Latest 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.

• Ghulam Muhammad vs Mst. Shanaz Bibi And 10, Other1989 CLC 831 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Mst. Rashida Hamid and others1989 SCMR 1763 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-31
  landlord and tenantevictionsettlement of displaced personsrelationship of landlord and tenantleave to appealcourt of general jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a tenant's petition arising from the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which upheld an eviction order under the Rent Restriction Law. The core legal question pressed before the Supreme Court was whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties concerning a property transferred under settlement laws for displaced persons. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts, determining the disputed portion was transferred to the respondents and establishing the petitioner as a tenant, were unexceptionable, thus justifying the refusal of leave to appeal. However, the Court observed that the petitioner might file a regular suit in a court of general jurisdiction for declaration of ownership and possession after surrendering possession to the successful party. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings regarding transfer of property under settlement laws and tenancy will not be disturbed in leave to appeal, leaving the party to seek remedy through a regular civil suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does the relationship of landlord and tenant exist when property is disputed under settlement laws?
  • Can concurrent findings of lower courts regarding property transfer under settlement laws be interfered with in leave to appeal?
  • May a tenant file a suit for declaration of ownership in a court of general jurisdiction after eviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Imam Ali And Other1989 MLD 3102 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Ghulam Rasul And 6 Other1989 MLD 1103 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Directorgeneral, Pakistan Rangers1989 SCMR 288 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Federal Service Tribunalreview jurisdictioninherent powersservice lawfinality of ordersstatutory tribunals
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Sub-Inspector of the Pakistan Rangers, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his application for review of an earlier order. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Federal Service Tribunal possesses the inherent jurisdiction to review its own final decisions on merits in the absence of an express statutory provision granting such power. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner’s counsel failed to cite any provision of law or judicial precedent establishing that the Tribunal has the authority to review its final orders on merits. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's dismissal of the review application, affirming that the Tribunal acted in accordance with the law. The judgment reinforces the principle that tribunals created by statute are creatures of that statute and possess only such powers as are expressly conferred upon them, meaning they lack inherent review jurisdiction unless explicitly provided by the governing legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal possess the inherent jurisdiction to review its own final decisions on merits?
  • Can a statutory tribunal exercise review powers in the absence of an express statutory grant?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Abdul Qadeer And Other1989 MLD 124 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Shah vs Muhammad Akram and 3 others1989 PLD Peshawar 61 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-03Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Khan vs The State1989 SCMR 1322 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-15
  bailinterim bailconditional bailleave to appealcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by way of a petition for special leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 3-9-88. The core legal question involves whether a condition can be lawfully imposed while admitting an accused person to bail or confirming interim bail, rendering a conditional order of bail in accordance with the law. The Court held that the question is of public importance and requires detailed examination along with an authoritative pronouncement. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was ordered to be made ready on the present record for final hearing in the next session at Lahore, and the Advocate-General Punjab was directed to appear personally to assist the Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court impose a condition while admitting an accused person to bail or confirming an interim bail?
  • Is a conditional order of bail in accordance with the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1756 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2089 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and others vs Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others1989 SCMR 1088 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-13
  consolidation matterleave to appeallimitationlacheswrit jurisdictionBoard of Revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a consolidation matter where the High Court dismissed the petitioners' writ petition. The petitioners challenged the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, arguing that once a matter was admitted to regular hearing and a referee was appointed with the consent of the parties, the revision petition should not have been dismissed on the grounds of limitation or laches. The Supreme Court rejected this contention. The Court observed that the Member, Board of Revenue, had considered the case on its merits in addition to the issue of limitation. Furthermore, the High Court had duly considered the question of delay noted by the Member, Board of Revenue. Finding no legal or factual basis to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower forums, the Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to make out a case for interference. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a revision petition be dismissed on the ground of limitation after a referee has been appointed with the consent of the parties?
  • Does the appointment of a referee preclude a tribunal from considering the issue of limitation or laches?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and others vs Ijaz Ahmad and others1989 SCMR 583 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-20
  evacuee propertyjoint holdingallotment of landrehabilitation authoritieswrit petitionsale-deed
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' writ petition concerning land allotments made to refugees from a joint holding with evacuees. The core legal question is whether land sold by the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest to non-Muslim evacuees prior to partition correctly constituted evacuee property subject to refugee allotment. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the rehabilitation and custodial authorities—establishing that allotments were made exclusively from the Hissadari possession of non-Muslim evacuees and from land validly sold via registered sale-deeds—were lawful and justified. The court affirmed that land alienated to evacuees before partition retains its evacuee character and is liable to be allotted to displaced persons. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the High Court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether land sold by a local landowner to non-Muslim evacuees prior to partition constitutes evacuee property?
