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.
- G. Asghar Malik vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Rawalpindi and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 428 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-01-10Read full judgment →
- G Ul K H a N vs Government of Baluchistan through Secretary, Education and 4 others1989 PLD Quetta 8 · Balochistan High Court · 1988-08-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application for admission to Baluchistan Engineering College, Khuzdar, by the Selection Committee pursuant to clause 2.12 of the Government's Admission Policy, which rendered ineligible candidates who passed Matriculation or F.Sc. from outside Baluchistan without satisfying the committee that the reasons were beyond their control. The core legal questions were whether clause 2.12 of the admission policy violated Article 22(4) and Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 by being discriminatory or unreasonable, and whether the Selection Committee's assessment of the petitioner's reasons could be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction. The Balochistan High Court held that clause 2.12 is a permissible regional classification aimed at protecting students of backward regions and does not violate Articles 22(4) or 25, as it applies uniformly to all students studying outside the province. The Court further held that it cannot substitute its own assessment for that of the Selection Committee regarding the validity of the petitioner's reasons under constitutional jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether clause 2.12 of the Baluchistan Engineering College Admission Policy violates Article 22(4) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Does a policy restricting college admissions for students who studied outside the province violate the right to equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Can the High Court substitute its own assessment for the Selection Committee's evaluation of the reasons given by a candidate for studying outside the province under constitutional jurisdiction?
- Friends Sons and Partnership Concern vs The Deputy Collector, Central Excise and Sales Tax, Lahore and 3 others1989 PTD 961 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-01Read full judgment →
- Friends Construction Company vs Commissioner of Income-Tax and others1989 PTD 843 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-18Read full judgment →
- Friend Sons (M/s.) And Other vs The Deputy Collector, Central Excise &PTCL 1989 CL. 385 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Francis Masih vs The State1989 MLD 3724 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
- Formica Corporation vs Pakistan Formica Ltd.1989 SCMR 361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sind refusing to grant a temporary injunction in a trademark infringement and passing-off matter. The appellant, an American company, claimed exclusive rights to the registered trademark 'Formica' for laminated plastics and alleged that the respondent company, 'Pakistan Formica Limited', was unfairly trading on its goodwill. The core legal question centered on whether the respondent's adoption of 'Formica' in its trading style infringed the appellant's trademark and was likely to deceive consumers, thereby warranting a temporary injunction. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to establish a strong prima facie case of actual or likely deception, noting that the word 'Formica' was used descriptively for laminated sheets and that the balance of convenience did not favor granting the injunction. The Court laid down that to succeed in a trademark infringement action, the plaintiff must prove trading with the mark, substantial goodwill in Pakistan, and that the defendant's use of an identical or resembling mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion in the course of trade.
Questions settled- Whether the use of a registered trademark in a corporate trading style constitutes infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1940?
- Does a plaintiff seeking a temporary injunction in a trademark matter need to prove that the defendant's use of the mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion?
- What are the essential elements a plaintiff must establish to enforce a right to a trademark against an alleged infringer?
- When does the factor of balance of convenience recede into the background in applications for temporary injunctions in intellectual property disputes?
- Food Corporation of India vs Messrs Surendra Devendra and Mohendra Transport Co1989 MLD 2137 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-12-10Read full judgment →
- Food Corporation of India And Another vs Great Eastern Shipping Co.1989 MLD 1194 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-03-28Read full judgment →
- Five Star Inc. vs M.R. Khan Through His Legal Heirs.1989 MLD 1802 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
- Fida Hussain vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Criminal Cases 396 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-24Read full judgment →
- Fida Hussain vs Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad and 2 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 52 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1988-08-31Read full judgment →
- Fida Hussain vs Earyam1989 CLC 1085 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-18Read full judgment →
- Fida Hussain and 69 others vs Punjab Road Transport Corporation1989 PLC 936 · Labour Court · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
- Fida Ahmed And Others vs Amir Masood Khan And Other1989 MLD 920 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-29Read full judgment →
- Fiazuddin vs Lahore Arts Council and another1989 PLC 106 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
- Fertiliser Corporation of India Ltd. vs State of Bihar1989 PTD 776 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-12-04Read full judgment →
- Ferozeuddin vs Government of the Punjab and others1989 SCMR 1700 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a Punjab Service Tribunal order, which had dismissed his appeal regarding seniority disputes. The petitioner had previously litigated these seniority issues before a defunct-Civil Services Tribunal and subsequently filed a writ petition in the High Court. Following the enactment of the Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act, 1974, the petitioner sought to revive the matter before the Service Tribunal, claiming abatement of the pending writ petition. The Service Tribunal initially admitted the appeal but ultimately dismissed it, ruling that the defunct-Tribunal's decisions were protected and final, and that the Service Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to sit in appeal over them. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that matters adjudicated by the defunct-Civil Services Appellate Tribunal prior to the 1974 Act constituted past and closed transactions that could not be re-agitated. The Court further affirmed that the Service Tribunal lacks the inherent power to review its own orders. The key principle established is that the finality of decisions rendered by defunct tribunals under previous ordinances remains undisturbed by the establishment of new service tribunals under the 1974 Act.
