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.

• Bashir Ahmad vs PartabK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 115 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Muhammad Shafi1989 MLD 22 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-05Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Muhammad Shafi1989 SCMR 538 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-07
  personal bona fide requirementejectmentlandlord and tenantmisreading of evidenceleave to appealSupreme Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant against the dismissal of his first appeal by the High Court, which upheld his eviction ordered by the Cantonment Rent Controller on the ground of personal bona fide requirement of the landlord. The core legal question concerns whether the landlord bona fide required the disputed premises for his personal use and whether a misreading of evidence by the High Court regarding the extent of the landlord's current accommodation warrants interference. The Supreme Court held that leave to appeal cannot be granted on a mere misreading of evidence unless correcting the misreading would make a material difference to the findings of fact. The Court found that even with the corrected accommodation size, the landlord's large family size justified the need, noting that a landlord is the best judge of his own needs and comforts. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact on the ground of misreading of evidence unless such misreading is material to the outcome, and that the landlord's assessment of his own residential requirements and status is entitled to primary consideration unless the claim is visibly extraordinary.

  Questions settled

  • Whether leave to appeal can be granted on the ground of a mere misreading of evidence or document?
  • Is the landlord considered the best judge of his own residential need and comforts?
  • When can a court interfere with the landlord's assessment of his suitability and accommodation needs?
  • Whether a new plea regarding the availability of alternative accommodation can be entertained for the first time before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Muhammad Rafique1989 PLD Revenue 12 · Board of Revenue · 1987-12-16Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Muhammad Farooq And 15 Other1989 MLD 433 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-22Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Messrs Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. And Other1989 MLD 3475 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-15Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue and others1989 SCMR 858 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-29
  ejectment orderBoard of Revenuerevisional jurisdictionreview petitionwrit jurisdictionclean hands doctrineleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding an ejectment order. The petitioner faced an ejectment order passed by a Collector on the executive side, which was upheld on appeal by the Additional Commissioner. A revision petition was initially accepted by a Member of the Board of Revenue, but this order was subsequently recalled upon a review petition. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the review order, reasoning that the Member lacked jurisdiction to pass the review order, and consequently, the initial revisional order in the petitioner's favor was also invalid. The High Court further declined to remand the case, citing the petitioner's lack of clean hands and the existence of the original ejectment order. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting the petitioner's argument that the underlying ejectment order had been properly challenged through appellate and revisional channels, and that the finding regarding the petitioner's conduct was based on incorrect factual assumptions. The Court ordered the maintenance of status quo pending further proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Member of the Board of Revenue have the jurisdiction to review a previous order if they lacked the authority to pass the original order?
  • Can a High Court refuse to remand a case for the disposal of a pending revision petition based on the doctrine of clean hands?
  • Is an order passed on the executive side by a Collector subject to appellate and revisional review?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Deputy Commissioner and 9 others1989 SCMR 782 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-16
  leave to appealurban land transferrural land claimstemporary allotmentland settlementpossession requirements
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the transfer of urban land to claimants holding verified claims for rural land. The core legal question is whether, under the relevant governing law, urban land could be validly transferred to respondents who held verified claims for rural land, particularly where their possession of the suit property as temporary allottees was for a duration of less than five years prior to 8-12-1960. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal, determining that the matter requires a definitive interpretation of the eligibility criteria for such land transfers. The Court ordered that the appeal be heard on the existing record, with the parties granted leave to submit additional documentation. The decision highlights the necessity of strictly adhering to temporal and classification requirements—specifically the nature of the land (urban versus rural) and the duration of possession—when adjudicating claims for the transfer of state-allotted property under the relevant settlement or rehabilitation schemes.

  Questions settled

  • Can urban land be transferred to claimants holding verified claims for rural land?