  • Can rehabilitation authorities make refugee allotments out of joint holdings without prior partition if the allotted area is restricted to the non-Muslim evacuee's Hissadari possession?
  • Whether concurrent findings of custodial and rehabilitation authorities regarding the status of land as evacuee property warrant interference in writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and others vs Amir Nawab Khan and others1989 SCMR 74 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-15
  leave to appealex parte orderejectmenttime-barred appealconstitutional petitionrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition in limine and affirmed an order passed by the District Judge, Malakand. The underlying dispute originated from an ex parte ejectment order issued by the Rent Controller, Malakand, against the petitioners. The petitioners challenged this order before the District Judge, who examined the merits and concluded that there was no justification to set aside the ex parte ejectment order, particularly noting that the appeal was time-barred and the delay remained unexplained. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the petitioners failed to provide any effective arguments to warrant interference with the High Court's judgment. Consequently, the Court held that the case did not present a fit ground for granting leave to appeal. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding procedural defaults, such as unexplained delays in filing appeals, absent a compelling legal justification.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court interfere with an ex parte ejectment order when the appeal itself is time-barred and the delay is unexplained?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an order of a District Judge upholding an ex parte ejectment order where no legal error is demonstrated?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and anothers vs Muhammad Ilyas and others1989 SCMR 50 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-08
  land allotmentSettlement and Rehabilitation Schemeproposal for allotmentsubsisting rightcancellation of allotmentdue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a dispute over the allotment of land in Chak No. 132/GB, Faisalabad. The appellants claimed the land based on a 1960 proposal, despite the absence of a signed confirmation order, while respondents claimed the same land based on a 1966 confirmation. The Lahore High Court initially dismissed the appellants' writ petition, reasoning that their claim had been abandoned and that the proposal lacked formal confirmation. The core legal question was whether a mere proposal for land allotment, even if unconfirmed by a signature, confers a subsisting right that precludes subsequent allotment of the same land to others without due process. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the earlier proposal in favour of the appellants remained valid and subsisting. The Court established the principle that a proposal for allotment under the Settlement and Rehabilitation Scheme creates a right that cannot be summarily disregarded or superseded by a subsequent proposal without formal cancellation and notice to the original allottee, affirming that such proposals are not mere nullities.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mere proposal for land allotment under the Settlement and Rehabilitation Scheme confer a right that cannot be superseded without notice?
  • Can land already subject to a subsisting proposal be validly allotted to another party without cancelling the prior proposal?
  • Is a proposal for allotment of land legally effective even if the final confirmation order lacks the signature of the confirming officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and 18 others vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Finance Department, Lahore and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 355 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-02-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and 11 others vs Executive Engineer, Trimu Barrage1989 PLC 604 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mohyuddin vs Abdullah represented by Legal Heirs1989 SCMR 1994 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-12
  Shamlat Dehmandatory injunctioncommon village landencroachmentrevenue recordTalab
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had affirmed lower court decisions ordering the demolition of the petitioner's house. The respondent had filed a suit for mandatory injunction, asserting that the petitioner had constructed a house on land designated as a 'Talab' (pond) in the revenue record, which was reserved for the common use of the village (Shamlat Deh). The petitioner contended that because other portions of the land were already occupied by a mosque and other houses, and the pond no longer existed in reality, the land should be considered partitionable like other Shamlat Deh land. The Supreme Court addressed the question of whether the petitioner's construction on land recorded as common village property could be regularized despite its designation. The Court held that no interference was warranted in the High Court's order, as the lower courts had properly exercised their discretion in ordering the demolition of the unauthorized construction on common village land. The petition was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can land recorded as a pond for common village use be treated as partitionable Shamlat Deh land if the pond no longer physically exists?
  • Is a court justified in ordering the demolition of a house constructed on land designated for common village use?
  • Does the existence of other unauthorized constructions on common village land justify the retention of a new encroachment?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mehdi and 4 others vs Mst.Bhaghan and 4 others1989 PLD Lahore 314 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Iviohy-Ud-Din vs The Fa. & Ca.O., Pakistan Railways, Lahore and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 427 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-01-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hyder Siddiqui vs Settlement Commissioner, Sind and others1989 SCMR 24 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-08
  settlementprovisional transfer ordercancellation of allotmentnatural justiceaudi alteram partemvoid orderfunctus officio
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the transfer of an evacuee property unit under the settlement laws. The appellant was transferred a portion of the premises on his LH form, and a Provisional Transfer Order (PTO) was issued in his favour in 1960. Subsequently, respondent No. 3, who occupied a different property that turned out to be trust property, applied for alternative allotment. The Settlement Commissioner directed that any undisposed property be transferred to him. Consequently, the Settlement Authorities cancelled the appellant's PTO without notice and transferred the entire premises, including the appellant's portion, to respondent No. 3. The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition, upholding the Settlement Authorities' concurrent findings on indivisibility. The Supreme Court held that since the property was already transferred to the appellant under a valid and unchallenged PTO, it was not 'undisposed of' and was unavailable for transfer to respondent No. 3. The unilateral cancellation of the appellant's PTO without notice was a nullity, rendering all subsequent orders, including the Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) issued to respondent No. 3, legally ineffectual.

