mst. Shah Jehan Begum And Other1989 MLD 1603 · Sindh High Court · 1988-04-02Read full judgment →
- Hameedia Hardware Stores vs B. Moran Lal Sowcar1989 MLD 2532 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-03-29Read full judgment →
- Hameed Akhtar And Others vs The State1989 MLD 3467 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-08Read full judgment →
- Hameed Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 4035 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-25Read full judgment →
- Hameed Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1989 Criminal Cases 687 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-25Read full judgment →
- Hameed Ahmad Ayas vs Ghulam Raider And 3 Other1989 MLD 1737 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
- Hamdard Laboratories (Waqf) Pakistan. vs The Federation Of Pakistan, Etc.PTCL 1989 CL. 317 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-06Read full judgment →
- Hamdard Laboratories (Waqf) Pakistan vs The Federation of Pakistan1989 MLD 928 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-06Read full judgment →
- Hamdard Dawakhana [M/s.]. vs Collector Of CustomsPTCL 1989 CL. 447 · Additional Secretary Government of Pakistan, Karachi · 1988-05-15Read full judgment →
- Hamdard Dawakhana vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner1989 PTD 1089 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-08Read full judgment →
- Hamayun Alias Faiz Rasul vs The StateKJL.R 1989 Criminal Cases 755 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-03Read full judgment →
- Hakim Noor Muhammad vs Bashir Ahmad1989 SCMR 1999 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the Civil Court, District Judge, and High Court, which upheld an arbitration award regarding the ownership of a house in Sahiwal. The core legal questions were whether an arbitration award signed by only four out of six appointed arbitrators is valid, and whether an arbitration award concerning immovable property requires registration under the Registration Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts committed no legal infirmity. Regarding the validity of the award, the Court accepted the trial court's finding that the award was unanimous, with two arbitrators unable to sign due to illness. Regarding registration, the Court affirmed the rejection of the objection, relying on established precedent that such awards do not necessarily require registration. The key principle laid down is that an arbitration award, even if not signed by all appointed arbitrators, may be upheld if it is proven to be unanimous and the absence of signatures is satisfactorily explained, and that arbitration awards regarding immovable property are not automatically invalid for lack of registration.
Questions settled- Is an arbitration award invalid if it is not signed by all members of the appointed panel of arbitrators?
- Does an arbitration award dealing with immovable property require registration under the Registration Act 1908?
- Hakim Jalal Khan vs Hamid Augustin and others1989 SCMR 1980 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had partially dismissed the petitioner's challenge to an acquittal order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the High Court's decision to dismiss the petition regarding three respondents while admitting it against a fourth. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the evidence and the conduct of the trial. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had properly examined the evidence and correctly concluded that there was no prima facie case against the respondents. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that the trial was vitiated by non-compliance with established legal principles. The Supreme Court affirmed that it would not re-appraise evidence already considered by the High Court when the trial was conducted in accordance with the law. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, as the impugned order warranted no interference.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will re-appraise evidence that has already been examined by the High Court in an acquittal appeal?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with an order of the High Court where the trial was conducted in accordance with law?
- Hakim alias Manther alias Ghulam Rasool vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1284 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-18Read full judgment →
- Hakim Alias Kaku and anothers vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 396 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-13Read full judgment →
- Hakim Ali vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 138 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-31Read full judgment →
- Hakim Ali And Others vs The State1989 MLD 886 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
- Hakim Ali and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1168 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-01Read full judgment →
- Hakeemvddin vs Arshad Mahmood and another1989 SCMR 136 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a consolidated judgment of the Sind High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revisions regarding property disputes over flat tenements. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could re-litigate ownership claims over property that had already been conclusively adjudicated by the Supreme Court in previous litigation, based on allegations of fraud and newly discovered evidence. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's claims were barred by the principle of res judicata, noting that the petitioner failed to substantiate allegations of fraud or forgery with specific pleadings or evidence. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the petitioner failed to implead the necessary Settlement Department to challenge the authenticity of the records. The Court affirmed that once a matter has attained finality through a Supreme Court decision, it cannot be reopened through subsequent litigation based on claims that could have been raised earlier. The judgment reinforces the doctrine of finality of litigation and the strict requirement to prove fraud with specific particulars.
Questions settled- Whether a party can re-litigate a property dispute after the Supreme Court has already rendered a final decision on the matter?
- Is a suit barred by res judicata if the issues raised were previously adjudicated by the highest court?
- Can a party successfully challenge a final judgment based on allegations of fraud without providing specific particulars of that fraud in their pleadings?
