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.
- Haji Khan vs Ghulam Oadir And 11 Other1989 CLC 1486 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-12Read full judgment →
- Haji Khadim Hussain vs Allah Bachaya1989 MLD 1041 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-09Read full judgment →
- Haji Kameer and others vs Sher Muhammad and others1989 SCMR 1989 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment concerning the status of disputed land sold by the petitioners in 1944 to a non-Muslim who subsequently migrated to India. The core legal question was whether the land was correctly treated as evacuee property and transferred to the respondent, given that the initial mutation was not sanctioned under the Land Alienation Act until 1973. The petitioners argued that the property could not be treated as evacuee property without a formal declaration from the Custodian. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that because the petitioners had sold the land in 1944 to a purchaser who later migrated to India, the property was correctly classified as evacuee property. The Court affirmed that the subsequent sanction of the mutation by the Deputy Commissioner in 1973 satisfied the statutory requirements. The key principle laid down is that where land is sold to a person who subsequently migrates to India, the property assumes the character of evacuee property, and the lack of a prior formal declaration by the Custodian does not invalidate its transfer to an allottee.
Questions settled- Does the lack of a formal declaration by the Custodian invalidate the transfer of land as evacuee property if the original owner sold it to a person who subsequently migrated to India?
- Can a mutation sanction under the Land Alienation Act be granted after the property has been treated as evacuee property?
- Haji Irshad Hussain vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 99 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-12Read full judgment →
- Haji Irshad Hussain vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1061 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-12Read full judgment →
- Haji Imam Din vs S.H.O. and 4 others1989 P Cr. L J 2016 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-05Read full judgment →
- Haji Hayat Gul And 2 Others vs Mufti Ghazi Khan And 2 Other.1989 CLC 2372 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-28Read full judgment →
- Haji Ghulamuddin and another vs Illauddin Khan and others1989 P Cr. L J 1765 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →
- Haji Ghulam Qasim vs WAPDA and 2 others1989 PLD Lahore 476 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-04Read full judgment →
- Haji Ghulam Muhammad vs Province of Sind And 3 Other1989 MLD 1418 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-19Read full judgment →
- Haji Faiz Muhammad vs Assistant Commissioner Sawat Mingora And 41989 CLC 2081 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-06Read full judgment →
- Haji Dur Muhammad vs Assistant Commissioner, Mailsi And 2 Other1989 CLC2160 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-01Read full judgment →
- Haji Dildar vs The State1989 MLD 658 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Haji Barkat Ali vs Commander Aa. Shaikh And 2 Other1989 MLD 502 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-01Read full judgment →
- Haji Bakhtiar Said Muhammad vs Mst. Dureshahwar Begum and another1989 SCMR 428 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1988-09-19Read full judgment →
- Haji Aurangzeb vs Haji Abdur Rehman and 2 others1989 PLD Peshawar 195 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
- Haji Ashfaq Ahmed Khan And 6 Others vs The Custodian, Evacuee1989 MLD 3029 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
- Haji Alif Din and 4 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 429 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-30Read full judgment →
- Haji Ahmad Yar vs Allah Ditta and anothers1989 PLD Supreme Court 373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court concerning a Lambardari appointment case. The core legal question is whether the High Court ought to interfere with Lambardari appointment cases in its constitutional writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly refused to interfere, affirming the well-established practice of declining interference in such executive appointment matters under its discretionary jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that superior courts will not ordinarily interfere with Lambardari appointments in constitutional jurisdiction due to the discretionary nature of the remedy and established judicial practice.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with Lambardari appointment cases in its constitutional writ jurisdiction?
- Is the refusal of the High Court to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in Lambardari cases in accordance with established practice?