  Questions settled

  • Can an evacuee property that has already been transferred under a valid Provisional Transfer Order be treated as undisposed of and transferred to another person?
  • Is an order cancelling a Provisional Transfer Order without prior notice or an opportunity of hearing to the holder legally valid?
  • Does a subsequent transfer order or Permanent Transfer Deed carry any legal efficacy if it is based on a prior void order of cancellation?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hyder and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 618 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Province of Punjab1989 PLC (C.S.) 487 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Mst. Musharaf Khanum And Another1989 MLD 4604 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-24Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Jam. Allah Dad through Legal Heirs1989 PLD Lahore 73 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-05
  pre-emptionexchange vs salesecond appealfinding of factmutationTransfer of Property Actmarket value disparity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a Regular Second Appeal arising from a pre-emption suit filed by the appellant, who challenged a land transaction labeled as an exchange, arguing it was a disguised sale intended to defeat his right of pre-emption. The core legal question was whether the transaction, evidenced by a mutation, constituted a sale or an exchange, and whether the High Court could interfere with the appellate court's finding of fact regarding the nature of the transaction. The Court held that the finding of the first appellate court, which determined the transaction was an exchange, was a finding of fact based on evidence and thus not open to scrutiny under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Furthermore, the Court established that a disparity in the market value of properties exchanged does not, by itself, invalidate an exchange or convert it into a sale. The principle laid down is that the nature of a transaction is determined by the mutual transfer of ownership, and mere price disparity is insufficient to discredit an exchange.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere with a finding of fact regarding the nature of a transaction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does a disparity in the market value of properties exchanged automatically convert an exchange into a sale?
  • Is the mutual transfer of ownership without a price component sufficient to constitute an exchange under Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Bashir Ahmad And Another1989 MLD 454 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Shahani vs The State1989 MLD 2657 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Shahani vs The StateK.L.R. 1989 Criminal Cases 369 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Shah vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab1989 SCMR 1457 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-10
  Horse Breeding Schemeland allotmentrevenue hierarchynew pleaconcurrent findingslease dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the decisions of lower revenue authorities regarding the allotment of land under the Horse Breeding Scheme. The dispute concerned two brothers competing for the lease of land previously held by their deceased father. The District Collector had allotted the lease to the respondent, a decision affirmed by the Commissioner and the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue. The petitioner, who was employed elsewhere, contended that as an ex-serviceman, he was entitled to preference under a Board of Revenue circular. The Supreme Court found no error in the concurrent findings of the lower tribunals, noting that the respondent had been assisting the father in cultivation and was a permanent resident of the relevant locality. Crucially, the Court held that the argument regarding the petitioner's status as an ex-serviceman could not be entertained because it was raised for the first time before the Supreme Court and had not been pleaded before the lower tribunals. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise a new contention regarding preferential entitlement for the first time before the Supreme Court?
  • Are concurrent findings of lower revenue tribunals regarding land allotment subject to interference by the Supreme Court when no legal error is demonstrated?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Baluch vs Government of Sind And Other1989 MLD 589 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-22Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 461 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain and others vs Muhammad Shafi through his Legal Heirs1989 SCMR 1543 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-15
  execution of decreelimitation periodleave to appealexecution second appealstay orderabatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by decree-holders against the High Court's decision accepting an execution second appeal and holding the execution petition to be time-barred. The core legal question concerns the starting point of limitation for filing an execution application when stay orders and subsequent appellate proceedings, specifically a petition for leave to appeal, took place after the High Court's initial appellate judgment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether time for execution runs from the dismissal of the regular second appeal or the subsequent dismissal of the petition for leave to appeal, and also considered contentions regarding limitation and the potential abatement of the petition under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1983). The Court condoned the delay in filing the petition, granted leave to appeal, and directed the preparation of the appeal on the present record.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for filing an execution application run from the date of the High Court's appellate decision or from the subsequent dismissal of the petition for leave to appeal?
  • Whether an execution petition remains within time when execution proceedings were previously stayed by the order of the court?