Questions settled- Does the Punjab Service Tribunal possess the inherent power to review its own orders?
- Can a matter decided by the defunct-Civil Services Appellate Tribunal be re-agitated before the Service Tribunal established under the Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act, 1974?
- Does the abatement provision in Section 8 of the Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act, 1974, allow for the revival of seniority disputes already adjudicated by a defunct tribunal?
- Feroze Khan and Another vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 726 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-27Read full judgment →
- Feroze Khan and 5 others vs M I SK I N1989 PLD Peshawar 144 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
- Feroze Din and 2 others vs Raja Abdul Rauf Khan and another1989 P Cr. L J 2158 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-08-15Read full judgment →
- Federation of Pakistan vs The General Public1989 SCMR 1688 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1988-01-17Read full judgment →
- Federation of Pakistan vs Saudad Khan and others1989 SCMR 483 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which directed the induction of the respondent into the Police Group with effect from 21-11-1979. The respondent, originally a provincial police officer, sought inclusion in the Police Group seniority list, arguing that the Federal Government had incorrectly calculated the cadre strength by excluding Frontier Constabulary posts. The Federal Service Tribunal accepted this argument, relying on a 1985 notification to presume these posts were part of the N.-W.F.P. cadre, and consequently backdated the respondent's induction. The Federation of Pakistan challenged this, contending that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the induction issue because the respondent had not exhausted departmental remedies regarding the specific decision made while the appeal was pending. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that a 1986 corrigendum corrected the initial erroneous inclusion of Frontier Constabulary posts under the N.-W.F.P. cadre. The Supreme Court found that the legal points raised regarding the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction and the effect of the corrigendum warranted further examination, and thus granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a Service Tribunal adjudicate a matter that was not the subject of a departmental appeal as required by the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- Does the inclusion of posts in a cadre list by a notification create a vested right if a subsequent corrigendum corrects the allocation?
- Is a Service Tribunal empowered to interfere with a departmental decision that was made while an appeal was pending, without a fresh departmental remedy being exhausted?
- Federation of Pakistan vs Muhammad Az1m Khan and others1989 SCMR 1271 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by the Federal Government under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 examines whether the Service Tribunal erred in treating the respondent's service appeal as within time. The respondent's services as an Assistant Superintendent of Police were terminated on 15 July 1979 under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. He filed a departmental representation on 8 September 1979, which was rejected by the Establishment Division on 22 October 1979. He subsequently filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal on 26 January 1980. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, as it was filed beyond 120 days from the date of the representation or 30 days from its disposal, and that an erroneous prior view of the law taken by the Tribunal does not constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay. The appeal is accepted, the Tribunal's judgment is set aside, and the service appeal is dismissed as time-barred.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal filed before the Service Tribunal beyond 120 days of filing a departmental representation or 30 days of its rejection is barred by limitation?
- Can a previous erroneous view of the law taken by a Service Tribunal serve as a sufficient ground for the condonation of delay?
- Does a departmental representation addressed improperly to the Establishment Secretary instead of the President constitute substantial compliance when endorsed to the President?
- Federation of Pakistan vs Khawaja Muhammad Yousaf And 4 Other1989 CLC 2249 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
- Federation of Pakistan vs Aitzaz Ahsan and anothers1989 PLD Supreme Court 61 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment which held that Ordinances requiring the production of a National Identity Card as a condition for receiving a ballot paper contravened Article 51(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal question was whether such a requirement imposed an unconstitutional clog on the entitlement of a qualified voter to cast their vote. The High Court had ruled that voters could establish identity through alternative means. Upon hearing the parties, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. By a majority, the Court suspended the operation of the High Court’s judgment pending the final decision. The Court held that, as a principle of constitutional interpretation, a law should maintain its normal operation until finally declared ultra vires. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that the balance of convenience favored the petitioner, as the identity card requirement served to prevent bogus voting and ensured the integrity of the election process, thereby upholding the constitutional mandate that elections be conducted honestly, justly, and fairly.
Questions settled- Does a requirement to produce a National Identity Card to receive a ballot paper constitute an unconstitutional clog on the right to vote under Article 51(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Should the operation of a High Court judgment be suspended pending an appeal when the balance of convenience favors the petitioner in an election context?
- Can sub-constitutional legislation mandate the production of an identity card as the sole proof of identity for voters?
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and anothers vs Gul Hasan Khan1989 PLD Supreme Court 633 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1989-07-05Read full judgment →
- Federation of Pakistan Through Ministry Of Defence, Islamabad vs Nazir1989 CLC 411 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-12-10Read full judgment →
- Federation of Pakistan Haji Muhammad Saifullah vs Muhammad Akram Shaikh Federation of Pakistan1989 PLD Supreme Court 689 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition filed by the Federation of Pakistan seeking the recusal of three Supreme Court judges from a review bench, alleging they were "judges in their own cause" because their appointments occurred during a period whose legality was under challenge. The core legal question was whether judges are disqualified from hearing a case when their own appointments might be affected by the outcome of the interpretation of a previous judgment. The Court rejected the application, holding that the principle of "no man shall be a judge in his own cause" is not attracted when the challenge concerns the legitimacy of the entire legal order or governmental acts. The Court affirmed that judges are the sole arbiters of their own impartiality and that the doctrine of necessity prevents the disqualification of judges when no other competent tribunal exists. The key principle laid down is that while the rule against bias is fundamental, it does not apply to general challenges against the legal order, and speculative or contingent interests do not disqualify a judge.