- Haji Ahmad vs Member, Board of Revenue (Land Utilization) Sind And Other1989 MLD 1394 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-10Read full judgment →
- Haji Afsar Khan and anothers vs Inayatullah Khan and 2 others1989 PLD Peshawar 93 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
- Haji Abdul Hakim and others vs Additional District Judge, Peshawar1989 SCMR 946 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for special leave to appeal filed by pre-emptors whose constitutional petitions against the dismissal of their pre-emption suits were rejected by the High Court. The core legal question is whether pending pre-emption suits are saved by section 35(2) of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act (Act X of 1987) where the requisite demands under Muslim Law were not strictly made, and whether decrees can be passed in favour of pre-emptors without such demands in light of prior Supreme Court precedents. The Supreme Court held that no decree can be passed in favour of the pre-emptors where no decree has been passed so far and demands were not strictly made, affirming the rejection of the contention regarding section 35(2) of the Act. The key principle laid down is that pending pre-emption suits cannot result in a decree in the absence of strict compliance with the requirements of demands under Muslim Law, notwithstanding the provisions of section 35(2) of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act (Act X of 1987).
Questions settled- Whether pending pre-emption suits are saved by section 35(2) of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act 1987 where demands were not made strictly in accordance with Muslim Law?
- Can a decree be passed in favour of pre-emptors who have not made the necessary demands strictly in accordance with Muslim Law?
- Hajera Rashid Gardee (Mrs.) vs Deputy Collector Of CustomsPTCL 1989 CL. 344 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
- Haider vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 191 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
- Haider and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1615 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
- Haibat Khan And Another vs The State And Another1989 MLD 207 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-29Read full judgment →
- Hafiz Saeed Ahmad vs District Judge And Other1989 MLD 3515 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-12Read full judgment →
- Hafiz Sabahuddin Jamy vs Obaidur Rehman Khan D.G., F.I.A., Islamabad1989 PLC (C.S.) 184 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-08-09Read full judgment →
- Hafiz Muhammad Arif Dar vs Income-Tax Officer1989 PTD 485 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged an income-tax assessment order issued by an Income Tax Officer, which had been dismissed by the High Court on the grounds that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available through an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Supreme Court examined the matter, noting that while the High Court correctly identified the existence of an alternative remedy as a bar to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, the petitioner faced potential highhandedness from the tax department. The Court observed that the assessment appeared excessive and arbitrary based on the provided evidence. Ultimately, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's dismissal due to the technical hurdle of an alternative remedy. However, the Court clarified that the petitioner is not without recourse and may approach the Federal Ombudsman. It held that the Federal Ombudsman provides an effective, quasi-judicial alternative remedy that is not constrained by the same procedural technicalities or the 'alternative remedy' bar applicable to the High Court's writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does the existence of an alternative remedy by way of appeal bar the High Court from exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Can the Federal Ombudsman provide an effective alternative remedy in tax matters where the High Court's writ jurisdiction is barred by the existence of an alternative remedy?
- Is the Federal Ombudsman's jurisdiction restricted by the same technical procedural requirements as the High Court's writ jurisdiction?
- Hafiz Muhammad Abdul Hameed and another vs Mahboob Ali and 191989 SCMR 1513 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of the petitioners' Civil Revision by the High Court. The petitioners' suit for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed after the trial court closed their evidence due to an alleged failure to produce it. On appeal, the District Judge dismissed the appeal on the ground of deficient court-fee. In revision, the High Court disagreed with the District Judge on the court-fee issue but proceeded to uphold the trial court's order closing the evidence, thereby dismissing the revision petition. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court should have remanded the case to the District Court for a decision on the merits once the appellate court's finding on court-fee was overturned, and whether the trial court's order closing the evidence was legally sustainable. The key principle is that when an appellate court's threshold dismissal is set aside in revision, the proper course of action regarding remand and the evaluation of the trial court's interlocutory orders must be carefully determined.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court, after setting aside an appellate court's dismissal based on deficient court-fee, should remand the case to the appellate court for a decision on the merits?
- Whether a revision petition can be dismissed by upholding a trial court's interlocutory order closing evidence when the specific appellate order impugned in the revision was found to be unsustainable?
- What is the correct procedure for reviewing the legality and propriety of a trial court's order closing a party's evidence under revisionary jurisdiction?