  • Does a petition abate under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1983) under these circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain And Others vs Allah Rakha And Other1989 MLD 1136 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Alias Sanu vs The State1989 MLD 4804 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain alias Khudda vs The State1989 PLD Lahore 543 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hasan And 2 Others vs The State1989 MLD 4377 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs The State1989 MLD 765 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 596 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs District Manager, Karachi Transport Corporation, Karachi and another1989 PLC 458 · Labour Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider and others vs Government of the Punjab and others1989 SCMR 1612 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-21
  property taxlocal governmentlegislative competencetaxation powersprovincial governmentrevenue sharing
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order dismissing an intra-Court appeal, which had upheld a notification issued by the Provincial Government under the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958, imposing property tax in Shah Kot. The petitioners contended that the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, specifically section 137 read with the Second Schedule, vested the power to tax buildings and lands exclusively in local municipal bodies, and that section 4 of the Ordinance gave it overriding effect over other laws. Additionally, they argued that because section 3-A of the Act requires the Provincial Government to remit a portion of collected taxes to local bodies, the Government acts merely as an agent and cannot impose taxes against the wishes of the local committee. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the power to tax under the Ordinance is expressly subject to other laws, and that the revenue-sharing mechanism in section 3-A does not create an agency relationship between the Provincial Government and local bodies. The Court affirmed the Provincial Government's legislative authority to impose property tax.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 override the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act 1958 regarding the power to levy property tax?
  • Does the revenue-sharing provision in section 3-A of the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act 1958 create an agency relationship between the Provincial Government and local bodies?
  • Can a local committee prevent the Provincial Government from imposing property tax under the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act 1958?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider and others vs Ghulam Rasool and others1989 PLD Revenue 15 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1988-10-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider and 7 others vs S.H.O. City Police Station Quetta and 91989 PLD Supreme Court 479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-17
  video exhibitionpolice powerscognizable offencewrit petitionhotel businessillegal screening
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by hotel proprietors in Quetta against the dismissal of their writ petition by the High Court, wherein they claimed an uncontrolled and unchecked right to exhibit video films and programmes to their customers and guests. The respondents, including law enforcement agencies, resisted the petition, arguing that the petitioners were indulging in illegal activities and exhibiting prohibited films in contravention of laws such as the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979, the Customs Act, 1969, and the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioners possessed an unbridled right to exhibit video films without regulatory oversight and whether the police were competent to act against them. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners could not claim an uncontrolled right to exhibit films and that the police possess the power to prevent illegalities amounting to offences, while clarifying that all actions must be in accordance with law and that no offender should be dealt with outside legal procedures. The petition was accordingly disposed of with observations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether hotel owners have an uncontrolled and unregulated right to exhibit video films to their customers on their business premises?
  • Is the police competent to take action against the exhibition of video films that amount to cognizable offences?
  • Can a general writ be issued to restrain law enforcement agencies from interfering with business activities alleged to be in violation of penal laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider and 2 others vs The State1989 PLD Lahore 470 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Habib vs Sher Ali1989 SCMR 1329(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-25
  pre-emptionsuperior right of pre-emptionco-sharersale of landpetitions dismissed
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning a pre-emption suit. The core legal question is whether the petitioner could claim a superior right of pre-emption to the entire tract of land sold based on his relationship with his vendor father, who was one of the co-sellers. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner was only entitled to pre-empt to the extent of his father's specific share in the property sold, as concurrently ruled by the Additional District Judge and the High Court. The petition was accordingly dismissed as being without merit. The key principle laid down is that a pre-emptor claiming through a vendor co-sharer can only succeed to the extent of that specific vendor's share in the sold property.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pre-emptor claim a superior right of pre-emption over the entire property sold based solely on his relationship with one of the co-vendors?
  • To what extent can a pre-emptor succeed in a pre-emption suit founded on a relationship with a co-vendor father?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ghaus vs The Chief Engineer, WAPDA, Faisalabad Region, Faisalabad and another1989 SCMR 1139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-17
  civil servantsuspension periodfull payhonourable acquittalservice tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dismissing his appeal regarding the denial of full pay for the period of his suspension. The petitioner had been subjected to an anti-corruption raid, convicted by the trial court, but subsequently acquitted on appeal. Following his acquittal, the competent authority refused to grant him full pay for the suspension period on the ground that the acquittal was not honourable, a view upheld by the Service Tribunal. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to full pay for the suspension period based on his acquittal and the applicable rules. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal's appraisal of the evidence and its conclusion that the acquittal was not honourable did not raise any question of law warranting interference. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, laying down that factual appraisals regarding the nature of an acquittal by the Service Tribunal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 will not be interfered with unless a substantial question of law arises.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil servant entitled to full pay for the period of suspension upon acquittal when the competent authority determines the acquittal was not honourable?