Questions settled- Does the principle that 'no man shall be a judge in his own cause' apply to judges whose appointments are questioned during a general challenge to the legal order?
- Can a party to a litigation claim a right to be tried by a particular judge or judges of their choice?
- Is a judge disqualified from hearing a case if they have a contingent or speculative interest in the outcome?
- Does the doctrine of necessity allow a judge to hear a case despite allegations of bias?
- Federation of Pakistan and others vs Rais Khan1989 SCMR 935 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, whereby the respondent's appeal regarding his promotion from Grade B-17 to Grade B-18 was allowed, treating it as a regular promotion rather than on an acting charge basis. The core legal question concerns whether ad hoc or temporary service rendered in Grade B-17 can be counted towards length of service for regular promotion to Grade B-18 and whether such promotion made in the presence of required experience constitutes a regular promotion. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that ad hoc or temporary appointments do not confer rights to seniority or count towards length of service for promotion, relying on established precedent.
Questions settled- Whether ad hoc or temporary service counts towards length of service for regular promotion to a higher grade?
- Does an ad hoc appointment confer any right to seniority under the civil service laws?
- When can an appointment to a higher grade be deemed to have been made on a regular basis rather than on an acting charge basis?
- Federation of Pakistan and others vs Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Federation of Pakistan appealed against a High Court decision declaring the dissolution of the National and Provincial Assemblies unconstitutional. The core legal question was whether the President’s power to dissolve the National Assembly under Article 58(2)(b) of the Constitution is absolute and immune from judicial review, or if it is subject to scrutiny. The Supreme Court held that the President’s discretion is not absolute but qualified, requiring an objective formation of opinion based on facts that the constitutional machinery has broken down. The Court found the grounds cited for dissolution were extraneous and lacked the necessary nexus to the constitutional preconditions. Consequently, the dissolution orders were declared unsustainable in law. However, in exercising its discretionary writ jurisdiction, the Court declined to restore the Assemblies, prioritizing the national interest in holding the scheduled general elections to avoid further political chaos. The judgment established that while the President possesses discretionary power, such power is subject to judicial review to ensure it is exercised reasonably, fairly, and within the limits prescribed by the Constitution, preventing arbitrary or whimsical exercise of authority.
Questions settled- Is the President's power to dissolve the National Assembly under Article 58(2)(b) of the Constitution absolute and immune from judicial review?
- Must the President's opinion regarding the breakdown of the constitutional machinery be based on objective facts?
- Can a court decline to grant relief even after finding an executive action unconstitutional?
- Does the absence of a Prime Minister in a caretaker cabinet violate the constitutional requirement for a cabinet?
- Federation of Pakistan and Other vs Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan and OtherK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases -138, K.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 138 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against a High Court judgment regarding the dissolution of the National and Provincial Assemblies by the President and Governors in May 1988. The core legal question was whether the President’s power to dissolve the National Assembly under Article 58(2)(b) of the Constitution is absolute and immune from judicial scrutiny, or whether it is subject to review. The Court held that the President’s discretion is not absolute; it must be based on objective facts and have a clear nexus with the constitutional pre-conditions—specifically, that the government cannot function in accordance with the Constitution. The Court found the grounds provided for dissolution were vague, extraneous, and lacked the required nexus, rendering the dissolution order unsustainable in law. However, despite finding the dissolution unconstitutional, the Court declined to grant the relief of restoring the assemblies. It reasoned that the writ jurisdiction is discretionary, and in the interest of the nation—which was already preparing for general elections—restoring the assemblies would cause chaos. The principle established is that while executive discretion is subject to judicial review, the grant of relief remains discretionary based on the collective good.
Questions settled- Is the President's power to dissolve the National Assembly under Article 58(2)(b) of the Constitution of Pakistan subject to judicial review?
- Must the grounds for the dissolution of the National Assembly under Article 58(2)(b) have an objective nexus with the constitutional pre-conditions?
- Can a court decline to grant relief in a writ petition even after finding the impugned executive action to be unconstitutional?
- Does the Constitution of Pakistan require the appointment of a Prime Minister to head a caretaker cabinet following the dissolution of the National Assembly?
- Federal Land Commissioner and others vs Muhammad Aslam Khan and others1989 SCMR 6 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comprises two civil appeals arising from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which accepted a writ petition challenging a notice issued by the Federal Land Commission for suo motu revision under paragraph 29 of Martial Law Regulation 115. The core legal question was whether the Federal Land Commission possessed the jurisdiction under paragraph 29 of Martial Law Regulation 115 (as amended) to reopen and revise ownership rights and title settlements that had been granted and recognized by the Government itself rather than by a Commission or authority appointed under the land reforms regulations, and which had been affirmed through civil court litigation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that paragraph 29 as amended limits revisional powers exclusively to orders passed by a Commission or authority appointed under Martial Law Regulation 115 or the repealed Martial Law Regulation 64. Since the respondents' recognition as owners originated from an executive order of the Government of West Pakistan and was subsequently upheld by civil courts, the Federal Land Commission lacked the authority to invoke suo motu revisional jurisdiction to unsettle their title.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Land Commission can invoke suo motu revisional jurisdiction under paragraph 29 of Martial Law Regulation 115 against an order passed directly by the Government rather than a Commission or authority?
