Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Ch. Nazir Ahmad through Legal Representatives vs Ch. Rehmat Ullah1989 PLD Lahore 250 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Sharif vs Licensing Authority1989 CLC 1068 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-02Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Sharif vs Ch. Muhammad Hussain1989 SCMR 1127 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-08
  leave to appealmoney decreepromissory noteconsiderationcivil revisionconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a debtor against a money decree and the consequential dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether there was sufficient evidence regarding the passing of consideration for the execution of a promissory note and whether the lower courts misread the said instrument. The Supreme Court held that no legal infirmity or misreading existed in the concurrent findings of the courts below to warrant interference under revisional jurisdiction. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming that concurrent factual findings supported by a promissory note executed by the debtor do not invite interference where no jurisdictional error is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Whether revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be exercised against concurrent findings regarding a promissory note?
  • Does the execution of a promissory note shift the burden regarding the passing of consideration in a money suit?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts where no legal infirmity or misreading of evidence is established?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Saeed and others vs Haji Fazal Muhammad1989 SCMR 1469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-26
  specific performancecompromise decreeaccrued profitbank depositcontractual disputesale of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over entitlement to profit accrued on a sum of money deposited in a bank pursuant to a compromise decree for specific performance of a contract for the sale of a shop. The petitioners agreed to sell a shop to the respondent, and a suit for specific performance resulted in a compromise decree requiring the respondent to pay the balance consideration by a specified date. Following an extension granted by the High Court, the respondent deposited the funds, which were subsequently placed in a profit-earning bank account at the petitioners' request. A delay occurred in the execution and registration of the sale deed. The trial court and the High Court held that the respondent was entitled to the profit earned on the deposit. The petitioners sought leave to appeal, contending that the lower courts erred in awarding the respondent profits that accrued even after the execution of the sale deed and delivery of possession. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the legal entitlement to such accrued profits.

  Questions settled

  • Is a purchaser entitled to the profit accrued on the balance sale consideration deposited in a bank account pursuant to a compromise decree?
  • Does the entitlement to profit on deposited sale consideration cease upon the execution and registration of the sale deed?
  • Can a party who requests the placement of deposited funds into a profit-earning account claim the accrued profit after the underlying sale transaction is completed?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Sadiq vs Income Tax Officer, Etc.PTCL 1989 CL. 486 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-03Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Bakhsh vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Education Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others1989 PLD Lahore 175 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06
  statutory tenureshow cause noticeaudi alteram partemwrit petitionadministrative discretionrepatriationmandatory statutory requirement
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order by the Controlling Authority that reduced the petitioner’s fixed tenure as Controller of Examinations and ordered his repatriation to the Education Department. The core legal question was whether the Controlling Authority could curtail the petitioner’s statutory tenure without providing him an opportunity to show cause, as required by the proviso to Section 14(2) of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976. The Court held that the impugned order was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It ruled that the statutory requirement to provide an opportunity to show cause is a mandatory precondition for the exercise of the power to dismiss, remove, or reduce the tenure of an officer. The Court rejected the respondents' argument that an emergency justified bypassing this requirement, noting that no such emergency existed. The key principle laid down is that where a statute prescribes mandatory procedural requirements for the exercise of administrative power, those requirements must be strictly fulfilled; failure to do so renders the administrative action void, regardless of any subsequent attempts to justify the omission.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Controlling Authority reduce the fixed tenure of a statutory officer without providing an opportunity to show cause?
  • Does the power to appoint an officer imply an unrestricted power to remove them despite a fixed statutory tenure?
  • Is the failure to provide a show-cause notice curable by subsequent administrative actions?