  • Does the appraisal of material and evidence by the Service Tribunal regarding the nature of an acquittal raise a question of law under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Fatimah vs Muhammad Sharif1989 SCMR 1137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-30
  leave to appealadditional evidencecivil revisionsuit for possessionproperty boundariesappellate stage
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant against the dismissal of her civil revision by the High Court, which upheld concurrent judgments and decrees for possession of the suit house passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The core legal question concerns the identification and boundaries of the properties in dispute, as well as the propriety of the lower appellate court's refusal to permit additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner could not be granted the concession of additional evidence at the appellate stage, finding no merit in the contention. Consequently, the Court ruled that the concurrent findings regarding the identity of the property were justified, and the petition for leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts are not bound to grant additional evidence unless statutory thresholds are met, and findings of fact regarding property boundaries based on evidence will not be lightly disturbed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether additional evidence can be allowed at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the identification and boundaries of a suit property be interfered with when the lower courts properly evaluated the evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farooque and anothers vs The State--Opponent1989 PLD Karachi 37 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-11
  post-arrest bailcounter-casesfurther inquirymedical inconsistencyfirearm injuryaggressorcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sinjhoro following a clash between rival political polling agents. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail on grounds of inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence and the existence of counter-cases where both sides sustained injuries. The Sindh High Court held that where a specific firearm attribution is belied by medical reports showing no firearm injury, and where counter-versions exist with injuries on both sides making it uncertain who the aggressor was, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that bail should be granted when the ocular account is prima facie contradicted by medical evidence and in sudden cross-cases involving mutual injuries where the true aggressor cannot be determined with certainty at the pre-trial stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between ocular allegations of firearm injuries and medical reports showing no firearm injuries warrant further inquiry for the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether accused persons in counter-cases where both sides have sustained injuries are entitled to bail on the ground that it is uncertain which party was the aggressor?
  • Is an applicant entitled to post-arrest bail when the specific role attributed to him is belied by the medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid vs The State1989 MLD 770 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1679 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2285 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid Etc. vs ZilledarK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 128 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid and another vs Ghulam Muhammad and others1989 SCMR 313 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-02
  civil revisionleave to appealimpleadment of legal representativesprocedural dismissallimitation periodsuit for possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by defendants against the dismissal of their civil revision. The underlying dispute involves a suit for possession which was decreed in favor of the plaintiffs. The petitioners had filed an appeal against the decree but inadvertently impleaded a deceased respondent, despite the legal representatives of the deceased having already been brought on record in the lower court. The petitioners' subsequent request to correct the record of the appeal was denied, leading to the dismissal of their appeal and the subsequent dismissal of their civil revision. The core legal question is whether an appeal can be dismissed on the grounds of failing to implead necessary parties or being time-barred when the legal representatives were already on record. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the issues raised regarding the procedural dismissal of the appeal require further examination by the Court. The decision establishes that procedural errors in impleading parties, particularly when legal representatives are already known to the court, warrant a substantive review rather than summary dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal be dismissed for failure to implead necessary parties when their legal representatives are already on record?
  • Whether an appeal can be dismissed as time-barred due to a mistake in impleading a deceased respondent?
  • Does the failure to correctly implead a party in an appeal warrant the dismissal of the entire appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid And 5 Others vs Zilledar1989 CLC 1515 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid And 2 Others vs Naseer Ahmad1989 CLC 984 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid alias Bindis vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1672 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Fareed vs The State1989 MLD 657 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Fareed vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 550 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Fareed vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 17 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Dastgir vs Bagh Ali1989 SCMR 2015 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-29
  pre-emptionright of pre-emptionpending suitscutoff dateShariat Appellate Benchleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions for leave to appeal challenge Lahore High Court judgments that dismissed pre-emption suits based on the ruling in Said Kamal Shah v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1986 SC 360). The petitioners, who had instituted their suits prior to the announcement of the Said Kamal Shah judgment, argued that the declarations therein were inapplicable to their pending cases and that they were entitled to decrees after the cutoff date of 31-7-1986. The core legal question was whether pre-emption suits filed before the Said Kamal Shah decision could proceed to a decree after the specified cutoff date. The Supreme Court, relying on its precedent in Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali (PLD 1988 SC 287), held that while decrees passed before 31-7-1986 remained effective, no fresh decrees could be granted in pending suits after that date because the underlying laws ceased to have effect. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal of the suits, establishing that pending pre-emption proceedings without a decree by the cutoff date could not culminate in a fresh decree.

  Questions settled

  • Can a fresh decree be passed in a pre-emption suit after 31-7-1986 if the suit was instituted before the decision in Said Kamal Shah's case?