- Does paragraph 29 of Martial Law Regulation 115 extend to revise orders or decisions made under the repealed Martial Law Regulation 64 by authorities other than those specifically appointed under the regulations?
- Whether vested rights of ownership affirmed through civil court litigation can be reopened through executive or revisional proceedings under land reform regulations?
- Federal Land Commission and others vs S. Ghulam Nabi Shah and others1989 SCMR 210 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two civil appeals arising from the Federal Land Commission's exercise of suo motu revisional powers under the Land Reforms Regulation 1972. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could interfere with the Federal Land Commission's findings of fact regarding the validity of land gifts made by the respondents. The Federal Land Commission had declared these gifts void, alleging manipulation of revenue records and anti-dating. The High Court set aside these orders, finding they were based on misreading of evidence, surmises, and conjectures. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the High Court correctly exercised its constitutional jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that where an administrative authority's findings are based on a misreading of evidence or are otherwise perverse, the High Court is empowered to intervene. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the Land Reforms Regulation, being confiscatory in nature, allows for judicial scrutiny of facts in constitutional jurisdiction to ensure that findings of fact by the revising authority are not arbitrary or unsupported by the material on record.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with findings of fact made by the Federal Land Commission in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does the Federal Land Commission have the authority to inquire into the bona fides of a gift made in favour of an heir under the Land Reforms Regulation 1972?
- Is the High Court empowered to set aside orders of a revising authority that are based on a misreading of evidence or conjectures?
- Federal Government of Pakistan and others vs Muhammad Sarwar1989 PLD Supreme Court 377 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the interplay between customs adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution for smuggling under the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal question was whether an acquittal by a Special Judge (Customs) regarding smuggled goods necessitates the nullification of prior administrative confiscation orders, particularly considering the application of the now-repealed Section 179-A of the Customs Act, 1969. The Supreme Court held that Section 179-A was enacted to prevent double jeopardy by making adjudication orders subject to the findings of the Special Judge. Although Section 179-A was subsequently repealed, the Court ruled that under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the respondent acquired a vested right to the benefit of the acquittal once the state’s appeals against the acquittals were withdrawn. Consequently, the adjudication orders, which failed to account for the finality of the criminal acquittals, were rightly declared void. The principle established is that where a statute provides for the subordination of administrative adjudication to criminal judicial findings, the repeal of that statute does not extinguish vested rights to the benefit of final acquittals.
Questions settled- Does the repeal of Section 179-A of the Customs Act, 1969, extinguish a vested right to the benefit of an acquittal obtained while the section was in force?
- Are administrative adjudication orders under the Customs Act, 1969, void if they fail to conform to a final acquittal order passed by a Special Judge (Customs)?
- Does the withdrawal of an appeal against an acquittal by the state render the acquittal final for the purposes of adjudication proceedings?
- Fazalurrehman vs Mst. Sosan Jan and others1989 SCMR 651 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a pre-emption suit where leave was granted to examine whether a Nikahnama is admissible as an instrument of transfer of property without compulsory registration, and whether the appellant-vendee was entitled to protection as a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. The concurrent findings of the lower courts and the High Court held that the Nikahnama serves as a contemporaneous record of past events and marriage solemnization rather than a compulsorily registerable instrument of transfer, and that the Nikahnama is admissible in evidence. Furthermore, the courts denied protection under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, finding that the appellant failed to conduct a diligent inquiry by neglecting to inspect the Nikahnama regarding the recent transfer of land in lieu of dower. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a Nikahnama is not an instrument of transfer requiring registration and that a vendee must make thorough inquiries, including verifying public records such as the Nikahnama, to claim bona fide protection.
Questions settled- Is a Nikahnama prepared under section 5 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 compulsorily registerable where it mentions the alienation of property in lieu of dower?
- Whether a Nikahnama can be considered an instrument or document of transfer of property or merely a record of past events?
- Can a vendee claim protection as a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 without inspecting the Nikahnama in cases of recent transactions?