  • Does the transfer of urban land to temporary allottees require possession for at least five years prior to 8-12-1960?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Azizul Haq Nairvi and 6 others1989 PLD Karachi 489 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-18Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Akbar and others1989 SCMR 1839 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-08
  free fightvicarious liabilitycriminal liabilityleave to appealappreciation of evidenceself defence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court arising out of a criminal trial for murder and assault. The core legal question involved the assessment of criminal liability and the application of the doctrine of free fight where cross-versions and numerous injuries were sustained by both parties. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court committed no error in law in evaluating the evidence, noting that in the case of a free fight, the question of vicarious liability does not arise and each participant is liable for their individual act. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the approach of the High Court was strictly in accordance with law and facts.

  Questions settled

  • Does the question of vicarious liability arise in the case of a free fight between parties?
  • Is each participant in a free fight liable solely for their individual act?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment that properly evaluates cross-versions and injuries in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs A.C., Lahore and others1989 SCMR 276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-19
  service tribunaldismissal from servicecorruptionpatwarileave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Patwari, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 9-9-1981, which had upheld his dismissal from service on the charge of corruption ordered by the Assistant Commissioner and subsequently affirmed in departmental appeal by the Commissioner. The core legal question was whether the departmental dismissal and the Tribunal's judgment upholding it were in accordance with the law and warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the judgment of the Tribunal was not open to any exception, as the dismissal order was lawful and based on relevant facts. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent factual findings and lawful disciplinary orders upheld by the Service Tribunal in service matters absent any legal error.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal upholding a dismissal from service on charges of corruption?
  • Is an order of dismissal passed by an Assistant Commissioner and upheld by the Commissioner and Service Tribunal open to exception when found to be in accordance with law?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Khan vs N.-W.F.P. Agricultural University and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 678 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-14Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Khan And 3 Others vs North West Frontier Province1989 CLC 1671 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad And Others vs The State1989 MLD 4025 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-13Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1783 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-13Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and others vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1989 SCMR 1115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-30
  consolidation schemewrit jurisdictionlimitationfinality of ordersBoard of Revenuediscretionary jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue in a consolidation case. The core legal question was whether the High Court should have interfered in the Board of Revenue's decision to restore an earlier order of the Collector dated 29-10-1978, despite the petitioners' contention that the original order was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that the order of 29-10-1978 had attained finality, as the proceedings regarding that order had concluded in 1982 without further challenge by the petitioners. Consequently, the Supreme Court determined that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in declining to interfere with the Board of Revenue's decision. The key principle laid down is that the High Court, in its discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction, will not grant relief against orders that have already attained finality, particularly when the underlying proceedings have long concluded without timely challenge by the aggrieved parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise its discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction to set aside an order that has already attained finality?
  • Does the failure to challenge an order in a timely manner preclude a party from later raising a plea of limitation in subsequent proceedings?
  • Is it appropriate for the High Court to interfere with a Board of Revenue decision that restores a previously finalized order?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad And Others vs Imam Din And Other1989 MLD 451 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and others vs Fazal Elahi and others1989 SCMR 934 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-07
  pre-emptionvendeespre-emptorspre-emption decreeinfructuous petitions
  Summary & questions settled

  These three petitions by vendees arose out of pre-emption matters. The core legal question was whether a pre-emption decree could be passed in favour of respondents-pre-emptors where no decree had been passed in their favour at any stage by any court prior to the 31st of July, 1986. The Supreme Court held that no decree can be passed in favour of pre-emptors now if no such decree existed prior to the specified date, following the precedent established in Sardar Ali PLD 1988 SC 287. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed as infructuous with the observation that the petitioners may raise their plea before the courts where the cases might be pending. The key principle laid down is that the absence of a pre-emption decree prior to the cutoff date of 31st July 1986 bars the passing of such a decree thereafter.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pre-emption decree be passed in favour of a pre-emptor if no decree was passed in their favour prior to the 31st of July, 1986?