  • Do pre-emption decrees passed before 31-7-1986 remain effective despite the ruling in Said Kamal Shah's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Dastgir Khan and another vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab and others1989 SCMR 1446 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-05
  land allotmentforgeryrevenue recordconstitutional jurisdictionfunctus officioevacuee propertyleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the refusal of Revenue Authorities to incorporate an alleged land allotment into the annual revenue record, characterizing the underlying entitlement certificate as a forgery. The core legal question is whether the High Court erred in its constitutional jurisdiction by reversing a finding of fact regarding the validity of an allotment made in 1960, and whether the Board of Revenue correctly determined that authorities were functus officio due to the transfer of the land to the Health Department. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the petitioners' contentions regarding the validity of the entitlement certificate and the legality of the 1960 allotment required fuller examination. The Court held that the matter warrants a deeper review of the evidentiary basis for the allotment and the legal implications of the subsequent acquisition proceedings. The key principle established is that where factual findings regarding land allotments are based on secondary evidence due to the unavailability of primary records, such findings require careful scrutiny before being overturned in constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court reverse a finding of fact made by the Additional Commissioner Revenue while exercising constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the unavailability of primary records like the RL-II justify reliance on secondary evidence to prove a land allotment?
  • Does the transfer of land to a government department render Revenue Authorities functus officio regarding prior allotment claims?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Dastgir Khan and 2 others vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore and 2 others1989 PLD Lahore 245 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Dastgir and 3 others vs Jamal Din and 3 others1989 SCMR 1766 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-27
  civil revisionalienation of propertyfindings of factleave to appealsuit for declarationforged transfer deed
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had accepted a civil revision filed by the respondents. The underlying dispute originated from a suit for declaration filed by the respondents, who challenged the validity of an alienation of property made by their predecessor-in-interest, one Naiki, in favour of the petitioners, alleging the transfer deed was fake and forged. The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, finding that the predecessor-in-interest had died during the partition disturbances long before the alleged execution of the transfer deed. Although the petitioners' appeal was initially successful, the High Court subsequently restored the trial court's decree upon revision. The Supreme Court heard arguments from both sides and determined that the controversy regarding the genuineness of the alienation was a matter of fact that had already been concluded by the lower courts. Finding the impugned findings of fact to be unexceptionable, the Supreme Court refused the petition for leave to appeal, holding that the case was not a fit matter for further appellate review.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a civil revision?
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when the controversy rests solely on findings of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 667 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali vs The State1989 PLD Quetta 62 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali vs Karachi Transport Corporation1989 PLC 730 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-03-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali vs Javid and another1989 P Cr. L J 507 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-30
  quashment of proceedingscriminal breach of trustcivil disputedishonoured chequesmala fide complaintinherent powers of High Courtco-extensive powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application for the quashment of criminal proceedings pending against the applicant under sections 406, 420, and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 before a magistrate. The core legal question involved whether a purely civil business dispute regarding unpaid dues and dishonoured cheques for goods purchased on credit could be prosecuted as criminal breach of trust, cheating, and criminal intimidation, and whether the High Court could directly entertain a quashment petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without the applicant first approaching the trial court under section 249-A. The court held that the transactions between the parties were entirely of a civil nature involving debit and credit of woollen yarn, lacking any element of entrustment necessary for criminal breach of trust, and that the criminal proceedings were instituted mala fide to harass the accused. The court further held that the powers of the trial court under section 249-A and the High Court under section 561-A are co-extensive and there is no absolute bar stopping the High Court from entertaining a petition directly. The proceedings against the applicant were accordingly quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a commercial dispute arising from goods purchased on credit and subsequent dishonoured cheques constitute a criminal breach of trust under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Are the powers of a trial court under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 co-extensive with the powers of the High Court under section 561-A?
  • Is a party barred from directly approaching the High Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without first moving the trial court under section 249-A?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali and 2 others vs Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi1989 PLD Lahore 372 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-05
  inheritanceco-shareradverse possessionmutationcivil revisionlimitationrelinquishment of inheritance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged an appellate court's judgment decreeing a suit for inheritance filed by a sister against her brothers. The core legal questions concerned whether the respondent had relinquished her inheritance share, whether her suit was time-barred, and whether the defendants had acquired title through adverse possession. The High Court held that the appellate court’s finding of fact—that no relinquishment occurred—was conclusive and not subject to interference in revision. The Court affirmed that the possession of one co-sharer enures to the benefit of all co-sharers, thereby negating claims of adverse possession or ouster. Furthermore, the Court clarified that a mutation entry is not a document of title, and a suit for inheritance by a co-sharer is not governed by the strict limitation periods applicable to challenging title documents, as the plaintiff is deemed to be in constructive possession through the other co-sharers. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, reinforcing that findings of fact by the first appellate court, based on the record, are generally sacrosanct.

  Questions settled

  • Does the possession of one co-sharer enure to the benefit of other co-sharers?