- Fazal-Ur-Rehman vs Secretary Forests, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 31989 PLC (C.S.) 749 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1959-05-31Read full judgment →
- Fazal, Qadir vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 108 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-10-15Read full judgment →
- Fazal Rahim And 7 Others vs Mst Sultan Parwar Begum And Another1989 CLC 118 · Board of Revenue · 1988-09-22Read full judgment →
- Fazal Muhammad And Others vs Sarwar Khan And Other1989 CLC 2359 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-08-05Read full judgment →
- Fazal Muhammad And Others vs Ghulam Through Legal Heirs1989 MLD 3434 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-10Read full judgment →
- Fazal Mabood vs Additional Secretary, Kashmir Affairs and Northern1989 PLC (C.S.) 172 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-10-09Read full judgment →
- Fazal Khursheed vs Agha Jawed Raza1989 MLD 346 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-17Read full judgment →
- Fazal Khursheed vs Agha Javed Raza1989 SCMR 957 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court, which upheld an eviction order against the petitioner for alleged default in rent payment. The petitioner was a tenant of the original landlady and continued depositing rent in court after she sold the property to the respondent. Upon receiving a notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, the petitioner requested proof of the transfer, specifically a copy of the registered sale deed, before acknowledging the respondent as the new landlord. The respondent failed to provide this documentation and instead initiated ejectment proceedings. The Rent Controller and the High Court ordered eviction, deeming the petitioner a defaulter. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the petitioner’s request for proof of title was justified. Since the petitioner consistently deposited rent in court, the failure of the respondent to substantiate his status as the new landlord meant the petitioner’s non-payment to the respondent did not constitute default. The eviction order was suspended pending the final appeal.
Questions settled- Is a tenant justified in withholding rent payment to a new landlord until proof of property transfer is provided?
- Does a tenant's failure to pay rent directly to a new landlord constitute default when the tenant has requested proof of ownership?
- Can a landlord initiate ejectment proceedings for default when they have failed to respond to a tenant's request for verification of title?
- Fazal Karim and others Itaqir Muhammad-- Latifur Rehman and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 764 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These consolidated civil appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from pre-emption suits involving purchases of small parcels of land from co-sharers in joint khata/property under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act. The core legal issue was whether a vendee seeking exemption from pre-emption under Section 5(c) of the Act for purchasing land to construct a house must either purchase a partitioned holding or obtain the prior consent of all other co-sharers. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of the vendees (and dismissed the appeal against exemption), holding that Section 5(c) contains no statutory condition requiring prior partition or consent of co-sharers before purchasing joint land. The Court ruled that a vendee purchasing an undivided share steps into the shoes of the vendor qua ownership rights and can subsequently get their share separated through partition to construct a house. Thus, where all conditions of Section 5(c) are met, the sale remains protected from pre-emption regardless of lack of prior consent or partition.
Questions settled- Must a vendee seeking exemption under Section 5(c) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act purchase a partitioned holding or obtain prior consent of all co-sharers?
- Does a vendee who purchases an undivided share in joint land step into the shoes of the vendor to seek partition for constructing a house?
- Can a pre-emption suit succeed against a purchaser of joint property who otherwise fulfills all conditions of Section 5(c) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act?
- Fazal Hussain vs Karim And 17 Other1989 MLD 1093 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
- Fazal Haig vs Pakistan Engineering Co. Ltd. and others1989 PLC 490 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
- Fazal Elaiii Malik, Assistant Botanist (Millet) Agricultural Research1989 PLC (C.S.) 70 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1988-12-05Read full judgment →
- Fazal Elahi vs Jalal Din and 17 others1989 PLD Azad J&K 42 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-01-28Read full judgment →
- Fazal Elahi and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1147 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
- Fazal Din vs The Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Finance1989 SCMR 1758 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Fazal Din, an ex-Accountant of the Jhang Treasury Office, challenging the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 23-2-1981, which had dismissed his service appeal against the order of his dismissal from service. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal committed any error of law in dismissing the petitioner's appeal and whether the case involved any question of public importance warranting interference. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal provided cogent reasons for its decision and that no error of law or question of public importance was made out. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the dismissal of the service appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal against a service tribunal judgment where no error of law is pointed out?
- Does a service matter concerning dismissal from service necessarily involve a question of public importance?
- Fazal Dad And Another vs Rehmat Khan1989 CLC 988 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-19Read full judgment →
- Fazal and others vs Allah Ditta and others1989 SCMR 1246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed their revision petition and upheld the Additional District Judge's decreeing of the respondents' civil suit for declaration and eviction regarding a Haveli situated in village Jamalpur. The petitioners, claiming long-standing occupation since the time of their forefathers as Mueens of the village, contested the eviction sought by the respondents, who were owners in the village and described as Malkan-e-Deh. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the core legal question involved whether owners in the village could evict the occupants, which required examination in light of entries in the Wajab-ul-arz and other settlement records. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, directed both parties to produce all relevant documents including Wajab-ul-arz and Rewaj-e-Aam from earliest and latest settlements, ordered security for costs, and granted an interim stay against the dispossession of the petitioners during the pendency of the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether village owners can seek the eviction of occupants from a Haveli located in the Abadi-Deh?
- How do the entries in the Wajab-ul-arz and settlement records affect the rights of village proprietors to evict long-standing occupants?
- Fazal Akhtar vs District and Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi and another1989 SCMR 999 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 7-6-1988, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his dismissal from service. The petitioner, serving as a Naib-Qasid, was dismissed from service following disciplinary proceedings on allegations of demanding illegal gratification from a complainant in a pending murder case. The core legal questions raised involve whether a major penalty could lawfully be imposed upon the petitioner based solely on the solitary statement of the complainant, and whether previously established principles of the Supreme Court regarding such inquiries were duly followed. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions, ordering the appeal to be fixed for an early hearing.