  • What is the effect on pre-emption petitions where no prior decree exists in light of the rule laid down in Sardar Ali PLD 1988 SC 287?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1989 Criminal Cases 46 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-12Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad And Another vs Hafiz Muhammad Ibrahim1989 MLD 160 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and 2 others vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab and 4 others1989 SCMR 1668(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-22
  State landBara Schemeproprietary rightslease resumptioncultivation conditionpetition for leave to appealconcurrent findings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which dismissed the petitioners' writ petition against the concurrent orders of the revenue authorities. The petitioners were granted State land under the Bara Scheme in 1956 for eight years, subject to the condition that they bring at least 80 percent of the land under cultivation to become eligible for proprietary rights in half of the holding. The petitioners failed to cultivate the requisite percentage of land within the lease period and subsequent extensions granted by the Collector, leading to the resumption of the land by the State, which was subsequently allotted to a private respondent. The core legal question was whether the revenue authorities were justified in resuming the land based on the extent of cultivation. The Supreme Court held that since concurrent findings of fact established that the petitioners cultivated only between 17.69 percent and 30 percent of the land and thus failed to fulfill the mandatory condition, no interference was warranted. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that concurrent factual determinations regarding non-fulfillment of lease conditions do not justify judicial intervention.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in dismissing a writ petition where concurrent findings of fact regarding non-fulfillment of lease conditions are established against the petitioners?
  • Does failure to bring the requisite percentage of State land under cultivation within the stipulated lease period legally warrant the resumption of the land by the State?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent factual determinations made by revenue authorities regarding the extent of land cultivation?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and 10 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 567 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-07Read full judgment →
• Basharat Ali vs The State1989 MLD 718 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
• Basharat Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1989 Criminal Cases 308 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
• Basharat Ali vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and others1989 SCMR 687 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-14
  National Bank of Pakistanindustrial relationsreinstatementlabour court jurisdictiondismissed employeeservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that dismissed a writ petition filed by a dismissed employee of the National Bank of Pakistan. The High Court had relied on a previous judgment to hold that the petitioner could not seek reinstatement under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the Punjab Labour Court. The core legal question was whether the dismissal of the employee’s application as incompetent by the Labour Court and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal by the Labour Appellate Tribunal remained legally sustainable in light of evolving jurisprudence regarding the status of National Bank employees. The Supreme Court, noting that the precedent relied upon by the High Court had not been approved by the Supreme Court in subsequent litigation (Iftikhar Ahmad v. President, National Bank of Pakistan), accepted the concession made by the respondents. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders of the lower forums, and remanded the matter to the Punjab Labour Court No. 2 with directions to decide the petition on its merits in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dismissed employee of the National Bank of Pakistan seek remedy for reinstatement under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  • Does the disapproval of a precedent by the Supreme Court necessitate the setting aside of lower court orders based on that overruled precedent?
  Read full judgment →
• Basar vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1956 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-13Read full judgment →
• Barkhurdar vs Muhammad Razzaq1989 PLD Supreme Court 749 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-09
  pre-emptionlimitationagreement to sellphysical possessionmutationspecific performanceadmission
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two civil appeals arising from decisions of the Lahore High Court and the Peshawar High Court regarding the computation of limitation in pre-emption suits under Section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 and Section 31 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1950. The core legal question was whether delivery of possession of land under an agreement to sell constitutes delivery of physical possession 'under the sale', such that the one-year limitation period for a pre-emption suit begins to run from the date of such possession rather than from the date of attestation of the sale mutation following a decree for specific performance. The Supreme Court held that where an agreement to sell is followed by actual delivery of physical possession of the land sold, such possession constitutes delivery under the sale for limitation purposes. However, upon reviewing the factual record in both appeals, the Court found that the appellants failed to establish actual delivery of physical possession under their agreements to sell prior to the mutations. Consequently, the suits brought by the pre-emptors were within time, and both appeals were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delivery of physical possession under an agreement to sell triggers the running of limitation for a pre-emption suit under Section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
  • Whether an admission made on a point of fact that is factually incorrect or made in ignorance of a legal right has binding effect on the person making it?
  • Does limitation to file a pre-emption suit commence from the date of attestation of sale mutation when physical possession was not delivered under an earlier agreement to sell?