- Hafiz Maqbool Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 4678 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-17Read full judgment →
- Hafiz Maqbool Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 60 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-17Read full judgment →
- Hafiz Ghulam Nabi vs Secretary, Cooperatives, And Other1989 MLD 4732 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-26Read full judgment →
- Hafiz Amanat Ali vs Ghazanfar Ali, Director (Administration) L.Da. and another1989 PLC 690 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Hafiz Abdul Qadir vs State Bank of Pakistan And Other1989 MLD 2041 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
- Hafiz Abdul Malik vs Muhammad Ilyas1989 PLD Supreme Court 356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sind upholding the dismissal of the appellant-landlord's eviction application under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The appellant, an over-sixty-year-old landlord, sought eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of personal bona fide need. The Rent Controller and High Court dismissed the application, holding that the appellant had delayed seeking eviction for fifteen years after turning sixty and lacked good faith. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the landlord was disentitled from seeking eviction. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that since the Ordinance came into force on 21st November 1979, the appellant could only invoke section 14 from that date onward, and the four-year lapse before filing did not bar the remedy as no limitation period is prescribed under the section. The Court established that prolonged past litigation and residing with relatives evidenced genuine personal necessity, thereby setting aside the lower court judgments and ordering the tenant to vacate.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord over sixty years of age is barred from seeking eviction under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 due to a delay in filing the application after attaining the age of sixty?
- Does section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 prescribe any time limit or period of limitation within which a landlord must file an eviction application?
- Whether past litigation between a landlord and tenant negates the bona fide personal requirement of the landlord for the demised premises?
- Hafeezullah vs The State and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 271 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1987-01-13Read full judgment →
- Hafeez Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1878 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-18Read full judgment →
- Hadi Dastbaz, Sind Club vs M. V. Rice Trader And Another1989 MLD 1615 · Sindh High Court · 1988-07-04Read full judgment →
- Habibur Rehman Khan vs Syed Mustafa Abbas and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 20 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the acquittal of six respondents in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the acquittal was justified given the ocular testimony, motive, and medical evidence presented. The Supreme Court held that the acquittal of five respondents was erroneous, as the trial and High Court had misapplied principles of evidence appreciation. The Court established that a witness's relationship to the deceased does not automatically render them an 'interested witness' absent a proven motive to falsely implicate the accused. Furthermore, the Court held that when ocular testimony is natural, consistent, and supported by motive and medical evidence, it does not require corroboration from recovery evidence. Discrepancies in testimony arising from a significant lapse of time between the occurrence and the recording of statements should be treated as trivial rather than material. Consequently, the Court set aside the acquittals of five respondents, convicting them under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while maintaining the acquittal of the sixth respondent due to insufficient evidence.
Questions settled- Does the mere relationship of a witness to the deceased render them an 'interested witness' in a criminal trial?
- Can ocular testimony be relied upon for conviction without corroboration from recovery evidence?
- How should courts treat discrepancies in witness testimony recorded after a significant lapse of time?
- Is the acquittal of an accused justified when ocular testimony is supported by motive and medical evidence?
- Habibur Reh Man Khan Durrani vs Akhlaq Ahmed Siodiqui1989 MLD 561 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →
- Habibullah vs The State1989 MLD 2649 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
- Habibullah vs The State1989 MLD 740 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-01Read full judgment →
- Habibullah vs Master Fazal Ur Rehman And 4 Other1989 CLC 1567 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
- Habibullah Khan and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1555 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-14Read full judgment →
- Habibul Wahab Alkhairi vs Sheikh Rashid Ahmad and 5 others1989 PLD Supreme Court 760 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, filed under Section 67(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, challenges the order of an Election Tribunal which dismissed an election petition as infructuous following the dissolution of the National Assembly by the President. The core legal question was whether an election petition abates or becomes infructuous upon the dissolution of the National Assembly when it includes allegations of corrupt and illegal practices against the returned candidate. The Supreme Court held that proceedings in an election petition do not come to an end with the dissolution of the Assembly if corrupt or illegal practices are alleged, because a finding thereon determines the candidate's disqualification from future elections under the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions. The Court established that an order dismissing a petition prematurely as infructuous constitutes a final decision concluding the trial and is appealable under Section 67(3), setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the matter for a trial on merits.