  • Is a mutation entry a document of title that must be set aside within the limitation period prescribed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with findings of fact made by a first appellate court in civil revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Akbar Khan vs Haji Sher Jan And Other1989 CLC 1789 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-08
  civil revisionconsent decreealienation of landin pari delictopublic policyadverse possessionland dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenged an appellate court judgment that reversed a trial court decree regarding the ownership of land. The petitioner sought a declaration that a consent decree and subsequent mutation were void due to fraud, impersonation, and violation of the North-West Frontier Province New Irrigation Projects (Control and Presentation of Speculation in Land) Act, 1950. The core legal questions concerned whether a consent decree constitutes an "alienation" under the Act and whether the petitioner could challenge the transaction despite the parties' mutual involvement in circumventing the law. The court held that a consent decree is essentially an agreement between parties. Crucially, the court applied the maxim in pari delicto potior est conditio possidentis, ruling that where both parties are equally at fault for entering an illegal transaction to defeat statutory provisions, the court will not assist in recovering the property. Consequently, the court refused to grant relief, favoring the party in possession, and dismissed the revision petition, affirming the appellate court's decision to uphold the transaction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a consent decree constitute an 'alienation' of land under the North-West Frontier Province New Irrigation Projects (Control and Presentation of Speculation in Land) Act, 1950?
  • Can a party seek the assistance of the court to recover property transferred under an illegal contract where both parties are in pari delicto?
  • Does the maxim in pari delicto potior est conditio possidentis apply to successors-in-interest of the original parties to an illegal transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Akbar Khan vs General Manager, Pakistan Railways1989 PLC (C.S.) 295 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-03-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ahmad vs Sheikh and 5 others1989 SCMR 1404 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-03
  specific performanceexecution of decreelimitationleave to appealagreement for sale
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of property, which was decreed by the trial Court on 25-11-1961 and upheld in appeal on 22-6-1962. A subsequent revision petition filed by the respondents abated on 21-10-1967. Approximately five years later, on 31-7-1972, the petitioner applied for permission to deposit the purchase price, but the trial Court dismissed the application on the ground of limitation. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's subsequent revision petition, leading to a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerns whether the execution of a decree can be denied on the ground of limitation when the trial Court failed to prescribe a specific period for the judgment-debtor to fulfill obligations. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this question, directing security for costs and the continuation of the status quo.

  Questions settled

  • Whether execution of a decree could be denied to the petitioner on the ground of limitation when the trial Court had not prescribed the period within which the judgment-debtor was required to fulfil the obligations created thereunder?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ahmad vs Province of Punjab And Other1989 MLD 161 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ahmad vs Pir Muhammad EtcK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 67 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ahmad vs Member, Board of Revenue and 2 others1989 PLD Supreme Court 344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-21
  Lambardari appointmentwrit jurisdictionBoard of Revenueadministrative lawcustomary lawjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition challenging the appointment of a Lambardar, a decision previously finalized by the Board of Revenue. The core legal question was whether a writ petition is maintainable to challenge the appointment of a Lambardar, given established precedents. The Supreme Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable, consistent with a long line of established case law affirming that such administrative appointments in Lambardari cases are not subject to judicial review under writ jurisdiction. The Court refused leave to appeal, finding no justification for interference. However, the Court observed that while the appointment process remains outside the scope of writ jurisdiction, it is appropriate for the Board of Revenue and relevant authorities to remove remnants of customary law considerations from their rules and legal instruments, ensuring they align with modern legal standards, particularly those regarding Shariat-based principles.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition maintainable against an order of the Board of Revenue regarding the appointment of a Lambardar?
  • Should considerations of customary law be removed from the rules and legal instruments governing the appointment of a Lambardar?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Criminal Cases 297 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1871 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas vs Federal Government, Ministry of Interior and others1989 P Cr. L J 1936 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-03Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas vs Ajmal Shah and others1989 SCMR 1124(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-10
  leave to appealcivil revisionspecial oathauthority of counselpower of attorneyproperty dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether a counsel and a co-petitioner possess the authority to make a binding offer to resolve a property dispute on special oath, which subsequently led to the dismissal of the revision. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's counsel, duly appointed via power of attorney, and the co-petitioner—who shared no conflict of interest—acted competently and without any motive against the petitioner's interests, rendering the subsequent challenge an afterthought. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a counsel has the authority to make a binding offer for the disposal of a civil revision on a special oath on behalf of the client?
  • Can a co-petitioner make an offer to resolve a property dispute on oath that binds another petitioner sharing no conflict of interest?