  Read full judgment →
• Barkat Khan and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2321 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-22Read full judgment →
• Barkat and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 863 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-20Read full judgment →
• Barkat and Another vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 84 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-20Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 596 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-03Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali Shah and 8 others vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Lahore and 2 others1989 PLC 227 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-09-21Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali Randhawa vs Sh. Munir Ahmad, Advocate1989 CLC 1875 · Pakistan Bar Council · 1989-06-01Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali and others vs Member Board of Revenue (Consolidation), Lahore and others1989 SCMR 1732 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-19
  consolidation proceedingsland allotmentwrit jurisdictionadministrative discretionconsolidation authoritiesKhasra numbers
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from consolidation proceedings involving a dispute over land allotment. The petitioners challenged a sanctioned Consolidation Scheme, which had been modified by the Collector following multiple remands, resulting in the reallocation of specific Khasra numbers. After exhausting their remedies before the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, the petitioners filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that consolidation authorities possess the requisite competence to determine such matters and that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction could not be invoked to interfere with these administrative determinations. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the impugned judgment and found no legal flaw or error in the reasoning provided by the High Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision, holding that the consolidation authorities acted within their jurisdiction and that the High Court correctly declined to interfere in the administrative exercise of their powers. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, maintaining the finality of the consolidation proceedings as determined by the relevant authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with the decisions of consolidation authorities under its writ jurisdiction?
  • Are consolidation authorities competent to determine the reallocation of land during consolidation proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali And Another vs Ch. Fazal Hussain And Another1989 CLC 1255 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
• Bara Khan vs Munir Ahmad1989 PLD Quetta 94 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-05-11Read full judgment →
• Baqa Muhammad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1715 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-25Read full judgment →
• Bank of Oman Limited, Karachi vs Naseer Bakhsh1989 PLC 113 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-02-01Read full judgment →
• Bank of India vs Union of India and others1989 PTD 326 · Delhi High Court · 1986-10-28Read full judgment →
• Banaras And 3 Others vs The State1989 MLD 3255 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-04Read full judgment →
• Balwant Kaur vs Union Territory of Chandigarh1989 MLD 1638 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-11-03Read full judgment →
• Bakhtiar Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 446 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-11Read full judgment →
• Bakhtiar Ahmad vs Superintendent of Police, Kohistan and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 235 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
• Bakhtawar vs Falak Sher and 2 others1989 SCMR 1515 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-11
  Leave to appealSentence enhancementMurderCommutation of sentenceProvocationMitigating circumstancesCriminal justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a Lahore High Court judgment that maintained the conviction of Falak Sher and Shairi under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code, but reduced Falak Sher's death sentence to life imprisonment. The petitioner, father of the deceased, sought enhancement of Falak Sher's sentence back to death. The High Court had commuted Falak Sher's sentence primarily because the deceased had passed on his bicycle in front of the respondents' residential area, which the High Court considered sufficient provocation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether this commutation of sentence was in accordance with well-established principles of criminal justice, specifically addressing if the cited provocation constituted a mitigating circumstance for awarding a lesser penalty. Falak Sher was ordered not to be released until the disposal of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can the act of a deceased passing in front of an accused's residence constitute sufficient provocation to mitigate a murder sentence from death to life imprisonment?
  • What principles govern the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment in a murder case?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal for sentence enhancement in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakhtawar Shah vs Sikandar Muhammad Iqbal Khan And 5 Other1989 CLC 2398 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-07-03Read full judgment →
• Bakht Zamin vs Said Majid1989 SCMR 1719 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-03
  Marz-ul-Mautcivil procedureframing of issuespleadingsremandgift deedundue influence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment that remanded a civil suit for retrial after framing an additional issue regarding 'Marz-ul-Maut' (death-bed illness). The respondent-plaintiff had originally challenged a gift deed as forged and fraudulent, but the appellate court had invalidated the deed based on the doctrine of Marz-ul-Maut, despite the absence of a specific pleading or issue on the matter. The High Court, while noting that issues must arise from pleadings, observed that extensive evidence regarding the donor's health had been admitted without objection from either party. Consequently, the High Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and remanded the case to ensure a fair adjudication on the specific issue of Marz-ul-Maut. The Supreme Court affirmed this approach, holding that while issues generally arise from pleadings, courts possess the authority to frame necessary issues when evidence on a specific point has been extensively led by parties without objection, thereby ensuring the controversy is properly addressed and adjudicated upon.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court frame an additional issue on a matter not explicitly raised in the pleadings if evidence on that matter has been led without objection?