Questions settled- Does an election petition become infructuous upon the dissolution of the National Assembly when allegations of corrupt and illegal practices are made against the returned candidate?
- Whether an appeal lies under section 67(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 against an order of the Election Tribunal dismissing a petition prematurely on the ground that it has become infructuous?
- Do allegations of exceeding election expenses and using government transport constitute corrupt and illegal practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
- Habibul Haq vs Liaqat1989 MLD 363 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
- Habibuddin vs Mistri Abdul Sattar1989 MLD 2020 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-16Read full judgment →
- Habib Ullah vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 275 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-01Read full judgment →
- Habib Sultan vs Allah Ditta and others1989 SCMR 1754 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit challenging an alienation of property based on custom, specifically alleging a lack of consideration and legal necessity. The core legal question was whether the suit could proceed in light of subsequent legislative changes affecting customary law. The Supreme Court held that the petition could not succeed because the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983, rendered the petitioner's claim untenable, regardless of the merits of the initial plaint rejection under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court established the principle that even if a petition appeared to have force at the time of filing, a subsequent change in law that invalidates the underlying cause of action necessitates the dismissal of the petition, as the court must apply the law as it stands at the time of adjudication.
Questions settled- Can a suit challenging property alienation under custom proceed following the enactment of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983?
- Does a change in law occurring after the filing of a petition but before its adjudication affect the outcome of the petition?
- Habib Khan vs Haji Haroon Ur Rashid1989 CLC 783 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an order of the District Judge, Swat, which dismissed a landlord's eviction petition against a tenant, overturning a Rent Controller's decision. The core legal questions were whether a tenant, having previously acknowledged the landlord's title, could subsequently claim co-ownership to defeat an eviction petition, and whether the landlord's plea for personal use was barred by previous unsuccessful litigation. The Court held that a tenant who has acknowledged the landlord's title is estopped under Article 115 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat, 1984, from denying that title. The Court found the tenant's claim of co-ownership to be an afterthought and rejected it. However, regarding the landlord's claim for personal use, the Court held that while Section 14 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, might not strictly apply as res judicata, the general principles of res judicata precluded re-agitating the same issue already decided against the landlord in previous rounds of litigation. The appeal was dismissed, maintaining the denial of eviction on the grounds of personal use.
Questions settled- Is a tenant estopped from denying the title of their landlord after having previously acknowledged it?
- Can a tenant raise a plea of co-ownership to defeat an eviction petition after having admitted to the tenancy?
- Does the principle of res judicata apply to a landlord's plea for personal use if it was previously rejected by competent courts in earlier litigation?
- Habib Insurance Company Ltd vs Income-Tax Officer and others1989 PTD 823 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-12Read full judgment →
- Habib Hassan Qadri vs The Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Hyderabad and another1989 SCMR 27 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Sind High Court, which upheld the Settlement Commissioner's order regarding the calculation of Produce Index Units (P.I.Us) for land allotted to a displaced person. The appellant, a claimant under the Rehabilitation Scheme, contended that his allotted land was wrongly classified as 'Flow' land (valued at 40 P.I.Us per acre) rather than 'Banjar Qadim' (valued at 5 P.I.Us per acre) under Correction Slip No. 2-P-1. He further claimed entitlement to a 10% extra allowance for Chahi units. The core legal question was whether the appellant could retrospectively challenge the classification and calculation of his land allotment years after the fact, particularly after the relevant Correction Slip had been withdrawn. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to challenge the classification at the time of allotment and that the relevant Correction Slip had been withdrawn with retrospective effect. Consequently, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower authorities, ruling that the matter involved questions of fact already adjudicated upon, and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Can a claimant retrospectively challenge the classification of allotted land after the relevant administrative correction slip has been withdrawn?