  • Can an administrative authority bypass mandatory statutory procedural requirements by claiming an emergency that is not factually supported?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Ashraf vs Government of Sind and 6 others1989 P Cr. L J 273 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-04Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Ameen vs Rent Controller And Other1989 MLD 4521 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Ali vs Mian Abdur Rehman1989 PLD Supreme Court 123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-07
  displaced personsrent enhancementmunicipal assessmentexcise and taxation departmentexemption from taxationmodel town lahoreejectment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from conflicting judgments regarding whether a tax levied by the Excise and Taxation Department can be regarded as a tax levied by a Municipality under proviso (a) to section 30(1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The appellant, a transferee of a bungalow in Model Town, Lahore, sought to increase rent based on an assessment by the Excise and Taxation Department. The lower courts dismissed the ejectment application, holding that Model Town was exempt from municipal assessment and taxation. The Supreme Court examined the relevant statutory provisions, rules, and historical notifications. The Court held that exemption from the payment of tax does not bar the assessment of property, and that under Rule 2(a) of the West Pakistan Municipal Committees (Buildings and Lands Tax) Rules, 1962, the assessment list prepared under the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Rules, 1958, serves as the assessment list for the Municipal Committee. Consequently, the rent demanded on the basis of the Excise and Taxation Department's assessment was lawful. However, considering the tenant's bona fide conduct in depositing rent, the Supreme Court upheld the refusal to order ejectment while partly allowing the appeal regarding the legal point on rent enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an assessment made by the Excise and Taxation Department can be regarded as an assessment made by the Municipality under proviso (a) to section 30(1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  • Does an exemption from the payment of municipal tax under a notification also exempt the property from municipal assessment?
  • Can a landlord legally increase the rent of a transferred evacuee property on the basis of the latest assessment carried out for other properties in the locality generally?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Merajuddin vs Joint Secretary, Government of the Punjab1989 SCMR 1512 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-22
  leave to appealwrit jurisdictionco-operative societymembership disputefindings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition by the High Court. The underlying dispute relates to a finding by the Co-operative Authorities that the petitioner was a member of a specific Co-operative Society concerning films, which the petitioner challenged unsuccessfully in the High Court's writ jurisdiction. The core legal question involves the sustainability of concurrent findings of fact rendered by departmental authorities and affirmed by the High Court regarding cooperative society membership. The Supreme Court held that the impugned judgment of the High Court suffers from no infirmity, as the conclusions were firmly based on relevant contemporaneous documents including committee resolutions, general meeting resolutions, and ledger entries demonstrating payment of the membership fee. Consequently, the Court found no justification for interference and refused leave to appeal, laying down the principle that concurrent findings of fact supported by documentary evidence will not be disturbed by the apex court in the absence of material dislodging such findings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether findings of fact rendered by departmental authorities and affirmed by the High Court can be interfered with without dislodging them through relevant documents?
  • Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against concurrent factual findings supported by resolutions and ledger entries?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Masood Ahmed vs Messrs Pakistan Machine Tool Factory Ltd., Landhi,Karachi1989 PLC 776 · Labour Court · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
• Ch. Jaj Din vs Begum Nazir Ahmad Khan And Another1989 CLC 2436 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-02Read full judgment →
• Ch. Eid Mohammad And Others+D2510 vs Mst. Sartaj Begum And Otherplaintiffs_S1989 MLD 3021 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
• Ch. Bashir Ahmad vs Mst. Nasira Begum And Other1989 MLD 3179 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
• Ch. Allah Ditta vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2152 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-14
  anticipatory bailinterim bailnon-bailable warrantsharassmentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an application filed by Ch. Allah Ditta seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest pursuant to non-bailable warrants of arrest issued by the Assistant Commissioner Zhob, Baluchistan. The petitioner asserted that he is a resident of Sargodha, has never visited Zhob, and that the warrants were issued to cause undue harassment through the manipulation of a third party. The core legal question concerned the propriety of granting interim pre-arrest relief to enable the petitioner to approach a competent court of jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court held that in the circumstances of the case, it was proper to grant interim anticipatory bail for a limited period to allow the petitioner to seek remedies in accordance with law. The key principle laid down is that interim pre-arrest bail may be granted to protect a petitioner from immediate arrest and harassment, enabling them to approach the appropriate forum for legal redress.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Lahore High Court grant interim anticipatory bail against non-bailable warrants issued by an authority in another province?