  • Is it permissible for an appellate court to decide a case on a ground not pleaded by the parties?
  • Does the absence of a specific issue in the pleadings preclude the court from considering evidence admitted without objection?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakhsh Ilahi vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2134 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-25Read full judgment →
• Bairam Khan Chaudhary vs Executive Committee of the Bar1989 PLD Lahore 311 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-19Read full judgment →
• Bahoo vs Iiird Additional District Judge, Sahiwal and others1989 SCMR 497 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-17
  pre-emptiondecretal amountdeposit of pre-emption moneyextension of timeappellate courtsupreme court leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the appellate court's order allowing pre-emptors to deposit the pre-emption decretal amount after the dismissal of their appeal. The core legal question was whether the executing court or the appellate court is competent to grant an extension of time or determine reasonable time for depositing the pre-emption amount following the dismissal of an appeal against a pre-emption decree. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the contention that the appellate court—rather than the executing court—is competent to grant such extension finds support from prior jurisprudence. The key principle laid down is that while an appellate court may grant reasonable time for depositing a pre-emption amount after dismissing an appeal, the competency to grant such extension vests in the appellate court disposing of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the executing court or the appellate court is competent to grant an extension of time for depositing the pre-emption amount after the dismissal of an appeal?
  • Does the suspension of a pre-emption judgment and decree by an appellate court exclude the time during which the suspension order remained in force for the purpose of depositing the decretal amount?
  Read full judgment →
• Bahawani Shankar vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 504 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-01Read full judgment →
• Bahawal Shah Mazari vs Khawand Bakhsh Khan Mazari1989 SCMR 1323 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-20
  service appealpromotionjurisdictionleave to appealservice tribunalappellate stage
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by Bahawal Shah Mazari against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had set aside an impugned order and directed the relevant authority to refer the matter of promotion to the post of Deffadar to a Promotion/Selection Committee for a fresh decision in accordance with the applicable rules. The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's decision, primarily contending that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal. The Supreme Court observed that this specific plea regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction had not been raised before the Tribunal itself. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner could not be permitted to raise such a plea for the first time at the appellate stage, particularly given that the matter had already been remanded for consideration by the appropriate Promotion/Selection Committee. Finding no merit in the petition, the Supreme Court dismissed it, thereby upholding the Tribunal's directive for a fresh decision by the competent authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise a plea regarding the jurisdiction of a tribunal for the first time during an appeal before the Supreme Court?
  • Is a service tribunal's order directing a fresh decision by a promotion committee subject to interference when the petitioner failed to challenge the tribunal's jurisdiction initially?
  Read full judgment →
• Bahawal Bakhsh vs The Member, Board of Revenue, Lahore and others1989 SCMR 1086 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-13
  consolidation matterwrit petitioncompensationdate-treesleave to appealland-holders agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court in a consolidation dispute. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ regarding compensation for date-trees and whether an agreement among land-holders excluded a specific individual, Muhammad Shafi. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court was fully justified in refusing relief, as the record revealed no reservation was made in the agreement regarding Muhammad Shafi or the compensation for date-trees. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that binding agreements among land-holders in consolidation proceedings preclude subsequent challenges regarding excluded reservations or specific compensation claims unless explicitly provided for in the agreement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ can be granted regarding compensation for date-trees when an agreement among land-holders contains no such reservation?
  • Is a party bound by a consolidation agreement that does not explicitly exclude specific individuals or claims?