- Does the High Court have the authority to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding land classification in a constitutional petition?
- Does a claimant acquire a vested right to the application of a specific administrative scheme if they failed to agitate the matter during the scheme's enforcement?
- Hari Nath And Another vs State of U.P.1989 MLD 1062 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-11-06Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Ltd. vs Safeer Ahmad1989 PLC 837 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-05-04Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Ltd. vs Presiding Officer, Special Court (Offences in Banks), Karachi and 2 others1989 P Cr. L J 417 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-07Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Ltd. vs Khokhar Engineering Company And Other1989 MLD 2290 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Ltd. vs Javed Iqbal1989 PLC 644 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-01-25Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Ltd. and 2 others vs Muhammad Aslam Khan1989 PLC 942 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-04-30Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Limited vs The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and others1989 PLC 998 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Limited vs Messrs Wa Heed Textile Mills Limited and 5 others--1989 PLD Karachi 371 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit for recovery of Rs. 40,97,535.17 was filed by Habib Bank Limited against a textile mill and its guarantors under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The defendants sought leave to defend, raising contentions regarding blank documents, incorrect accounts, improper stamping of guarantees, and the repugnancy of interest-based loans to Islamic Injunctions under Article 2-A of the Constitution. The court addressed whether Article 2-A empowers the judiciary to strike down existing laws as repugnant to the Holy Quran and Sunnah. The court held that Article 2-A is not self-executing and does not authorize courts to invalidate legislation on the touchstone of the Objectives Resolution, as the Constitution provides specific mechanisms, such as the Federal Shariat Court and the Council of Islamic Ideology, for the Islamization of laws. Consequently, the court rejected the defendants' constitutional arguments, decreed the suit against most defendants, but granted defendant No. 2 leave to defend based on a triable issue regarding a prior release agreement.
Questions settled- Does Article 2-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 empower courts to strike down existing laws as repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
- Are letters of guarantee to be construed as contracts of indemnity or contracts of guarantee under the Contract Act 1872?
- Is the Objectives Resolution a self-executing provision of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a court grant leave to defend a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on a disputed release agreement?
- Habib Alwahab Alkhairi and others vs Commissioner, Rawalpindi1989 SCMR 837 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had challenged the sanctioning of commercial and industrial building plans on residential plots in Rawalpindi. The petitioners, who were tenants in possession of shops affected by the construction of an ice factory, sought to restrain the respondents from sanctioning such plans, requested the acquisition of land for public gardens, and sought a directive for the publication of the Master Plan and Zoning Regulations. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the petitioners lacked locus standi and were not aggrieved persons. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the issues raised—specifically regarding the rights of citizens to challenge commercial construction in residential areas and the standing of residents to file such petitions—were matters of significant public importance requiring authoritative settlement. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the legal standing of the petitioners and the broader implications of the construction activities in the specified residential schemes.
Questions settled- Does a resident of a locality have the locus standi to challenge the sanctioning of commercial or industrial building plans on residential plots?
- Are tenants in possession of property affected by a new construction plan considered 'aggrieved persons' for the purpose of filing a constitutional petition?
- Habib AHMADPetit loner vs Abdullah and others1989 SCMR 709 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal case where the respondents were acquitted by the Lahore High Court of charges under sections 302/149, 148, and 323/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the respondents attacked the complainant party following a tractor collision, resulting in a death and injuries. Conversely, the respondents pleaded the right of private defence, asserting they were attacked while returning from a shrine. The High Court acquitted the respondents, finding that the complainant party suppressed material facts regarding previous enmity and failed to explain the injuries sustained by the respondents. The Supreme Court reviewed the petition, noting that the High Court had properly appraised the evidence, juxtaposed the two versions, and concluded that the respondents' plea of private defence was sufficiently established to create reasonable doubt. Finding that the High Court's view was reasonably supported by the evidence and involved no substantial question of law, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, thereby upholding the acquittal.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused provide grounds for acquittal?