  • Whether the dismissal of a civil revision based on an accepted offer of a special oath can be successfully challenged as unauthorized?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas Etc vs Sifat Hussain ShahK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 141 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas And Others vs Sifat Hussain Shah1989 MLD 3068 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas and 3 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 455 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas alias Boota vs Sanaullah and others1989 SCMR 1832 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-16
  leave to appealmurderreduction of sentencemotiveocular testimonypre-concerted attackappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed by both the convicts and the complainant party against a judgment of the High Court, which had maintained the convictions of the respondents under sections 302 and 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while setting aside convictions under sections 307 and 324, and reducing the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The core legal question involved the assessment of ocular testimony, the existence of motive stemming from family honor due to an abduction, and the appropriateness of the sentence reduction. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts accepting the natural and trustworthy ocular testimony were unexceptionable, and further held that the existence of a motive relating to family honor justified the High Court's exercise of discretion in reducing the sentence of death to imprisonment for life. Consequently, both petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed, affirming the convictions and sentences imposed by the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent factual findings based on ocular testimony accepted by both the trial court and the High Court?
  • Does a motive based on the rehabilitation of family honor constitute a mitigating circumstance justifying the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether the appellate court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to confirm the death penalty under the circumstances of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghjlam Mustafa vs Muhammad Ashraf And 3 Other1989 CLC 190 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-11Read full judgment →
• Ghazi vs Hafeezan Begum1989 CLC 1641. · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-31Read full judgment →
• Ghazanfar Hussain vs Rehmat Bibi And 5 Other1989 CLC 310 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
• Ghazanfar Ali and another vs Cherat Cement Co. Ltd.1989 P Cr. L J 352 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
• Ghaffar Ali vs Sub-Divisional Education Officer (Male), Nowshera1989 PLC (C.S.) 521 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1989-03-16Read full judgment →
• General Tyre & Rubber Co. Of Pakistan Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of IncomePTCL 1989 CL. 680 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• General Tyre & Rubber Co. of Pakistan Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone, Karachi (Copy)1989 PTD 582 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
• General Secretary, Al-Fatah Mazdoor Union, Shams ,Textile Mills Ltd.1989 PLC 231 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-08-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Etc. vs Allah Rakha Etc.K.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 54 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Deceased Through Legal Heirs vs Kamal Yusuf And 111989 MLD 1169 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• General Products Industries Workers' Union, Karachi vs Messrs1989 PLC 554 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
• General Officer Commanding in Chief And Another vs Dr. Subhash1989 MLD 2132 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-02-25Read full judgment →
• General Manager, Pakistan Railways and another vs Siraj Din and 571989 PLC 353 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• General Investment Ltd. vs Dubai Bank Limited1989 SCMR 724 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-30
  banking recoverymortgage securityadequacy of securitycommercialization of plotremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from an order of the Sind High Court directing the appellant to furnish security and deposit cash in a banking recovery matter. The respondent bank had filed a suit for recovery under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, which was decreed. Upon appeal, the High Court previously remanded the case to determine the adequacy of existing mortgage security and assess any shortfall pursuant to section 12(5) of the Ordinance. On remand, the High Court ordered a fresh security of a lump sum without determining the actual value of the already mortgaged property or calculating any shortfall, while a controversy also arose regarding whether the Karachi Development Authority or the Karachi Municipal Corporation was the competent authority for commercializing the plot. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to follow the remand directions by ordering fresh security without determining the actual value of the mortgaged property and the shortfall. The appeal was allowed, the High Court order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a proper determination of the shortfall and the commercialization question.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can order fresh security without determining the actual value of the existing mortgaged property and calculating any shortfall under section 12(5) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Which authority is competent for the conversion of a plot from residential to commercial purposes between the Karachi Development Authority and the Karachi Municipal Corporation?
  Read full judgment →
• Gawa and 3 others vs The State and another1989 SCMR 1257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-12
  acquittalremand of caseSection 265-K Cr.P.C.prosecution evidencemurder trialspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside an order of acquittal passed by an Additional Sessions Judge under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in remanding the case for trial after finding that the trial court had acted prematurely in acquitting the accused due to the prosecution's failure to produce evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the trial court failed to consider the practical difficulties faced by the prosecution, specifically that the complainant was incarcerated as an undertrial prisoner at the time. The Court held that the High Court correctly determined there was no material on record to support the conclusion that witnesses were deliberately avoiding the court. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed that the High Court's decision to remand the case for a proper trial was the only legal and appropriate course of action, refusing leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without sufficient evidence that witnesses were deliberately avoiding the court?
  • Is a High Court justified in setting aside an acquittal and remanding a murder case if the trial court failed to consider the prosecution's practical difficulties in producing witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Ganesh Dass Sreeram and others vs Income-Tax Officer, A' Ward, Shillong and others1989 PTD 527 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
• Gamoo vs The State1989 MLD 4932 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-10Read full judgment →
• Gaman And Others vs Province of Punjab And Other1989 MLD 4605 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-25Read full judgment →
• G.M. Fisheries vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central `A'), Karachi1989 PTD 673 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
• G. Ramegowda, Major And Others vs The Special Land Acquisition1989 MLD 2893 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-03-10Read full judgment →