Questions settled- Could a major penalty be imposed upon the petitioner on the solitary statement of the complainant?
- Whether the law laid down by the Supreme Court in earlier judgments has been followed in this case?
- Fazal Abbas vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1801 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-18Read full judgment →
- Fayyaz Hussain vs The State1989 SCMR 611 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal conviction for murder. The petitioner, Fayyaz Hussain, was convicted by the trial court under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his father, Sain Khadim Hussain, along with his brothers who were later acquitted by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the evidence, specifically ocular testimony regarding the petitioner's role and the alleged common intention of the co-accused, was sufficient to sustain the conviction and death sentence. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, finding that the ocular testimony of the natural witnesses—the deceased's daughters and son-in-law—was credible and established that the petitioner fired the fatal shot. The Court held that while the co-accused's presence was likely, the prosecution failed to prove their common intention beyond reasonable doubt, justifying their acquittal. The Court affirmed that where the evidence is consistent and witnesses are natural, the conviction is sound, and no principle of criminal justice was violated in the lower courts' appreciation of evidence.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on ocular testimony when the co-accused are acquitted due to lack of proof of common intention?
- Does the presence of an accused at the scene of a crime automatically establish common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the testimony of natural witnesses, such as family members, reliable in a murder case where they testify against their own brothers?
- Fayyaz Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 784 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-11Read full judgment →
- Fauzia Jamil vs Syed Farhat Hussain Shah Bokhari and another1989 P Cr. L J 1736 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed seeking the restoration of custody of a minor child, Shah Rukh, to his mother, the petitioner, following her divorce from the respondent. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to restore custody of a minor child to the mother when such custody was allegedly disturbed illegally, despite the existence of alternative remedies under the Guardians and Wards Act. The Court held that the petition should be allowed, ordering the immediate restoration of the minor's custody to the mother. The Court reasoned that the minor, being under three years of age, required the care of his biological mother, who is entitled to custody under Islamic law until the child reaches seven years of age. The Court established the principle that while disputes regarding guardianship are ordinarily to be decided by a Guardian Court, the High Court may intervene in exceptional cases to restore custody that has been disturbed illegally or improperly, pending a final determination of the child's welfare by the competent court.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to restore the custody of a minor child?
- Is a mother entitled to the custody of a male child under the age of seven years under Mahomedan Law?
- Does the existence of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 preclude the High Court from intervening in exceptional cases of illegal custody of a minor?
- Fauji Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Employees' Union and another1989 PLC 218 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-17Read full judgment →
- Fauji Foundation Trust vs The Government of Pakistan and 2 others1989 PTD 1299 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-17Read full judgment →
- Fauji Foundation Trust (M/s.) vs The Government Of Pakistan And TwoPTCL1989 CL. 701 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-17Read full judgment →
- Fauji Fertilizer Co. Ltd. vs Muhammad Azam Khan1989 PLC 397 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-07-18Read full judgment →
- Fatta And 3 Others vs The State1989 MLD 4012 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-10Read full judgment →
- Fatima Bibi vs Noor Dad1989 MLD 2945 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
- Fatima Bibi And Others vs Muhammad Sabir And Other1989 MLD 2958 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-17Read full judgment →
- Fatehally Chemical Mehnatkash Union (C.Ba.) vs Registrar of Trade1989 PLC 191 · Sindh High Court · 1988-04-20Read full judgment →
- Fateh Sher Etc. vs Mst. Aziz BegumK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 87 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-06Read full judgment →
- Fateh Sher and others vs Member Board of Revenue (Cons.) and others1989 SCMR 284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a consolidation matter where land-owners challenged the dismissal of their writ petition by the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners can resile from a concession made before the Additional Commissioner regarding the exchange of land plots containing their built-up property, based on alleged unfulfilled conditions. The Supreme Court held that interference with the impugned judgment is unjustified as the decision is founded on a clear admission made by the petitioners' counsel, and the purported conditions now raised were neither agitated below nor formed part of the record. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot subsequently reopen a concluded matter or challenge an adverse finding that is based on a binding concession and acquiescence before a competent forum.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge an order or reopen a consolidation dispute after making a clear concession before the lower authority?
- Whether reliance on a legal concession can be invalidated by conditions that were not agitated or established during the prior proceedings?
- Fateh Muhammad vs The Registrar, Trade Unions And Another1989 MLD 584 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhammad vs Said Rasul and 7 others1989 SCMR 2018 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed by the defendant against the dismissal of his two civil revisions by the High Court, which upheld the lower courts' decisions in favor of the respondents regarding an alienation by a minor. The core legal question concerned whether a fresh suit could be instituted after an earlier suit was dismissed in default for non-prosecution, alongside a question of limitation. The Supreme Court held that the contention regarding the dismissal in default could not be entertained as it was not raised before the High Court, and that the concurrent findings of fact on limitation and merits against the petitioner did not warrant interference. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the decision on merits was fair and the case was unfit for further appeal. The key principle established is that grounds not raised before the High Court cannot be urged for the first time in the Supreme Court, and concurrent findings of fact on limitation and merits will not be disturbed absent legal infirmity.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a new legal ground before the Supreme Court that was not raised before the High Court?