- Can the right of private defence be established when the accused's version is supported by the prosecution's own evidence?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when it merely challenges the High Court's appraisement of evidence without raising a question of law?
- Habib Ahmad vs Messrs Tobacco International Ltd., Karachi1989 PLC 101 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-02-22Read full judgment →
- H.M. Abdullah vs The Income-Tax Officer and 2 others1989 PTD 800 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-30Read full judgment →
- H.Fazal Elahi vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Peshawar1989 PTD 443 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-01Read full judgment →
- H.B.L. Staff Union and another vs Ch. Ashiq Hussain and 14 others1989 PLC 352 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-09-02Read full judgment →
- H. Sheikh Nooruddin & Sons Ltd. vs Central Board of Revenue1989 PLD Karachi 601 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-07Read full judgment →
- H. Munawar Ali vs Mst. Sarwar Bano1989 MLD 4654 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-05Read full judgment →
- H. Mohammad Qasim vs Mst. Ambreen Butt And 2 Other1989 MLD 343 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-28Read full judgment →
- H. Fazal Elahi. vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, PeshawarPTCL 1989 CL. 617 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-01Read full judgment →
- H Us S a in vs Collector of Customs (Preventive) and anothers1989 PLD Karachi 391 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
- H Umay UN Niz a Mi vs Government of Sind through its Secretary, Health1989 PLD Karachi 343 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- H Amidullah Khan vs The State1989 PLD Peshawar 22 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-07-03Read full judgment →
- Gurpreet Sing H vs Chatur Bhuj Goel1989 MLD 3220 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-12-15Read full judgment →
- Gulzar vs The Sate1989 MLD 695 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-02Read full judgment →
- Gulzar Hussain vs WAPDA1989 PLC (C.S.) 292 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-03-06Read full judgment →
- Gulzar Hussain Shah vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 203 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
- Gulzar Begum vs Settlement Commissioner And Other1989 MLD 4114 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
- Gulzar Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1107 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
- Gulzar Ahmad And Others vs The State1989 MLD 4860 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-20Read full judgment →
- Gulzar Ahmad And 2 Others vs The State1989 MLD 3453 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-27Read full judgment →
- Gulzar Ahmad Alias Dara vs The State1989 MLD 888 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-03-28Read full judgment →
- Gulsher and others vs The State1989 SCMR 242 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Sind High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' request for post-arrest bail pending their trial for offences under sections 399, 401, and 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the ingredients of offences relating to preparation for dacoity were fulfilled based on the recovery of arms from the petitioners during odd hours, warranting the grant of bail. The Supreme Court held that the High Court and the lower forums committed no illegality or violation of legal principles in refusing bail, considering the serious nature of the offences and the circumstances of the arrest. The Supreme Court affirmed that where accused persons are apprehended at odd hours armed with deadly weapons near a forest under suspicious circumstances, a reasonable presumption regarding preparation for dacoity may be drawn at the bail stage, justifying the denial of bail.
Questions settled- Whether the ingredients of offences under sections 399, 401, and 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 are fulfilled when accused persons are apprehended armed at odd hours?
- Does the recovery of deadly weapons from accused persons near a forest at dawn raise a reasonable presumption to attract section 399 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at the bail stage?
- When can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's order refusing post-arrest bail in heinous offences?
- Gulshan E Usman Social Welfare Association vs Karachi Development1989 MLD 4619 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-29Read full judgment →
- Gullan vs Board of Revenue And Another1989 MLD 2521 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-15Read full judgment →
- Gulfam and anothers vs Ali Muhammad and others1989 PLD Karachi 499 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment arose from two consolidated High Court Appeals concerning a property dispute involving mortgage, delegation of agency, unauthorized sale, and procedural defects in instituting a suit. The co-owners of the property had granted a General Power of Attorney to Qurban Ali, who borrowed money from Gulfam by mortgaging the title deeds and executing a second power of attorney authorizing Gulfam to sell the property upon default. Gulfam subsequently sold the property to Saghir Ahmed without court intervention. Qurban Ali filed a suit for redemption of mortgage and cancellation of the sale deed on behalf of himself and the co-owners, while Saghir filed a suit for possession and mesne profits. The High Court affirmed that under the maxim delegatus non potest delegare and Section 190 of the Contract Act 1872, an agent cannot delegate authority to a sub-agent to sell property unless expressly authorized. Thus, the sale was void. Furthermore, defect of authority in signing and instituting a suit by an agent is a procedural irregularity curable by subsequent ratification under Sections 196 and 197 of the Contract Act 1872.