  • Whether interim pre-arrest bail can be granted to enable a petitioner to approach a competent court for legal remedy?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ali Bahadur vs CH. Ghulam Nabi1989 MLD 4747 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ahsan-Ul-Haq vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 103 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-01-07Read full judgment →
• Ch. Abdul Sattar And Others vs Siraj Din1989 MLD 214 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-12Read full judgment →
• CH Am an Khan vs Naqibullah Khan and 10 others1989 PLD Peshawar 107 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-29Read full judgment →
• Central Mechanical Engineering Co. vs Deputy Superintendent (Prev), Central Excise and Land Customs S.I.T.E. Division, Karachi and 3 others1989 PTD 577 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
• Central Government of Pakistan vs Suleman Khan And 5 Other1989 CLC 1610 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
• Central Board of Direct Taxes and others vs Aditya V. Birla1989 PTD 803 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-11-27Read full judgment →
• Cementation Intrafor And Others vs Indus Valley1989 MLD 4906 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-16Read full judgment →
• Car Tunes vs Income Tax Officer, Circle v, Hyderabad and another1989 PTD 478 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-13
  constitutional petitionadditional assessmentescaped incomechange of opinionreopening of assessmentincome tax noticealternative remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed to challenge a notice issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979 for additional assessment. The core legal question was whether an income tax assessment finalized under Section 62 of the Ordinance can be reopened under Section 65 on the basis of the same material due to a mere change of opinion by a successor officer. The Sindh High Court held that an assessment already finalized cannot be reopened on the ground that the Income-tax Officer or a successor has had a second thought or changed their opinion on the factual or legal aspects using the same material previously considered, unless there is definite information of failure by the assessee to disclose true and correct facts leading to escaped income. The court established that a notice issued purely on a change of opinion is without lawful authority, and the availability of alternative remedies under the tax statute does not bar the High Court from exercising its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 at the notice stage when the action is shown to be patently without jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can an income tax assessment finalized under Section 62 of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979 be reopened under Section 65 on the basis of a mere change of opinion by a successor Income-tax Officer?
  • Does the availability of alternative remedies under the Income-tax Ordinance 1979 bar the High Court from entertaining a constitutional petition under Article 199 against a notice issued without jurisdiction?
  • What constitutes valid grounds for reopening a finalized tax assessment under Section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Car Tunes (M/s.) vs Income Tax Officer, Circle v, Hyderabad And AnotherPTCL 1989 CL. 627 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-13Read full judgment →
• Captain Nizam Din vs Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) and others1989 SCMR 1541 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-30
  constitutional jurisdictionleave to appealdelaylachessettlement of landrevenue recordfactual inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition challenging an order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Faisalabad. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in dismissing the petition on grounds of delay and on the merits regarding the allotment of specific land. The petitioner contended that the Additional Settlement Commissioner had erroneously determined the area of land allotted to the respondents, ignoring revenue records from 1934 to 1983. Upon review, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's decision. The Court held that it would not conduct a factual inquiry or re-appreciate evidence that had already been examined by the lower forums. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the one-year delay in invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Consequently, the Court found no substantial question of law warranting the grant of leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court conduct a factual inquiry or re-appreciate evidence in a petition for leave to appeal?
  • Does an unexplained delay of one year in filing a constitutional petition justify dismissal by the High Court?
  • Is leave to appeal granted in the absence of any substantial question of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Capt. Asadullah Khan And Another vs Akbar Ali Through L.Rs. And Another1989 MLD 123 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-31Read full judgment →
• Capt. (Retd.) Naqiullah vs Chairman, State Engineering Corporation1989 CLC 2384 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
• Capital Sports Corporation, Sialkot (M/s.) vs Government Of PakistanPTCL 1989 CL. 144 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-29Read full judgment →
• Candra Exports and others vs State of Karnataka and another1989 PTD 76 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-07-21Read full judgment →
• Canal View Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs Additional1989 CLC 2444 · Board of Revenue · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
• Byram D. Avari and 3 others vs The State and 4 others1989 PLD Peshawar 145 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-10
  writ jurisdictionmala fides in lawquashing of FIRcivil disputejudicial reviewpolice investigationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged a criminal investigation and arrest warrants initiated against them, arguing that the underlying dispute regarding contractual obligations was purely civil and that the criminal proceedings were instituted mala fide to exert financial pressure. The core legal question was whether the High Court, under its constitutional jurisdiction, could interfere with a criminal investigation initiated by the police. The Court held that the police investigation and subsequent arrest warrants were without lawful authority and constituted mala fides in law. The Court reasoned that the facts alleged in the First Information Report did not disclose the commission of any criminal offence, rendering the police action incompetent. The Court affirmed that police functions are subject to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, as no state action is sacrosanct. The judgment established that "mala fides in law" encompasses the gross violation of legal authority, even absent actual malice, and that the High Court must intervene when criminal machinery is abused to settle civil disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to quash a criminal investigation that is mala fide or beyond the competence of the investigating agency?