- Hakeem Muhammad Irfanullah Khan Shafi And Others vs Secretary, Ministry of Religious_Minority Affairs And Other1989 MLD 4742 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
- Hakeem M. Hammad Saeed vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1989 PTD 470 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
- Hakeem Abdul Wahab Shirazi vs Tario Hussain and 2 others1989 SCMR 699 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court refusing to restore a civil revision petition that had been dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner, a tenant claiming ownership of a shop through an oral agreement to sell, faced eviction proceedings and subsequently filed a civil suit and revision petition. When neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared on the date of hearing despite warnings and postal intimation, the High Court dismissed the revision in default and vacated the interim stay order. The petitioner's subsequent application for restoration was rejected upon findings that adequate notice had been issued. The core legal question concerns whether the absence of a postal acknowledgment receipt precludes a finding of valid service and justifies the restoration of a matter dismissed in default. The Supreme Court held that the production of postal acknowledgment is not strictly required by law when other sufficient evidence of dispatch exists, and upheld the refusal to restore. The key principle laid down is that the absence of a postal acknowledgment receipt does not invalidate service or warrant restoration where sufficient proof of postal dispatch and antecedent conduct of avoiding appearance are established.
Questions settled- Does the absence of a postal acknowledgment receipt invalidate the presumption of service of notice sent by post?
- Whether a civil revision petition dismissed for non-prosecution should be restored when notice of the hearing date was duly dispatched?
- Is the production of a postal acknowledgment receipt a mandatory requirement of law to prove service?
- Hakam and another vs Muhammad Shafi and others1989 SCMR 1844 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged the concurrent findings of lower courts dismissing their civil suit against a sale of land, which they argued violated Martial Law Regulation No. 64 and was affected by failure of consideration regarding the redemption of mortgage. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the plea regarding failure of consideration could not be entertained as it was not raised before the High Court. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the High Court's view that the petitioners, being the alienors seeking to invalidate their own voluntary act, were not entitled to discretionary equitable reliefs of declaration and injunction, particularly without offering to refund the consideration received. Finally, the contention regarding Section 19 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957 was declined as it was raised for the first time before the apex court. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a new plea of failure of consideration for the first time before the Supreme Court when it was not urged in the High Court?
- Whether an alienor challenging their own voluntary land sale is entitled to discretionary reliefs of declaration and injunction without offering to refund the received consideration.
- Will the Supreme Court entertain a legal question regarding evacuee property restrictions raised for the first time at the leave to appeal stage?
- Haji vs Senior Member, Board of Revenue And 4 Other1989 MLD 1417 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
- Haji vs Jaffar1989 MLD 2779 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-26Read full judgment →
- Haji Umar Khan and 7 others vs Jehanzeb and 3 others1989 PLD Peshawar 179 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-11Read full judgment →
- Haji Siddique vs The State1989 MLD 859 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-02Read full judgment →
- Haji Sewa Gul vs Senior Member, Board of Revenue, N.-W.F.P. and 171989 PLD Peshawar 73 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-09-12Read full judgment →
- Haji Sewa Gul vs Senior Member, Board of Revenue and others1989 SCMR 85 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition regarding land auction proceedings. The petitioner had purchased land belonging to a Lambardar, who was a defaulter in land revenue, through an auction. However, the auction proceedings were finalized and mutation was attested by authorities below the Commissioner, bypassing the mandatory requirement of confirmation by the Commissioner. The Board of Revenue subsequently set aside the auction, noting that the District Collector lacked the competence to confirm the sale and that no sale certificate had been issued as required by law. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to restore auction proceedings that were fundamentally illegal, despite the petitioner's claim of innocent mistake. The Supreme Court held that the procedural illegalities were serious and violated the statutory purpose of the relevant provisions. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the High Court was justified in refusing to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to restore illegal proceedings, and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Is a High Court justified in refusing to exercise writ jurisdiction to restore auction proceedings that suffer from serious statutory illegalities?
- Does the failure to obtain confirmation of a land auction from the Commissioner, as required by the Land Revenue Act, render the auction proceedings illegal?
- Can a District Collector confirm a land auction where the statute mandates confirmation by the Commissioner?
- Haji Rehman vs The Election Tribunal, Peshawar Division, Peshawar and others1989 PLD Peshawar 244 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-15Read full judgment →
- Haji Nawab vs Fazali Wahid and 4 othersPLD 1989 Peshawar J · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-22Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Umer vs The Federal Government Ofpakistan Through Its Secretary, Religious And Minority Affairs, Islamabad And 3 Other1989 MLD 578 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Siddique vs District Judge, Peshawar And 11 Other1989 CLC 1296 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Sharif vs Khawaja Amjad Ahsan and others1989 SCMR 522 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the concurrent findings of the rent authorities, which dismissed the landlord's eviction application seeking possession of the demised premises for the personal need of his son. The core legal question involves the determination of bona fide personal need in rent matters and the scope of interference by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction against concurrent findings of fact where a second appeal has been barred by statute. The Supreme Court held that the question of bona fide need entails reviewing the landlord's previous conduct, resources, and liabilities, and that concurrent findings of fact based on such comprehensive evaluation cannot be disturbed in constitutional jurisdiction, especially when a writ petition cannot be utilized to circumvent the statutory abolition of second appeals. The Court laid down the principle that factual determinations regarding bona fide personal requirement rendered by rent tribunals are final and insulated from interference under constitutional jurisdiction unless shown to be perverse or based on extraneous factors amounting to jurisdictional error.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fide personal need of a landlord can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Can a writ petition be used as a substitute for a second appeal where the second appeal under the rent restriction law has been abolished?