- Does the dismissal of a suit in default for non-prosecution bar a fresh institution on the same cause of action if the question was never agitated below?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding limitation and merits?
- Fateh Muhammad vs Government of Baluchistan and others1989 SCMR 407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an eligible candidate for admission to Bolan Medical College, Quetta, sought leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court of Baluchistan denying him admission for the academic years 1986-87 and 1987-88. The petitioner passed his qualifying examinations from Larkana but claimed local residency in Kharan District, Baluchistan. His admission was refused pursuant to Instruction No. 30, which requires candidates to have passed their Matriculation and Intermediate Science examinations from Baluchistan, subject to an exemption by the Selection Committee for cogent reasons. The core legal questions concerned whether Instruction No. 30 was ultra vires constitutional guarantees and unreasonable, whether it had retrospective application, and whether the petitioner fulfilled the requirement of satisfying the Selection Committee. The Supreme Court held that the constitutional grounds were not raised before the High Court, that no vested right exists in admission conditions prior to selection, and that the petitioner failed to place material before the Selection Committee to justify an exemption. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused, laying down that candidates must substantiate grounds for exemption to the satisfaction of selection authorities and that admission rules applied prior to the application stage do not involve retrospectivity.
Questions settled- Does a candidate acquire a vested right in conditions of admission to an educational institution merely upon acquiring academic qualifications?
- Whether Instruction No. 30 requiring candidates to pass examinations from Baluchistan can be applied to an admission year occurring after the rules were changed?
- Is a local residence certificate by itself sufficient without satisfying the Selection Committee under the applicable admission instructions?
- Fateh Muhammad vs Dilawar Khan and 3 others1989 SCMR 1145 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 4-6-1985, which set aside an order of the Board of Revenue allotting an Ihata in a Colony District to the petitioner. The core legal question concerns the legality of allotting an Ihata to the petitioner without conducting a proper inquiry and affording an opportunity of being heard to the respondent, Dilawar Khan, who was already in possession of the said property. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly declared the Board of Revenue's allotment order to be without lawful authority due to the misreading and ignoring of relevant record, as the respondent's possession had never been duly proved to be unauthorised. The court established the principle that possession cannot be brushed aside as unauthorised without formal inquiry, notice, and a definitive finding, whilst clarifying that aggrieved parties may approach competent authorities if specific disqualifications or multiple allotments are subsequently alleged.
Questions settled- Whether an allotment of an Ihata can be made without issuing notice and holding an inquiry into the status of an existing occupant?
- Does misreading and ignoring the relevant record by a revenue authority render its order without lawful authority?
- Can a person's possession be deemed unauthorised without a formal finding by a competent authority?
- Fateh Muhammad vs Abdul Sattar1989 MLD 4772 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-12Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhammad Shah vs Mst. Noor Bukht1989M L D 5002 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-22Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhammad and others vs Deputy Commissioner. Toba Tek Singh1989 PLD Lahore 473 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-11Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhammad and others vs Alif Din through legal Heirs1989 SCMR 1437 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land in Tehsil Chakwal, which was dismissed by the trial court, the appellate court, and subsequently the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to a right of pre-emption over land purchased by the respondents' predecessor-in-interest, Alif Din. The Supreme Court observed that Alif Din was a person displaced and affected by the construction of the Mangla Dam. Under specific governmental instructions issued by the Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, individuals affected by the Mangla Dam project were exempted from the right of pre-emption regarding the sale of agricultural land within specified acreage limits and immovable property below a certain value. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly applied this exemption, as the petitioners themselves admitted in their plaint that the respondent's predecessor was a Mangla Dam affectee. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that statutory or administrative exemptions regarding pre-emption rights for displaced persons must be upheld when the factual criteria are met.
Questions settled- Does a right of pre-emption exist against the sale of land to persons displaced and affected by the construction of the Mangla Dam?
- Can a court dismiss a pre-emption suit based on administrative notifications exempting specific classes of persons from pre-emption claims?
- Fateh Muhammad and another vs Fazal Karim and another1989 SCMR 795 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil revision by the High Court in a dispute involving a Benami property purchase. The petitioners, who are brothers of the respondent, claimed that they jointly purchased the property with the respondent, contributing equal shares to the price, but that the sale deed was executed solely in the name of the respondent as a Benamidar. While the trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the petitioners, the first appellate court reversed this finding, and the High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioners' civil revision. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their findings of fact regarding the Benami nature of the transaction. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any infirmity in the concurrent findings of the appellate and High Court. Furthermore, the petitioners could not provide a satisfactory explanation for why the property was purchased exclusively in the name of one brother if all three had contributed to the price. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Does a failure to explain why a property was purchased in the name of only one party when multiple parties claim contribution undermine a claim of Benami purchase?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the first appellate court and the High Court in a civil revision?
- Fateh Muhammad and 6 others vs Suba Khan1989 SCMR 1574 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by plaintiffs whose suit for possession of land was dismissed by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the document relied upon by the respondent constituted an acknowledgement of a past oral sale or an agreement to sell, and whether the respondent’s possession of the suit land could be maintained based on that document. Upon reviewing the document, the Court found that the language used indicated that an oral sale had already been completed, and the document functioned as an acknowledgement of that transaction or an agreement to facilitate the mutation of revenue records. The Court held that regardless of whether the document was viewed as an acknowledgement of a prior completed sale or an agreement to complete mutation proceedings, the petitioners' position remained untenable. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's interpretation of the document, finding no merit in the petition. The principle laid down is that the legal effect of a document must be determined by reading it as a whole, particularly when interpreting terms regarding prior oral sales and subsequent mutation obligations.
Questions settled- Does a document acknowledging a completed oral sale and promising mutation of revenue records constitute an agreement to sell?
- Can a party in possession of land retain it if the document relied upon is interpreted as an acknowledgement of a prior completed oral sale?
- Fateh Bibi vs Haji Sawal Khan And Other1989 MLD 3686 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-11Read full judgment →
- Fasahat Ali Khan vs Government of Sind<p>through Chief Secretary and1989 PLC (C.S.) 318 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
- Farzand Ali, Exforest Guard, Bahawalpur vs Secretary to Government of Punjab, Forest and Fisheries Department and another1989 SCMR 1757 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 31-7-1985, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his dismissal from service. The petitioner, formerly a Forest Guard, was issued a show-cause notice proposing minor penalties of withholding promotion and censure following a departmental inquiry. However, the Chief Conservator of Forests ultimately dismissed him from service through a consolidated order encompassing several unrelated cases against other officers. The core legal question concerns the legality of imposing a major penalty of dismissal when notice was given only for minor penalties, and the prejudice caused by a consolidated order. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the disproportionate penalty and consolidated order deserve consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine these issues, laying down that an employee cannot be awarded a major penalty without proper notice and that consolidated orders in disparate cases may cause legal prejudice.
Questions settled- Whether an employee can be awarded a major penalty of dismissal when the show-cause notice proposed only minor penalties?
- Does the passing of a consolidated dismissal order involving multiple unrelated cases cause legal prejudice to a delinquent employee?
- Can the Service Tribunal sustain a penalty that exceeds the scope of the original show-cause notice?
- Farzand Ali Etc vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 354 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-31Read full judgment →
- Farzand Ali and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2084 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-31Read full judgment →
- Farzand Ali and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 484 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
- Farzana Shaheen vs Malik Muhammad Iobal1989 MLD 3888 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-01Read full judgment →
- Faryad Ali Babar And Others vs The State1989 MLD 3249 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-29Read full judgment →
- Faroq Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1520 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-02Read full judgment →
- Farooq vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 57 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-19Read full judgment →
- Farooq vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 348 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-25Read full judgment →
- Farooq and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 638 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-19Read full judgment →
- Farookh Hamid Rizvi And 2 Others vs The Managing Director, Pak Arab1989 MLD 1228 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-19Read full judgment →
- Farman And Others vs The State1989 MLD 2712 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
- Farman Ali and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 727 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-10Read full judgment →
- Farman Akhtar vs Haji Muhammad Sharif1989 SCMR 592 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which upheld the eviction of the appellant from the suit premises on the grounds of default in rent payment. The primary legal question addressed was whether a security deposit of Rs. 1,000 held by the respondent-landlord could be adjusted against the rent arrears to negate the default. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that even if the security deposit were adjustable, the amount was insufficient to cover the entire period of default, leaving a substantial, unexplained arrears balance. Furthermore, an examination of the rent deed revealed that the security deposit was not contractually intended for adjustment against rent. The Court also noted that any perceived conflict in previous case law regarding such adjustments had been resolved by the Supreme Court's decision in Zarina Khawaja v. Mahboob Shah. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, though the Court granted the appellant four months to vacate the premises upon an undertaking to surrender possession without execution proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a security deposit held by a landlord be adjusted against rent arrears to prevent eviction for default?
- Does the insufficiency of a security deposit to cover total rent arrears render the default unexplained?
- Farid alias Kala and others vs The State and 4 others1989 SCMR 939 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced under sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and attempt to murder. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully established its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent ocular and medical evidence, and whether the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused and defense witnesses vitiated the conviction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the ocular testimony was discrepant, interested, and directly contradicted by the medical evidence and site plan, particularly regarding the nature of the weapons used and the presence of cross-firing. The Court laid down the principle that where eye-witnesses suppress injuries sustained by the accused and fail to explain material contradictions with circumstantial and medical evidence, the prosecution's case becomes doubtful, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Whether a criminal conviction can be sustained when the ocular testimony is in direct conflict with the medical evidence and site plan?
- Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused during the occurrence render the eyewitness account unreliable?
- Whether the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused when the prosecution fails to establish motive and presents discrepant testimony?
- Farid Ahmed vs Additional District Judge And Other1989 MLD 3048 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-04Read full judgment →
- Fareed Yaqub Ali vs Haji Muhammad Tahir1989 PLD Quetta 16 · Balochistan High Court · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
- Faqirullah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 438 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-01Read full judgment →
- Faqir Sain vs Executive Engineer, M & T Division WAPDA, Gujranwala1989 PLC (C.S.) 237 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-10-19Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 112 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-10Read full judgment →