  • Does the definition of 'mala fides in law' include the exercise of power in gross violation of law without proof of actual malice?
  • Is a police officer authorized to register a case if the information provided does not disclose the commission of an offence?
  • Are the actions of police functionaries amenable to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Butt Brothers & Co. vs Mst. Mahboob Begum and others1989 SCMR 1800 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-29
  evictiondefault in rentpersonal needrent controlconcurrent findingsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had upheld the eviction of a tenant from a shop and room. The landlord had initiated proceedings under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, alleging default in rent payment, personal need, and damage to the property. The Rent Controller ordered eviction based on default, rejecting the claims of personal need and damage. On appeal, the Additional District Judge affirmed the finding of default and additionally concluded that the property was required for the personal use of the landlord's son. The petitioner challenged these findings in the High Court, which dismissed the writ petition. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the finding of default was based on a misreading of evidence and that the landlord possessed sufficient alternative space. The Supreme Court, finding no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding default and personal need, dismissed the petition, thereby maintaining the eviction order.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding rent default and personal need in a rent eviction case?
  • Is a finding of default in rent payment sufficient grounds for an eviction order under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Bururrehman and anothers vs Government of Sind and 3 others1989 PLD Karachi 572 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
• Burmah Shell Oil Distributing Company vs Khaja Midhat Noor And Other1989 MLD 3372 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
• Buricamal vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1110 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-20
  interim custodysuperdiginamacase propertycriminal revisiontaxi cardacoity investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application arises from an order passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge (South) Karachi, dismissing the applicant's petition under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the interim custody of his taxi car, which was seized by police during the investigation of a dacoity case. The core legal question was whether a vehicle allegedly used by culprits only to travel to and from the scene of a crime falls within the scope of property 'used for the commission of any offence' under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether its owner, unconnected with the crime, is entitled to interim custody. The court held that utilizing a vehicle merely for transport to or from an incident does not bring it within the mischief of property used for committing the offence, and withholding custody from the true owner who is not implicated in the crime is unjustified. The revision was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and directing the vehicle's release on Superdiginama subject to a surety.

  Questions settled

  • Does a vehicle used merely for traveling to and from the place of an incident fall within the meaning of property used for the commission of an offence under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the true owner of a seized vehicle, who is not connected with the alleged crime, entitled to interim custody of the vehicle pending trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Burhan Rasool vs Muhammad Ramzan And Other1989 MLD 2782 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
• Burh a N vs The State1989 PLD Federal Shariat Court 77 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-04-30Read full judgment →
• Bunyad Ali vs Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation)/Chief1989 SCMR 1762 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-06
  leave to appealmukhbari applicationillegal allotmentfraudulent allotmentconstitutional petitionDisplaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act
  Summary & questions settled

  Bunyad Ali filed a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed his Constitution petition concerning an allotment and sale dispute. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's mukhbari application fell within the purview of section 14 (1-A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, thereby giving him the authority to challenge the sale in favour of the respondents, given that prior information regarding the allegedly illegal and fraudulent allotment had already been laid before the Department by another individual. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings were in accordance with law, noting that the petitioner's case was not covered by the aforementioned statutory provision and he lacked authority to challenge the transaction. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that a subsequent informant cannot maintain a challenge under section 14 (1-A) when prior information has already been laid before the department by another party.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a subsequent informant can maintain a challenge under section 14(1-A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act when prior information regarding an illegal allotment has already been laid before the Department by another person?