Questions settled- Can an agent holding a power of attorney lawfully delegate the power of sale to a sub-agent without express authorization from the principal?
- Whether the failure to properly authorize an agent to sign and institute a plaint renders the suit a nullity or constitutes a curable procedural defect?
- Does subsequent ratification by a principal validate acts unauthorizedly undertaken on their behalf by an agent at the time of instituting a suit?
- Does silence or inaction operate as estoppel by representation when the opposing party had full knowledge of the factual and legal position?
- Gulab Khan vs Messrs H.H. Silk Factory1989 PLC 263 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-02-17Read full judgment →
- Gulab Begm and anothers vs Additional Secretary, Home and Tribal1989 PLD Peshawar 142 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Gul Zaman vs Muhammad Shafique1989 PLD Peshawar 247 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-07-04Read full judgment →
- Gul Sher Ahmad vs Election Tribunal and others1989 SCMR 602 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court regarding a local council election dispute. The petitioner, initially declared the winner via a draw of lots after tying with his rival at 220 votes each, saw his election challenged before an Election Tribunal. Upon a recount, the Tribunal determined the petitioner received 218 votes while his opponent received 219, resulting in the opponent being declared the winner. The petitioner challenged this outcome, arguing that a specific ballot marked with an 'R' was improperly excluded due to an unclear mark. The Supreme Court examined the Tribunal's findings and noted that visual inspection confirmed the marking itself was doubtful and not clearly affixed as required. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner failed to establish any legal error or justification for interference. The petition for leave to appeal was refused, affirming that where the validity of a ballot mark is factually determined to be doubtful by the Tribunal, no grounds for appellate intervention exist.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an Election Tribunal's factual determination regarding the validity of a ballot mark?
- Does the exclusion of a ballot due to an unclear mark constitute a legal error warranting appellate review?
- Is a candidate entitled to leave to appeal when the Election Tribunal has factually determined that a ballot mark was doubtful?
- Gul Sharif vs Fam Jan and 6 others1989 SCMR 1874 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Peshawar High Court, which declined to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with concurrent findings of lower forums in favor of the respondents. The core legal question involved whether the petitioner's special attorney possessed the authority under a written power of attorney to offer an oath binding the petitioner to the outcome of a jirga proceeding. The Supreme Court held that upon examination of the power of attorney, the attorney was indeed vested with the requisite authority to take such action, and the petitioner was bound thereby. The Court further noted that the matter pertained to a question of fact concluded concurrently by all courts below, presenting no legal defect to warrant interference. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming the principle that a principal is bound by acts lawfully performed by an authorized attorney within the scope of the power of attorney.
Questions settled- Whether a special attorney is authorized to bind the principal by offering an oath in jirga proceedings based on the terms of a power of attorney?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere in constitutional jurisdiction with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts absent any legal defect?
- Gul Rehman vs The State1989 SCMR 454 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1988-08-03Read full judgment →
- Gul Raheem and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2458 · Sindh High Court · 1987-11-08Read full judgment →
- Gul Muhammad vs The Sind Service Tribunal and 4 others1989 SCMR 574 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a service dispute regarding the redesignation of the appellant's post from Draftsman to Head Draftsman and the associated pay scale benefits under government notifications issued in 1963. The core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to these benefits despite the department's failure to implement the relevant notifications at the time and its subsequent refusal to grant the relief. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was entitled to the redesignation and benefits, noting that the department's ignorance of the specific notification did not extinguish the appellant's legal rights. The Court found that the Service Tribunal had failed to thoroughly examine the merits of the case, focusing instead on technicalities. The key principle laid down is that administrative ignorance or failure to implement a government notification does not serve as a valid ground to deny an employee their established legal rights and service benefits.