- What factors are relevant for determining the bona fide personal requirement of a landlord in eviction proceedings?
- Haji Muhammad Shah and 3 others vs Wealth Tax Officer, Circle IV, Karachi and 3 others1989 PTD 488 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-03Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Shafi vs Custodian, Evacuee Property, Muzaffarabad1989 CLC 22 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-12-03Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Shafi 3 Other vs Wealth Tax Officer, Circle IV, Karachi And 3 OtherPTCL 1989 CL. 535 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan vs The Federation of Pakistan and others1989 SCMR 22 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking to declare various Ordinances—specifically the Delimitation of Constituencies (Amendment) Ordinance IV of 1988, the Delimitation of Constituencies (Second Amendment) Ordinance VIII of 1988, and the Representation of the People (Amendment) Ordinance XIV of 1988—as illegal. The petitioner further challenged the constitution of the Election Commission and requested directions for the appointment of a caretaker cabinet and the fixation of fresh election dates. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner was barred from seeking these reliefs due to a failure to include them in a prior writ petition and whether the invocation of the Court's jurisdiction under Article 184(3) was competent absent an allegation of a fundamental rights violation. The Court held that the petition was incompetent, ruling that the petitioner was debarred by the principle in Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and that the petition failed to allege the infringement of any fundamental right necessary to invoke Article 184(3) jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Is a petitioner barred from seeking reliefs in a constitutional petition that could have been claimed in an earlier writ petition?
- Can the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 184(3) be invoked without alleging the infringement of a fundamental right?
- Does the principle embodied in Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to petitions filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution?
- Haji Muhammad Sadiq vs Iftikhar Saeed and 2 others1989 SCMR 1767 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment matter under rent restriction law, where the petitioner (tenant) challenged the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court regarding the landlord's bona fide requirement for the premises. The core legal question concerned whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the landlord's bona fide need were legally sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had consistently failed on the issue of bona fide requirement across all forums. Finding that the lower courts had rendered concurrent findings of fact and that the impugned judgment did not suffer from any infirmity of law or principle regarding the appreciation of evidence, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in rent restriction matters unless there is a clear legal error or misapplication of principle in the appreciation of evidence.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide requirement in a rent restriction case?
- Does the appreciation of evidence by a Rent Controller constitute a question of law sufficient for interference by the Supreme Court?
- Haji Muhammad Nawaz vs Rahim Bakhsh and 6 others1989 SCMR 1511 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal for non-prosecution. The petitioner sought restoration of the appeal, citing circumstances explained in an affidavit by his counsel, which detailed the reasons for non-appearance and the delay in bringing the legal representatives of a deceased respondent on record. The Supreme Court examined whether the counsel's explanation, based on an estimate of court time and the belief that the case would be re-listed, constituted 'sufficient cause' for restoration, referencing established precedent regarding lawyer conduct and court attendance. Furthermore, the Court identified significant legal questions regarding the procedural duty of the respondents to assist in bringing legal representatives of a deceased party on record and whether an appeal can be effectively adjudicated without such impleadment. Finding merit in the petitioner's arguments, the Supreme Court granted leave, converted the petition into an appeal, and directed the preparation of the appeal on the existing record with provisions for necessary additional documentation.
Questions settled- Does a lawyer's reasonable estimate of court time and the subsequent belief that a case would be re-listed constitute sufficient cause for the restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution?
- Is there a duty upon the respondents to assist the court in bringing the legal representatives of a deceased respondent on record?
- Can an appeal be effectively decided without impleading the legal representatives of a deceased respondent?
- Haji Muhammad Farooq And 11 Others vs The Deputy Commissioner, Quetta, District Quetta And 2 Other1989 CLC 1823 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
- Hari Kishan Singh And Another vs Sukhbir. Singh And Other1989 MLD 1521 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-08-25Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Aslam Aijaz Ali & Brothers vs Cotton Trading1989 MLD 2886 · Sindh High Court · 1988-01-14Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Ashiq Bhutta vs Dr. Ajazul Haq Qureshi1989 CLC 19 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-20Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Alam Baluch vs Pakistan Steel And Another1989 MLD 2294 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-07Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Abdullah Through L. Rs vs Settlement Commissioner1989 MLD 4812 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-07Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhamamd Boota Mustafa and 3 others vs The State1989 PLD Lahore 438 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-05Read full judgment →
- Haji Khan vs Ghulam Qadir and OtherK.L.R. 1989 Revenue Cases 90 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-12Read full judgment →