  • Does a petitioner have the authority to challenge a property sale in favor of respondents if their case is not covered under section 14(1-A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Bundu Khan vs Abdul Majeed1989 MLD 1284 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-29Read full judgment →
• Bundoo Khan And 2 Others vs Karachi Development Authority1989 MLD 2966 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
• Buland Khan vs The Settlement Commissioner (Land) And Other1989 MLD 130 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
• Bukhtiar Hussain Shah vs Aman Ullah Khara And 2 Other1989 MLD 128(1) · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-22Read full judgment →
• Budhu Mal And Another vs Mahabir Prasad And Other1989 MLD 1120 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-08-05Read full judgment →
• Budha Khan vs Feroze Din EtcK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 273 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
• Budha Khan vs Feroze Din and others1989 P Cr. L J 2088 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
• Broach Distt. Co-Operative Cotton Sales, Ginning and Pressing1989 PTD 1334 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-04-26Read full judgment →
• Bostan Khan vs Daulat Ali alias Khan1989 SCMR 694 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-10
  pre-emptioncompromise decreesaleleave to appealland possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld a pre-emption decree in favour of the respondent. The petitioner, who had purchased land, challenged the lower courts' decisions which allowed the respondent to claim possession through pre-emption. The core legal question presented for the Supreme Court's consideration is whether a civil court decree, which is based upon a compromise between the parties, can be legally classified as a "sale" for the purposes of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this specific legal issue, noting that the nature of such a decree in the context of pre-emption rights requires authoritative determination. The Court also ordered the maintenance of the status quo regarding the disputed land pending the final adjudication of the appeal. This case serves to clarify the scope of what constitutes a sale transaction under pre-emption law when the underlying judicial decree arises from a settlement between the parties rather than a direct transfer of property.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil court decree based on a compromise between parties be considered a "sale" for the purposes of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
  Read full judgment →
• Bombay Conductors & Electricals Ltd. And Another vs Government Of IndiaPTCL 1989 FC. 124 · Delhi High CourtRead full judgment →
• Boladar And 11 Others vs Abdul Ghafoor And 25 Other1989 CLC 1771 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore And Others1989 CLC 64 · Lahore High Court
  civil suit barjurisdiction of civil courtdisciplinary committeeeducational boardrejection of plaintmala fidesnatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge, Lahore, which set aside the trial court's order rejecting the respondent's plaint. The respondent had filed a suit challenging the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, disqualifying him from an examination and debarring him from future examinations. The core legal questions involve whether the civil court's jurisdiction is barred under Sections 28, 29, and 31 of Act XIII of 1976, and whether allegations of mala fides and lack of jurisdiction warranted setting aside the disciplinary action. The Lahore High Court held that the suit was barred by the statutory provisions, the allegations of mala fides lacked particulars, and the matter was already conclusively settled by a prior binding precedent of the High Court. Consequently, the appellate court's order was set aside, and the trial court's rejection of the plaint was restored. The key principle laid down is that civil courts cannot interfere with actions taken in good faith by statutory boards under protective statutory provisions unless specific exceptions like well-pleaded mala fides or jurisdictional defects are established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil suit challenging the order of a disciplinary committee of an educational board is barred under Act XIII of 1976?
  • Does a general and unparticularized allegation of mala fides warrant interference with the statutory actions of a board?
  • Whether the lower appellate court is bound by a settled precedent of the High Court on the same matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education. vs The StateK.L.R 19X9 Civil Cases 132 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
• Bliss Industries Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer,1989 PTD 131 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-19Read full judgment →
• Bisvil Spinners Ltd. Lahore [ M/s.] vs Collector (Appeals) Customs AndPTCL 1989 CL. 60 · Central Board of Revenue · 1988-11-24Read full judgment →
• Bishop Kenneth Leslie Orr vs The State1989 SCMR 71 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-22
  transfer of casejudicial biastransfer applicationcriminal trialapprehension of biasSessions Judge
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, facing trial for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought the transfer of his case from the Sessions Court at Okara, alleging bias, improper conduct, and prejudgment of guilt by the presiding Sessions Judge. The petitioner claimed the judge forced him to sign documents, denied his counsel sufficient time for record inspection, and made prejudicial remarks regarding his guilt. The Supreme Court examined the Sessions Judge's report, which categorically denied these allegations, noting that the petitioner had been provided with necessary witness statements and that the judge had acted within judicial discretion regarding trial adjournments. The Court held that the petitioner's apprehensions were unfounded and based on misunderstanding rather than objective bias. Emphasizing that serious allegations against judicial officers require substantial evidence, the Court accepted the judge's denial and dismissed the petition, expressing confidence that the trial would proceed impartially despite the baseless allegations raised by the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mere allegation of bias against a presiding judge constitute sufficient grounds for the transfer of a criminal case?
  • Can a trial court refuse an adjournment when the accused appears without counsel despite having had sufficient time to engage one?
  • Is the report of a presiding judge regarding allegations of misconduct against him entitled to weight in transfer proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Birad Mal Singhvi vs Anand Purohit1989 MLD 410 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-08-02Read full judgment →
• Billa vs The Central Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others1989 SCMR 1203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-10
  restoration applicationdismissal for non-prosecutioncivil revisionleave to appealprocedural neglect
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal by the High Court of the petitioner's restoration application, which had sought to restore a civil revision dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal questions before the High Court involved examining the cause for the non-appearance of the petitioner's counsel on the date of hearing and assessing the non-performance of requisite procedural acts, including steps for the service of respondents. The Supreme Court held that while the explanation for non-appearance might have warranted examination, the persistent neglect and refusal to perform other necessary procedural acts for the progress of the case justified the High Court's refusal to exercise discretion in favor of restoration. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners lacked a strong case on merits. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that appellate interference with discretionary orders of the High Court is unwarranted where procedural neglect is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether refusal to perform necessary procedural acts justifies dismissing a restoration application for a civil revision?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in declining to restore a dismissed revision petition without sufficient cause?
  • Does the lack of a good case on merits affect the determination of a restoration application for non-prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Bihar State Housing Board, State of Bihar And Others vs Ban Bihari1989 MLD 1177 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
• Bigyan Kumar And Others vs Union of India And Other1989 MLD 1243 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-03-18Read full judgment →
• Bibi Raisa vs The State1989 PLD Lahore 259 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-10Read full judgment →
• Bibi and others vs Noor Muhammad and others1989 SCMR 1524 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-21
  inheritance mutationlimitation periodsuit for declarationamendment of plaintadverse possessionstarting point of limitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal concerns a property inheritance dispute originating from the death of Noor Muhammad in 1956. Following his death, a mutation was attested in 1958, allocating shares to his widow and paternal aunt, Mst. Fatima. In 1972, Mst. Bibi filed a suit for declaration, claiming to be the deceased's sister and rightful heir to a 3/4th share, which the trial court and appellate court decreed in her favor. However, the High Court reversed this, dismissing the suit as time-barred, reasoning it was filed beyond six years from the 1958 mutation. The petitioners seek leave to appeal, arguing the suit was timely if calculated from the first hostile act (the 1963 gift by Mst. Fatima) and requesting to amend the plaint to seek possession. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding the contentions regarding the starting point of limitation and the potential for amending the plaint to include possession require further examination, particularly in light of established precedents regarding limitation periods for inheritance claims.

  Questions settled

  • Does the attestation of a mutation constitute the starting point of limitation for a suit claiming inheritance rights?
  • Can a plaint seeking a declaration be amended to seek possession to overcome limitation issues?
  • Is a suit for inheritance filed within twelve years of a hostile act (such as a gift) time-barred if filed more than six years after the initial mutation?
  Read full judgment →
• Bibi Amna Khatoon vs Mrs. Iffat Masood Through Legal Heirs1989 MLD 4615 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
• Bhupinder Singh vs State of Punjab1989 MLD 1762 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-04-06Read full judgment →
• Bhariab Chandra Nandan vs Ranadhir Chandra Dutta1989 MLD 2094 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-12-16Read full judgment →
• Bharat Singh And Others vs The State of Haryana And Other1989 MLD 2579 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-09-13Read full judgment →
• Besham Rasool vs Imam Bakhsh And Other1989 MLD 469 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
• Benedict F.D' Souza vs Karachi Building Control Authority and 31989 SCMR 918 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-01
  constitutional petitionwrit jurisdictiondisputed questions of factbuilding controlleave to appealalternative remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court, which had challenged the approval of a building plan and no-objection certificate granted by the Karachi Building Control Authority. The core legal question was whether disputed questions of fact regarding property demarcation and private subdivision can be resolved within the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the approach of the High Court in declining relief was unexceptionable, ruling that complex factual controversies requiring a full-fledged trial and evidence cannot be agitated and decided in a constitutional petition. The key principle laid down is that where a dispute involves serious factual controversies regarding property rights and private partitioning, constitutional jurisdiction is not the proper remedy.

  Questions settled

  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding property rights be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Whether the High Court can properly decline relief in a constitutional petition involving complex factual controversies requiring evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Benazir Bhutto vs Federal Land Commission And Other1989 MLD 1851 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-07Read full judgment →
• Belal and 2 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 72 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-25Read full judgment →
• Behram Hussain vs Abdul Rashid Shah and 4 others1989 SCMR 1770 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-24
  res judicatasettlement lawsdisplaced personsleave to appealcivil revisionwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by way of a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's two civil revisions by the High Court. The underlying dispute pertains to the transfer of property under settlement laws relating to displaced persons. The core legal question is whether subsequent proceedings before a civil court involving the same subject-matter are barred by the principle of res judicata when the matter has already been adjudicated by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the principle of res judicata was rightly applied by the High Court, affirming that civil proceedings are barred under such circumstances. The key principle laid down is that prior adjudication in writ jurisdiction regarding settlement property matters operates as res judicata, precluding a subsequent challenge in civil courts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether subsequent civil court proceedings are barred by res judicata when the subject-matter has already been decided by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction?
  • Does a prior adjudication in settlement property matters under writ jurisdiction preclude a civil suit on the same subject-matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Begum Tahira Sultan In Re: vs Not1989 MLD 4701 · Sindh High Court · 1973-05-08Read full judgment →
• Begum Ismat Iftikharuddin vs Settlement Authority (Urban), Allotment Committee, Lahore and others1989 SCMR 738 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  evacuee propertyallotmentsettlement commissionercustodian of evacuee propertynotified officerwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a dispute regarding four kanals of land on Sundardas Road in Lahore, claimed by the appellant as private property gifted by her late husband, while respondent No. 3 sought its allotment as evacuee property. The Allotment Committee initially accepted the appellant's representation that the land was not evacuee property, but a Settlement Commissioner allowed the respondent's appeal, relying on revenue records and holding that he could not resolve intricate questions of law and fact. The Lahore High Court partly accepted the appellant's writ petition and remanded the matter to the Settlement Commissioner to decide the questions of law and fact. Upon leave to appeal, the core legal question was whether the controversy regarding the true nature of the property should be resolved by the Settlement Commissioner or the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The Supreme Court held that such questions of status and ownership could only be decided by the Custodian of Evacuee Property, and following the repeal of relevant laws, substituted the Notified Officer to determine the matter. The appeal was accordingly allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the controversy as to the true nature of a property as evacuee property can be resolved by the Settlement Commissioner?
  • Which authority is competent to determine the status and ownership of evacuee property upon the repeal of evacuee laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Baz Gul vs The Sub-Divisional Education Officer (Male), Mardan and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 833 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1989-07-23Read full judgment →
• Bayar Pharma Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone, Karachi ,1989 PTD 768 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Batul Begum And Others vs Mst. Sardar Akhtar And Another1989 MLD 106 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
• Bati Khan and 2 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2140 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-15Read full judgment →
• Bata Pakistan Ltd. vs Muhammad Bashir1989 PLC 889 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-01-23Read full judgment →
• Bashrat Hussain vs Karam Hussain and anothers1989 PLD Azad J&K 37 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-01-25Read full judgment →
• Bashir vs Nasir and another1989 SCMR 1135 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-30
  leave to appealcivil revisioncustomary lawgift declarationquestions of factappellate interference
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a plaintiff challenging the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court regarding a suit for declaration of a gift. The petitioner initially contended that the gift made by his father in favor of the respondent violated the prevailing customary law. However, the Supreme Court noted that this argument regarding customary law was no longer available due to subsequent changes in the law. The petitioner further attempted to challenge the gift on grounds related to the donor's state and the failure to satisfy necessary conditions for the gift's validity. The Supreme Court held that these new pleas were not raised before the High Court and involved questions of fact that could not be entertained for the first time at the leave to appeal stage. Furthermore, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's case to justify interference. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the finality of the High Court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner raise new pleas regarding questions of fact in a petition for leave to appeal that were not pressed before the High Court?
  • Does a change in law render a previously argued ground regarding customary law unavailable to a petitioner?
  • Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a civil revision matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir vs Abdul Rasool Through Legal Heirs And Another1989 MLD 576 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-15Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ullah Khan vs Ahmad Nawaz Khan And Another1989 MLD 4851 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-14Read full judgment →
• Bashir Shah vs The State1989 MLD 4080 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-17Read full judgment →
• Bashir Muhammad Khan vs N.W.F.P. Agricultural University through its1989 SCMR 1865 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  repatriationprobation periodcivil servantlienconstitutional jurisdictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the petitioner's Constitution Petition against his repatriation from the N.-W.F.P. Agricultural University to his parent provincial government department. The petitioner, a permanent civil servant, was selected as an Associate Professor at the University. Subsequently, the University Syndicate decided to repatriate him during his service. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had acquired permanent status or lien in the University by the automatic expiry of an initial one-year probation period, thereby barring his repatriation. The Supreme Court held that under the applicable University Service Statutes, unconfirmed probation past the initial year stood automatically extended for up to two additional years. Consequently, the petitioner remained on probation at the time of repatriation, and his lien with his parent government department continued intact. The Court affirmed the High Court's view, laying down the principle that a probationer not confirmed in service holds no permanent right to the post and remains liable to repatriation while statutory probation extensions are in effect.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a public employee on probation can be repatriated to their parent department upon the expiration of the initial probationary term without formal confirmation?
  • Does a civil servant retain a lien in their parent department when appointed to another institution on probation?
  • What is the effect of an unconfirmed probationary period under the N.-W.F.P. Agricultural University Peshawar Service Statutes, 1987?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Muhammad And 2 Others vs Mst. Shahzado Bibi And Another1989 CLC 1685 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-02Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ka. Muhammad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 428 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-20Read full judgment →
• Bashir And Others vs Nasrullah Khan And Other1989 CLC 2486 · Board of Revenue · 1989-04-23Read full judgment →
• Bashir and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2389 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
• Bashir Alias Taddy vs The StateK.L.R. 1989 Criminal Cases 38 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 225 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-03Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs Mst. Kaneez Fatima1989 MLD 3022 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmadii vs The Director General and another1989 SCMR 1734 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-27
  service lawdisciplinary proceedingsdepartmental inquirypenalty reductionservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a service matter concerning disciplinary action taken against a Telephone Operator employed at the Lahore Airport Telegraph Office. The petitioner was charged with financial irregularities, specifically failing to issue receipts for telephone calls and withholding change from members of the public. Following a departmental inquiry, the petitioner's pay was reduced to the minimum of his time scale. Upon appeal, the Federal Service Tribunal modified the penalty to a reduction of two steps in the time scale. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the findings of the departmental inquiry and the subsequent modification of the penalty by the Tribunal warranted judicial interference. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that no grounds for interference existed. The Court observed that the petitioner did not dispute the factual findings of three senior departmental officers who witnessed the irregularities, nor did he allege any bias or motive for false accusation against these officers. The judgment affirms the finality of factual findings in departmental proceedings absent evidence of malice or procedural impropriety.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with factual findings of a departmental inquiry where the petitioner does not dispute the observations of senior officers?
  • Can a service tribunal modify a penalty imposed during departmental disciplinary proceedings?
  • Is an allegation of bias required to challenge the findings of senior officers in a departmental inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Zonal Chief, Punjab Provincial Co-Operative Bank1989 PLC 705 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The Superintending Engineer, Gujranwala Circle (E), WAPDA Gujranwala and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 231 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 2929 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-27Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1607 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-03Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Criminal Cases 439 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 4805 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-07Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Superintending Engineer, Electricity WAPDA, Sahiwal1989 PLC 963 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1989-06-01Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Irrigation1989 PLC (C.S.) 46 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-14Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Province of Punjab EtcK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 35 · Lahore High Court · 1988-02-03Read full judgment →