Questions settled- Does administrative ignorance of a government notification justify the denial of an employee's legal rights?
- Can a Service Tribunal dismiss a claim based on technicalities without examining the merits of the case?
- Are employees entitled to the benefits of a redesignation notification that the department failed to implement?
- Gul Muhammad vs Rano and others1989 P Cr. L J 82 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-17Read full judgment →
- Gul Muhammad vs Nasir Ahmad and others1989 SCMR 1847 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed constitutional petitions filed by tenants against their ejectment. The landlord had sought eviction on the grounds of bona fide personal need and the requirement of the premises for reconstruction. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the applications, but the appellate court reversed these decisions, ordering the tenants to vacate. The High Court upheld the appellate orders, finding that the landlord had sufficiently established his requirements through evidence. The Supreme Court reviewed the contentions regarding the validity of the municipal sanction for reconstruction and the sufficiency of evidence regarding personal need. The Court held that the findings of the High Court were based on sound reasoning and that the evidence, including the landlord's unrebutted testimony, supported the claims. The Court affirmed that in constitutional jurisdiction, interference with the decisions of special forums created under rent restriction laws is limited to instances of material irregularity, illegality, or misreading of evidence, none of which were established here. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the decisions of special forums created under the Rent Restriction Ordinance in the absence of material irregularity or illegality?
- Is the landlord's statement on oath sufficient to establish the plea of bona fide personal need if it remains unrebutted?
- Does the scope of constitutional jurisdiction allow for the re-appraisal of evidence regarding the landlord's requirement for reconstruction?
- Gul Muhammad vs Muhammad Sharif and others1989 SCMR 1261 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order regarding the valuation of court-fee in a pre-emption suit. The petitioner, a tenant, filed a suit for possession through pre-emption regarding a portion of land purchased by the respondents. Although the petitioner's suit was initially decreed for a specific portion of the land, the appellate and revisional authorities, and subsequently the High Court, held that the petitioner was liable to pay court-fee based on the entire land area involved in the original sale transaction, rather than the area for which the suit was decreed. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether a pre-emptor is required to pay court-fee on the extent of the land for which the suit is decreed or on the entire extent of the land sold. Finding this to be a significant question of law requiring further examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine the correct basis for calculating court-fee in pre-emption proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emptor is liable to pay court-fee on the extent of land for which the suit is decreed or on the entire extent of the land sold?
- Is the court-fee in a pre-emption suit determined by the claim put forward or the relief ultimately granted?
- Gul Muhammad vs Israruddin and others1989 SCMR 47 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption suit wherein the vendee challenged the High Court's dismissal of a civil revision upholding a pre-emption decree granted in favor of the respondents on the ground of contiguity. The core legal questions involve whether concurrent findings of fact regarding contiguity could be upset and whether Shamilat or water-course land (Khata) could serve as a valid basis for establishing a superior right of pre-emption based on contiguity. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings regarding the contiguity of the relevant Khasra numbers were firmly established by revenue records and that the ownership of contiguous land owned by the pre-emptors, as distinguished from cases based merely on the common user of public thoroughfares or watercourses, validly supports a pre-emption decree. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that ownership of contiguous land, even if comprising Shamilat or Khata land owned by co-villagers, provides a valid legal basis for pre-emption based on contiguity, and concurrent findings of fact on such matters will not be disturbed in the absence of legal error.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the contiguity of land in a pre-emption suit can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Does ownership of land comprised in a Khata or Shamilat provide a valid basis for establishing a right of pre-emption on the ground of contiguity?
- Can the sharing of common amenities or public thoroughfares be equated with ownership of contiguous land for the purpose of pre-emption?
- Gul Muhammad Khan vs Irshad Ahmad Khan1989 MLD 151 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →