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.
- Faqir Muhammad vs The Distt. Judge, Kasur Etc.K.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 35 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-15Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad vs The District Judge, Kasur1989 MLD 184 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-15Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad vs Mst. Zohra Bai Abdul Hussain1989 CLC 1185 · Sindh High Court · 1988-04-27Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad vs Hassan Shah and 4 others1989 SCMR 1206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a defendant against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court in a suit for possession through redemption. The petitioner challenged the lower courts' findings regarding the valuation of improvements made on the disputed land, arguing that he was awarded insufficient compensation and was denied an adequate opportunity to lead evidence on this issue. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in relying on the report of a Local Commissioner/Referee without affording the petitioner further opportunity to produce evidence. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner had failed to request the production of evidence or insist on the framing of a specific issue regarding the value of improvements during the trial proceedings. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner could not fault the trial court for failing to perform its duty when he had not sought to present evidence himself. Finding no impropriety in the impugned orders, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a party claim that a trial court failed to provide an opportunity to lead evidence if the party did not request to produce such evidence during the trial?
- Is a trial court justified in relying on the report of a Local Commissioner/Referee when the parties have not requested the framing of a specific issue regarding the subject matter of the report?
- Does the failure to request the framing of an issue regarding the value of improvements preclude a party from challenging the award of compensation in revision?
- Faqir Muhammad vs Ghulam Muhammad1989 SCMR 1136 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's Civil Revision in a suit for possession of a house. The trial court had initially dismissed the respondent's suit on the grounds of limitation and adverse possession, but the appellate court reversed these findings. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had established the claim of adverse possession over the property in dispute. The Supreme Court held that the burden of proving adverse possession rested heavily on the petitioner. Crucially, the petitioner had previously admitted in a complaint before a Magistrate to being a tenant under the respondent. The Court rejected the petitioner's explanation that this admission referred to a different property, characterizing it as an afterthought. Finding no infirmity in the concurrent findings of fact rendered against the petitioner, the Court dismissed the petition. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a clear admission of tenancy by a party claiming adverse possession is fatal to that claim.
Questions settled- Does an admission of tenancy before a Magistrate negate a claim of adverse possession?
- Can a petitioner successfully claim adverse possession after admitting to being a tenant under the plaintiff?
- Is a finding of fact regarding adverse possession subject to interference when based on an admission of tenancy?
- Faqir Muhammad Etc vs Ghulam MuhammadK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 52 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad and others vs Haji Inayatullah and others1989 SCMR 1216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises out of the dismissal of the petitioner's application for amendment of his plaint at the appellate stage, following the dismissal of his original suit by the trial court. While his first appeal was still pending, the petitioner filed a revision petition in the High Court challenging the interlocutory order regarding the amendment, which the High Court dismissed on merits. Upon seeking leave to appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan converted the petition into an appeal and upheld the dismissal, albeit on a different ground: that the revision petition was premature because the first appeal was still pending before the appellate court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with the observation that the points raised regarding the amendment of the plaint could be urged before the High Court if the appellants eventually failed before the first appellate court. The key principle laid down is that a revision petition against an interlocutory order refusing the amendment of a plaint is premature while the main appeal remains pending before the first appellate court.
Questions settled- Whether a revision petition against the dismissal of an application for amendment of a plaint is premature while the main appeal is still pending before the first appellate court?
- Can a party challenge the dismissal of an amendment application before the High Court through a revision petition while the first appeal remains undecided?
- Faqir Hussain and 3 others vs Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 73 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1988-06-28Read full judgment →
- Faqir Bakhsh And Another vs The State1989 MLD 822 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
- Famous Corporation (M/s.) vs Collector Of Customs (Appraisement)PTCL 1989 CL. 312 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
- Falak Sher vs The State1989 MLD 4467 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-10Read full judgment →
- Falak Sher vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 375 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
- Falak Sher vs Sachal and another1989 P Cr. L J 1051 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-09Read full judgment →
- Falak Sher Khan and anothers vs Secretary to Government of Punjab Agriculture Department and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 562 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses two appeals concerning a seniority dispute among Graduate Agriculture Engineers in Punjab. The core legal questions revolved around the maintainability of appeals before the Punjab Service Tribunal. Specifically, whether a representation to a departmental authority, in this case, the Governor as the appointing authority, was a mandatory pre-condition for appealing a final seniority list issued by a Secretary, and whether an appeal filed before the expiry of the statutory 90-day period after such representation was competent. The Supreme Court held that a representation to the next higher authority (the Governor) is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, read with Section 21(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, even if the order was made by a Secretary under delegated powers. The Court also affirmed that an appeal to the Tribunal is incompetent if filed before the mandatory 90-day period has elapsed from the date of preferring the representation. The case was remanded to the Service Tribunal to investigate factual aspects regarding the representations and decide the appeal's competence afresh.
Questions settled- Is a representation to a departmental authority a mandatory pre-condition for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal against a final seniority list?
- Can an appeal to the Service Tribunal be competently filed before the expiry of 90 days from the date of preferring a representation to the departmental authority?
- Who is the 'next higher authority' for the purpose of making a representation against a seniority list prepared by a Secretary under delegated powers?
- Does the issuance of a seniority list by a Secretary under delegated powers negate the requirement for a representation to the Governor as the appointing authority?
- Falak Sher Khan and anothers vs Mukhtar Ahmad and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had set aside a notification amending the West Pakistan Agriculture Service (Class I) Rules, 1965, requiring a B.Sc. degree in Agricultural Engineering for promotion to Agriculture Engineers, thereby granting relief to diploma-holder Assistant Agriculture Engineers. The core legal question was whether a civil servant has a vested right in existing promotion rules and whether a rule amendment altering eligibility criteria for promotion is justiciable. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Tribunal's order, holding that prospects of promotion do not constitute a vested right and that the Governor is fully competent to amend service rules in the interest of service efficiency to prioritize academic qualifications. The key principle laid down is that changes to promotion rules and criteria before actual promotion cannot form the basis of a legal grievance by civil servants, as promotion prospects are not justiciable.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant have a vested right in existing promotion rules prior to being actually promoted?
- Can service rules governing promotion eligibility be amended by the competent authority to give more importance to academic qualifications?
- Are prospects of promotion justiciable before a service tribunal or court?
- Falak Sher And Others vs The State1989 MLD 4634 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-10Read full judgment →
- Falak Sher and others vs Sharif and others1989 SCMR 1096 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed a constitutional petition challenging consolidation proceedings. The petitioners were aggrieved by the consolidation authorities' decision denying them the retention of 60 kanals of land situated in specific rectangles. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's writ jurisdiction under the Constitution is the appropriate forum to adjudicate grievances arising from the allocation of land during consolidation proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the High Court was justified in refusing to interfere with the orders passed by the consolidation authorities. The Court reiterated the established legal principle that writ jurisdiction is not the proper forum for agitating grievances against the allocation of land in consolidation proceedings. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the limitation of judicial review in matters specifically governed by consolidation statutes and authorities.
Questions settled- Is the High Court's writ jurisdiction the appropriate forum for agitating grievances against the allocation of land in consolidation proceedings?
- Can the High Court interfere with orders passed by consolidation authorities regarding land allocation?
- Falak Sher and others vs Khuda Bakhsh and others1989 SCMR 465 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court which upheld the decision of the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, allowing the redemption of mortgaged land. The core legal question concerned whether the respondents' application for redemption of a mortgage, originally created via a mutation attested on August 29, 1923, was time-barred. The Collector and the Additional Commissioner had initially rejected the application on the grounds of limitation. However, the Board of Revenue reversed these findings, and the High Court affirmed this reversal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the orders of the Board of Revenue and the High Court were unexceptionable. The Court affirmed the lower appellate authority's conclusion that the application for redemption of the mortgage was filed within the period of limitation prescribed by law. By dismissing the petition, the Court effectively upheld the right of the mortgagor to seek redemption, confirming that the statutory limitation period had not expired, thereby validating the procedural correctness of the Board of Revenue's decision in favor of the respondents.
Questions settled- Is an application for redemption of a mortgage filed after several decades necessarily barred by limitation?
- Does the Board of Revenue have the authority to reverse a finding on limitation made by a Collector in a redemption matter?
- Falak Sher and Other vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 52 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-10Read full judgment →
- Fakir Shah and others vs Mehtab Shah Pir Bukhari Masjid Committee and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 283 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute over the management of a Dargah and mosque, which the respondents claimed was a public waqf. The respondents filed a suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the appellants from managing the property, alleging the appellants had usurped control. The core legal question was whether the suit was barred by Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for failing to obtain the Advocate-General's prior consent. The lower courts had held the suit maintainable, reasoning that the appellants were not trustees. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the lower courts erred by relying on trial evidence rather than the plaint's averments to determine the suit's nature. The Court affirmed that to determine Section 92's applicability, one must examine the substance of the plaint. Since the plaint effectively sought to remove the appellants from the management of a public religious trust, the suit was covered by Section 92. Consequently, the Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for lack of statutory consent.
Questions settled- Does the applicability of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 depend on the averments in the plaint or the evidence adduced at trial?
- Does the term 'trustee' in Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 include de facto trustees or trustees de son tort?
- Is a suit seeking to restrain the management of a public religious trust maintainable without the prior consent of the Advocate-General under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Fakhuruddin vs Mst. Zohra Bi1989 SCMR 2017 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arising out of a challenge to a gift of agricultural land executed by Khairati in favour of his wife and daughter. The plaintiffs (including the petitioner) filed a suit for joint possession challenging the validity of the gift on the grounds of lack of delivery of possession. While the District Judge invalidated the gift for want of delivery of possession, the High Court reversed that decision, observing that the land was occupied by tenants who paid rent directly to the female donees, and holding that management by the donor was deemed on their behalf. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings, holding that constructive possession through tenant attornment and collection of rent by female donees constituted valid delivery of possession. Finding no legal infirmity in the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether delivery of possession under a gift is complete where tenants in occupation pay rent directly to the donees?
- Whether management and care of gifted property by a donor on behalf of female donees satisfies the legal requirement of delivery of possession?
- Can a gift of land occupied by tenants be invalidated for want of physical delivery of possession when constructive possession is established through attornment?
- Fakhruddin And Others vs Syed Ali Imam Rizvi And Other1989 MLD 2375 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-13Read full judgment →
- Fajjar Ali vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 149 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
- Fajjar Ali and 3 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1405 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
- Faizullah Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2217 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
- Faiz Ullah Khan vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 511 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
- Faiz Ullah Khan And 3 Others vs Pakistan Air Force through Secretary1989 MLD 2956 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
- Faiz Rasul vs The State1989 MLD 2697 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
- Faiz Muhammad vs The State1989 SCMR 1804 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the petitioner's conviction and death sentence under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for double murder. Four co-accused had been acquitted by the trial court, and a fifth co-accused was acquitted on appeal by the High Court, leaving the petitioner as the sole convicted person. A connected petition challenging the co-accused's acquittals was dismissed as time-barred. The prosecution relied on the testimony of two eye-witnesses closely related to the deceased and a gun recovery from the petitioner that carried no corroborative value. The petitioner submitted that the uncorroborated ocular evidence of interested witnesses, which was rejected in respect of all co-accused, could not legally sustain his conviction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the conviction and sentence passed by the High Court complied with the well-established principles governing the safe administration of criminal justice.
Questions settled- Whether an uncorroborated ocular account of interested witnesses, disbelieved in respect of co-accused, can form the basis of a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether recovery of a weapon without corroborative value can independently sustain a conviction for murder?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted to examine if a conviction aligns with established principles of the safe administration of criminal justice?
- Faiz Muhammad and Another vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 18 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-20Read full judgment →
- Faiz Muhammad and 4 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 564 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-08Read full judgment →
- Faiz Muhammad And 2 Others vs Ramzanali And 3 Other1989 MLD 2525 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-12Read full judgment →
- Faiz Bakhsh and others vs Multan Municipal Corporation, Multan1989 SCMR 1318 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against concurrent findings of the trial court, the Additional District Judge, and the High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the Municipal Corporation, Multan, from ejecting them from land designated as a graveyard. The petitioners, who are grave-diggers, claimed ownership of a portion of the land recorded as 'ghair mumkin abadi' within the Khasra, asserting long-standing possession. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could establish ownership or possessory rights over land officially declared a graveyard under the Municipal Corporation Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to provide evidence that their occupation was in any capacity other than as licensees performing their duties as grave-diggers. The Court affirmed the lower courts' findings, noting that the existence of houses on graveyard land by grave-diggers is not inconsistent with the land's status as a graveyard. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, establishing that occupation of graveyard land by grave-diggers does not confer proprietary rights absent evidence of a non-licensee status.
Questions settled- Does the occupation of a portion of a graveyard by grave-diggers for residential purposes automatically confer ownership rights?
- Can a licensee performing duties as a grave-digger claim adverse possession against a Municipal Corporation over graveyard land?
- Is the presence of houses on a portion of land designated as a graveyard in revenue records sufficient to prove that the land is not part of the graveyard?
- Faiz Bakhsh and 5 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 647 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-01Read full judgment →
- Faiz Bakhsh alias Faizu vs The State and another1989 SCMR 977 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court wherein the appellant, Faiz Bakhsh, along with others, was tried for murder and murderous assault. While the trial court acquitted Faiz Bakhsh based on a plea of alibi supported by defence medical evidence, the High Court accepted a revision petition, set aside the acquittal, and ordered a retrial. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the settled principles governing the ordering of retrials against persons acquitted of a charge under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were properly applied by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in discarding the reliable and independent testimony of the defence witness and the plea of alibi on extraneous considerations, finding that the trial court's acquittal was based on a plausible view of the evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court for a retrial, and dismissed the connected appeal of the co-convict while noting a conditional prayer regarding a sentence commutation.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court is justified in setting aside an acquittal and ordering a retrial when the trial court's judgment is based on a plausible view of the evidence?
- Can the testimony of an independent medical witness supporting a plea of alibi be discarded on extraneous considerations without proof of bias or fabrication?
- What are the established principles for interfering with an order of acquittal in criminal proceedings?
- Faiz Ali Shah vs The State1989 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 61 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-03-19Read full judgment →
- Faiz Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1989 CRIMINAL Cases 315 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
- Faiz Ahmad vs Punjab Government and 2 others1989 PLC 126 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
- Faiz Ahmad and others vs Mst. Sahiban and others1989 SCMR 1142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the inheritance of landed property left by the deceased, Shahu. The core legal question was whether the deceased died as a follower of the Sunni or Shia sect, which would determine the distribution of his estate among his heirs. The petitioners, claiming the deceased was a Sunni, sought a share of the property, while the respondent, Mst. Saheban, asserted that as the deceased was a Shia, she was the sole heir entitled to the entire estate. The lower courts, including the Civil Court and the Lahore High Court, concurrently found as a matter of fact that the deceased was a Shia at the time of his death, relying on documentary evidence in the Jamabandi record describing the land as 'Ghairmumkin Imam Kot' and supporting oral testimony. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the deceased's religious sect were well-founded and did not warrant interference. The principle affirmed is that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the religious affiliation of a deceased person, supported by record evidence, are final and binding in appellate proceedings.
Questions settled- Does a concurrent finding of fact by lower courts regarding the religious sect of a deceased person warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Can an entry in a Jamabandi record describing land as 'Ghairmumkin Imam Kot' be used as evidence to determine the religious sect of a deceased landowner?
- Faisalabad Development Authority and another vs Shabbir Hussain1989 PLC 616 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-11-02Read full judgment →
- Executive Engineer, Tubewell Operation Division, Illahabad vs Mushtaq1989 PLC 659 · Labour CourtRead full judgment →
- Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Okara vs Taj Muhammad1989 PLC 919 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Galimala And Others vs Abnaduta Jena1989 MLD 1257 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-09-22Read full judgment →
- Executive Engineer, Elec Ricity WAPDA and another vs Muhammad1989 SCMR 16 28 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Executive Engineer, Electricity WAPDA against the reduction of punishment imposed on the respondent by the Federal Service Tribunal. The core legal question concerns whether the Federal Service Tribunal misread the record regarding the respondent's habitual meter misreadings and specific charges involving a large discrepancy of units when reducing his punishment. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal failed to properly evaluate the complete record concerning multiple show-cause notices and charges of meter misreading. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, following its precedent in WAPDA v. Sh. Zulfiqar Ali (PLD 1988 SC 693), and directed that the appeal be prepared on the present record for hearing with similar pending cases. The key principle laid down is that the Service Tribunal must duly consider all material parts of the departmental record and charges relating to habitual misconduct before altering disciplinary punishments.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal can reduce a disciplinary punishment without properly reading the complete record regarding multiple charges?
- Does the misreading of evidence by the Service Tribunal warrant the grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court?
- Executive Engineer and another vs Sheikh Sajjad Ahmad1989 PLC 346 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-01-24Read full judgment →
- Excide Pakistan Limited [M/s] vs Central Board Of Revenue And OtherPTCL 1989 CL. 235 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-31Read full judgment →
- Evacueetrust Property Board vs Peoples Municipality, Hyderabad And Other1989 MLD 2283 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
- Evacuee Trust Property Board vs Rahim Khan and 3 others1989 SCMR 1605 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Evacuee Trust Property Board appealed a High Court decision upholding a Settlement Commissioner order that refused to declare a property designated as 'tikano Kalachand Rochiram' in city survey records as evacuee trust property under Section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The lower fora had held that entries in the survey register were insufficient evidence of a religious or charitable trust without a trust deed. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, holding that under Section 135-J of the Sind Land Revenue Code and Section 52 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, official revenue entries carry a statutory presumption of truth, shifting the burden onto the opposing party to prove otherwise. Moreover, citing principles of Hindu law, the Court held that a written trust deed or registered instrument is not strictly necessary to create a religious endowment. A preponderance of uncontradicted revenue entries describing the property as a 'tikano' with an embargo on private alienation is sufficient proof of its trust character.
Questions settled- Does an entry in official city survey records describing property as a 'tikano' carry a statutory presumption of truth as to its character as evacuee trust property?
- Is a written trust deed or registered instrument required to establish the creation of a Hindu religious endowment or trust property?
- Does the statutory presumption attaching to revenue entries shift the onus of proof to the party claiming private ownership?
- Evacuee Trust Property Board vs Haji Ibrahim and 4 others1989 SCMR 1619 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as an appeal by the Evacuee Trust Property Board against a judgment of the Sind and Baluchistan High Court, which had affirmed a decision by the Settlement Commissioner declaring a specific property in Hyderabad not to be Evacuee Trust Property. The core legal question before the Supreme Court concerned the maintainability of the appeal given the death of several respondents and the failure of the appellant to bring their legal representatives on the record. During the proceedings, it was brought to the Court's attention that respondent No. 2 had died in 1984, and respondents No. 1 and No. 3 had also passed away, with no steps taken by the appellant to implead their respective legal heirs. The appellant's counsel did not contest these factual assertions regarding the defective constitution of the appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that because the appeal was improperly constituted and the appellant failed to rectify the record, the appeal could not proceed. The Court dismissed the appeal, establishing the principle that an appeal cannot proceed to a decision if it is improperly constituted due to the failure to implead the legal representatives of deceased parties.
Questions settled- Can an appeal proceed to a decision if the legal representatives of deceased respondents have not been brought on record?
- What is the consequence of an appellant's failure to rectify an improperly constituted appeal after the death of respondents?
- Esso Eastern Inc. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1989 PTD 178 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-26Read full judgment →
- Erum Naveed And Another vs The State1989 ML D 100 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-13Read full judgment →
- Eorge Masih alias Jhara vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 292 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-05Read full judgment →
- Employees'union vs Zeal Pak Cement Factory Limited1989 PLC 546 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
- Ellahi Bakhsh vs Sultan And Other1989 CLC 787 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
- Electric Lamp Manufacturers of Pakistan Ltd. vs The Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and 3 others1989 PTD 42 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, manufacturers of electric bulbs, challenged the levy of sales tax on glass shells used in the manufacturing process of bulbs. The petitioners argued that since glass shells are 'used' rather than 'sold' and the final product (electric bulbs) is exempt from sales tax, the tax on glass shells is ultra vires the Constitution and the Sales Tax Act, 1951. The Court held that the Federal Legislature has the competence to enact provisions, specifically subsections (4) and (6) of section 3 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, which create a legal fiction treating the 'use' of manufactured goods by a manufacturer as a 'sale' for tax purposes. The Court affirmed that when goods are consumed or used in the manufacturing of other goods, they lose their identity, and the legislature may validly tax such intermediate goods if they are not themselves exempt. The principle established is that the legislature may extend the definition of 'sale' to include the internal use of manufactured goods to prevent tax avoidance, and such provisions are within the legislative competence of the Federal Parliament.
Questions settled- Can the Federal Legislature impose sales tax on goods used by a manufacturer in the production of other goods where no actual sale transaction occurs?
- Does the 'use' of manufactured goods in the production of another item constitute a 'sale' for the purposes of the Sales Tax Act, 1951?
- Does an exemption granted to a final product automatically exempt the intermediate goods used in its manufacture from sales tax?
- Is the provision in the Sales Tax Act, 1951, treating the internal use of goods as a sale, ultra vires the Constitution?
- Farhat Hussain vs The State and 4 others1989 P Cr. L J 320 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-07Read full judgment →
- Election Commission of Pakistan through its Secretary vs Javaid Hashmi and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 396 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case concerns a constitutional challenge regarding the alteration of polling personnel and the distribution of national identity cards ahead of a bye-election in Constituency No. NA-120, Multan-cum-Khanewal. The primary legal questions raised were whether a Returning Officer could alter an approved list of polling personnel without the express approval of the Chief Election Commissioner under section 9(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, and whether a high court could entertain a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, in light of the constitutional bar imposed by Article 225, which dictates that elections can only be questioned through an election petition. By a majority decision, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's exercise of writ jurisdiction was barred because the electoral process constitutes a continuous chain and any challenge to intermediate steps during an ongoing election must be postponed to post-election proceedings via an election petition. The Court laid down the principle that Article 225 provides an exclusive and self-contained mechanism for resolving election disputes, ousting the jurisdiction of ordinary courts under Article 199 during the intermediate stages of an election.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to challenge intermediate steps in an ongoing election process in view of the bar contained in Article 225?
- Can a Returning Officer change an approved list of polling personnel without the explicit approval of the Chief Election Commissioner under section 9(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
- Does the term 'election' under Article 225 of the Constitution encompass the entire continuous process leading up to the declaration of the result, including the appointment of polling staff?
- Whether the distribution of national identity cards by registration authorities during an election cycle can be challenged through a constitutional petition under Article 199?
- Ejaz Hussain alias Ejaz Ahmad and another vs Messrs Jabees Ltd., Karachi1989 PLC 86 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-03-17Read full judgment →
- Ejaz Ahmad Khan Etc vs Shaukat AliK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 58 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
- Ehsanulhaq and others vs Muhammad Hassan1989 P Cr. L J 1857 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-10Read full judgment →
- Ehsanul Haq Khan vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore1989 PLC 129 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-07-25Read full judgment →
- Ehsan Ul Haq and Other vs Muhammad HassanK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 251 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-10Read full judgment →
- Ehsan Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 4079 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-20Read full judgment →
- Edward Louis vs The State1989 MLD 2803 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-18Read full judgment →
- Eddie M. Dinshaw vs The Director-General_Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, Sindh and 2 others1989 PTD 1249 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-21Read full judgment →
- Duke Sports (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Silver Star Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd.1989 MLD 3493 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-21Read full judgment →
- Dr.'Major Abdul Ahad Khan through his legal Representativess vs Muhammad Iqbal through his Legal Representativess1989 PLD Karachi 102 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 arose from concurrent decisions of the lower courts refusing to execute an eviction order against a tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The tenant objected under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, asserting that a fresh tenancy agreement had been executed by the landlord, effectively discharging the eviction order. The landlord denied executing the document and alleged forgery. The High Court considered whether a plea of an uncertified agreement discharging an eviction decree could be entertained under Section 47 CPC, and whether the lower courts erred in deciding the genuineness of disputed signatures without expert assistance. The High Court held that an agreement discharging a decree immediately is not a matter for execution under Section 47 CPC and must be adjudicated in a separate suit. Furthermore, uncertified adjustments are barred under Order XXI Rule 2 CPC and Article 174 of the Limitation Act 1908 after 90 days. The Court also held that comparing disputed signatures in chambers without expert guidance constitutes a material irregularity. The revision was allowed and the case remanded for execution.
Questions settled- Can an executing court under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 entertain an uncertified fresh tenancy agreement that purports to discharge an eviction decree immediately?
- Does an uncertified adjustment of a decree filed beyond the 90-day period prescribed under Article 174 of the Limitation Act 1908 bar consideration by the executing court under Order XXI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is it a material irregularity for a court to compare disputed signatures in chambers without expert assistance or input from the parties' counsel?
- Dr. Sharafuddin Islahi vs Board of Governors, International Islamic1989 PLC (C.S.) 670 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-01-05Read full judgment →
- Dr. S.S. Naeemul Hamid vs Mst. Tahira Sultana And Other1989 MLD 3441 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
- Dr. Riaz Hussain Naik vs Governing Body, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Lahore and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 527 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Dr. Niaz Amer and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 804 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
- Dr. Nazir A. Shaikh and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1361 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision arose from the order of the Special Judge (Central), Karachi, which rejected an application filed by the Public Prosecutor to withdraw a corruption case pending against the applicants under Sections 161 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The withdrawal had been ordered in writing by the Federal Government pursuant to Section 10(4) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958. The trial court had dismissed the application by applying the principles of Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, holding that the court's consent was a judicial prerequisite. The High Court, in setting aside the trial court's order, held that the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 is a special law containing its own specific provision for withdrawal under Section 10(4), which does not require the consent or permission of the court. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revisions and acquitted the applicants.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding court consent apply to the withdrawal of cases under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958?
- Is the consent of the trial court a legal prerequisite for the withdrawal of a prosecution under Section 10(4) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958?
- Does the withdrawal of a prosecution under Section 10(4) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 automatically equate to a withdrawal of the initial sanction for prosecution?
- Dr. Naseer Mahmood Akhtar and another vs Dr. Mahmood Ali Malik and another1989 SCMR 485 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding the determination of seniority between two professors, Dr. Mahmood Ali Malik and Dr. Naseer Mahmood Akhtar. The core legal question involves the criteria for seniority in the higher grade of Professor when two individuals were promoted at different times but held different seniority statuses in the lower grade of Assistant Professor. The Punjab Service Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of Dr. Mahmood Ali Malik, declaring him senior based on his earlier appointment as an Assistant Professor, despite his later promotion to Professor. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal, noting that the Tribunal's decision relied on a precedent case (Dr. (Mrs.) Shamim Raza Bukhari v. Government of the Punjab) which is itself currently under appeal before the Supreme Court in another matter. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to resolve the conflicting claims of seniority, allowing parties to raise additional relevant questions of law.
Questions settled- Does seniority in a lower grade automatically determine seniority in a higher grade upon promotion?
- Can a Service Tribunal rely on a judgment that is currently pending appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Dr. Nadir Ali Khan vs The Director, Health Services, Hyderabad and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 707 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1988-12-15Read full judgment →
- Dr. Muhammad Yusuf Khan vs Messrs Pak American Academy Regd.1989 MLD 2972 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
- Dr. Muhammad Younis vs Province of Sind and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 8 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-29Read full judgment →
- Dr. Muhammad Rafi-Ud-Din Quraishi vs Government of Punjab and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 785 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
- Dr. Muhammad Nawaz Anjum vs Government of Punjab1989 PLC (C.S.) 878 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-19Read full judgment →
- Dr. Muhammad Hanif Arif vs The Secretary to the Government of the Punjab1989 SCMR 1967 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a doctor, challenged adverse remarks entered into his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for 1981, which were communicated to him in 1985. The remarks stemmed from an inquiry into allegations of immoral conduct, leading to a Governor's directive for his transfer and the recording of the incident in his dossier. The petitioner argued that the Governor's order was a nullity, that the reporting officer was biased, and that the significant delay in communicating the adverse remarks rendered them void. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner could not raise the validity of the Governor's order for the first time before the Supreme Court, as it was not raised before the Service Tribunal. Regarding bias, the Court found no merit in the contention. Concerning the delay, the Court held that because the initial removal of the remarks by the Health Secretary was unauthorized, the subsequent communication of the remarks was justified, and the delay was not fatal to their validity. The petition was dismissed, affirming the Service Tribunal's decision.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner raise a legal ground for the first time before the Supreme Court if it was not raised before the Service Tribunal?
- Does a delay in the communication of adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report automatically render them void?
- Is a Health Secretary competent to disregard a directive issued by the Governor regarding the recording of adverse remarks in a civil servant's dossier?
- Dr. Muhammad Athar Khan vs Gulzar Ahmad Bokhari And 4 Other1989 MLD 3654 · Lahore High Court · 1988-01-25Read full judgment →
- Dr. Muhammad Asif Majid vs Mst. Ash Raf Aliya1989 MLD 1652 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
- Dr. Mst. Atia Sultana vs Muhammad Siddique And 3 Other1989 MLD 3850 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-07Read full judgment →
- Dr. Moin Ahmad Qadri vs Vicechairman, Pakistan Railways, Lahore And Other1989 MLD 2043 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-24Read full judgment →
- Dr. Miss Gulshan Naheed vs The N.W.F.P Public Service Commission And Another1989 CLC 1301 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-14Read full judgment →
- Dr. Masood Saleem Khan vs The State and another1989 P Cr. L J 1561 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-29Read full judgment →
- Dr. Mansoor Akhtar vs Secretary, Health and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 287 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
- DR. Mansoor Akhtar vs Secretary Heaith Etc.K.L.R 1989 Labour and Service Cases 47 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-08Read full judgment →
- Dr. Mansoor Akhtar vs Government of Punjab1989 PLC (C.S.) 901 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-04Read full judgment →
- DR. Major Abdul Ahad Khan, and Other vs Muhammad Iqbal and OtherK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases. 86 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-17Read full judgment →
- Dr. Khairvee Allah Bachayo vs Government of Sind and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 931 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-04-13Read full judgment →
- Dr. Jeevak Almast vs Union of India And Other1989 MLD 494 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-08-12Read full judgment →
- Dr. Jamshed Raza vs Muhammad Nadim and another1989 SCMR 182 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1988-08-02Read full judgment →
- Dr. Irshad Hasan Khan vs Lahore Municipal Corporation and another1989 SCMR 1722 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of the concurrent refusal of the lower courts to grant a temporary injunction to the petitioner during the pendency of a civil suit, which order had dismissed the petitioner's civil revision. The core legal question concerns the propriety of interfering with the concurrent exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by the lower courts regarding the grant of interim injunctive relief. The Supreme Court held that the case was not a fit one for interference with the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the lower courts in refusing a temporary injunction, while observing that the interim orders would not influence the trial. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will generally decline to interfere with concurrent discretionary orders passed by subordinate courts on interlocutory matters like temporary injunctions unless exceptional circumstances are shown.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the concurrent refusal of lower courts to grant a temporary injunction?
- Do observations made on the question of temporary injunction influence the course of the trial of the civil suit?
- Dr. Inamul Hao Shami vs Secretary, Health Division, Islamabad and 21989 PLC (C.S.) 738 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-01-05Read full judgment →
- Dr. Imdad Ali vs Mst. Nawab Jahan Begum And Other1989 CLC 22 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
- Dr. Ghulam Rasool vs The Chief Secretary, Government of Sind and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 732 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
- Dr. Faiz Muhanimad Shaikh vs The Chief Secretary to Government of Sind and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 493 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
- Dr. Captain Ajaz Hussain vs Hafiz Muhammad Tariq and others1989 SCMR 1696 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby a writ petition against the concurrent dismissal of an eviction application was allowed. The core legal question was whether the High Court, upon finding non-reading of evidence by the lower appellate court, was justified in granting the relief of eviction itself instead of remanding the case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where the High Court finds non-reading of evidence in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, the proper course is to remand the case to the lower forum for a fresh decision rather than deciding the matter on merits itself. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the case remanded to the District Judge for a fresh decision.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court in writ jurisdiction can grant the relief of eviction itself upon finding non-reading of evidence by the courts below?
- What is the correct course for the High Court to follow when it concludes that the lower courts have misread or failed to read material evidence?
- Dr. Bushra Ashiq Siddiqui vs Muhammad Aslam1989 MLD 1351 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court praying for a writ of quo warranto to challenge the appointment of the respondent to the public office of Associate Professor of Microbiology at the Jinnah Post Graduate Medical Centre (JPMC). The core legal question considered by the court was whether the position of an Associate Professor at JPMC constitutes a 'public office' under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, making a writ of quo warranto competent, and whether teaching medical subjects involves the exercise of sovereign functions. The court held that the office in question was not created by law and did not involve the exercise of any sovereign power, meaning it is not a public office for the purposes of issuing a writ of quo warranto. Furthermore, the court held that even if it were a public office, the writ of quo warranto is a discretionary remedy that ought to be denied when used by civil servants to settle inter se disputes regarding appointments and promotions. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Does the position of an Associate Professor at the Jinnah Post Graduate Medical Centre constitute a public office under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- Does teaching a subject like microbiology amount to the exercise of a sovereign function of the government?
- Can a writ of quo warranto be issued as a discretionary relief to resolve internal promotion or appointment disputes between civil servants?
- Dr. Basharat Ali Qureshi vs Secretary, Health, Government of Sind and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 350 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave under Article 212(3) of the Constitution arose from a judgment of the Sind Service Tribunal dismissing in limine the appellant's service appeal regarding regularization and resumption of duty. The appellant was initially appointed on an ad hoc basis as a Casualty Medical Officer in 1967 and was subsequently relieved in 1971 to serve abroad in Libya. After the completion of five years, he was directed by the Sind Government in 1976 to report back within three months or forfeit all claims to service, which he failed to comply with, returning only in 1980.
The Supreme Court considered whether an ad hoc appointee sent on foreign service retains a lien or claim on his parent post after failing to report upon recall. The Court held that an ad hoc appointee does not hold a lien on his post under the Service Rules. Furthermore, under the settled terms of foreign employment, only confirmed employees retained a lien. As the appellant also failed to return within the stipulated time, the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does an ad hoc civil servant retain a lien on his post while serving on foreign employment abroad?
- Whether an employee who fails to report for duty upon being recalled from foreign service forfeits any claim to resume duty in the parent department?
- Can an ad hoc appointee claim regularization and seniority as of right following unauthorized prolonged absence abroad?