  Read full judgment →
• Bahadur vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1939 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-27Read full judgment →
• Bahadur And Others vs The State1989 MLD 2699 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-03Read full judgment →
• Baghu vs Sher Alias Shera And Other1989 CLC 457 · Lahore High Court · 1987-11-01Read full judgment →
• Bagh Ali vs The State And 3 Other1989 MLD 4404 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-31Read full judgment →
• Bagh Ali And 3 Others vs Mst. Zaiban And 11 Other1989 CLC 1721 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-29Read full judgment →
• Baggu and 8 others vs Ismail1989 SCMR 1736 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-18
  possession suitevacuee propertyleave to appealcivil revisionconcurrent findings of factCustodian Authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil revision by the High Court, which had affirmed an appellate judgment in a suit for possession of a village site. The core legal question was whether the disputed land was evacuee property, which the petitioners claimed to have acquired ownership of under Settlement Scheme No. VII, or whether it was government property sold to the respondent. The petitioners further contended that the issue of the land's status as evacuee property necessitated a reference to the Custodian Authorities. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had correctly resolved the factual controversy regarding the land's status in favor of the respondent, noting a complete lack of documentary evidence to support the petitioners' claim. Furthermore, the Court held that a reference to the Custodian Authorities is not automatic but requires a prima facie case based on reasonable material, which the petitioners failed to establish. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused, affirming the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Is a reference to the Custodian Authorities regarding the status of land as evacuee property mandatory in every case where such a plea is raised?
  • Does a party claiming land as evacuee property under Settlement Scheme No. VII require prima facie evidence to support a request for reference to the Custodian Authorities?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the ownership status of property when no documentary evidence contradicts those findings?
  Read full judgment →
• Badruddin H. Mavani vs Income-Tax Officer Circle XII (East), Karachi1989 PTD 684 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
• Badloo vs Revenue Assistant /Assistant Settlement Commissioner And1989 CLC 144 · Lahore High Court · 1987-11-01Read full judgment →
• Badaruddin,General Secretary, Workers' Union vs Allauddin and 31989 PLC 450 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1988-09-01Read full judgment →
• Badaruddin, General Secretary, Workers' Union vs Partners and 21989 PLC 452 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1988-09-01Read full judgment →
• Babu Muhammad Azam and others vs Mushtaq Ahmad and others1989 SCMR 1056 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-04
  pre-emptionlimitationpossessionconcurrent findings of factleave to appealsale of immovable property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld a decree in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the pre-emption suit was barred by limitation, specifically regarding the date of possession transfer. The petitioners (vendees) contended that the sale occurred in August 1979, making the suit filed in December 1980 time-barred. The respondents (pre-emptors) argued the transaction was collusively backdated. The trial court and appellate court concurrently found that the defendants failed to prove the transfer of possession in August 1979, noting the unusual nature of the transaction and the lack of reliable evidence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the failure to prove the earlier date of possession were sound. The Court affirmed that the defendants' attempt to backdate the transaction to defeat pre-emption claims was unsuccessful, and since the defendants could not satisfy the limitation test, the suit was not time-barred. The Court refused leave to appeal, determining no substantial question of law remained for further examination.

  Questions settled

  • Does a document reciting a past transfer of possession bind third-party pre-emptors regarding the date of limitation?
  • Can a defendant rely on an unregistered document to establish a date of possession transfer for the purpose of defeating a pre-emption claim?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the date of possession transfer subject to interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Babu Muhammad Aslam vs Mst. Reh Ana Parveen1989 PLD Peshawar 185 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-15
  ejectmentpower of attorneyratificationmaintainabilityrent controllerunauthorized agent
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from two separate appeals filed by a tenant against the orders of the Rent Controller directing his ejectment from two commercial shops under Section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The appellant-tenant contended that the ejectment applications were incompetent and non-maintainable because they were signed and filed by an attorney who did not hold any power of attorney on the date of filing, and that the subsequent power of attorney executed three months later did not ratify his past unauthorized acts. The High Court examined the definition of power of attorney and the doctrine of ratification under Section 196 of the Contract Act, 1872. It held that a power of attorney must be construed strictly and only confers powers specifically described therein. Since the subsequent instruments only authorized future acts and contained no reference to past actions, there was no valid ratification of the unauthorized filing. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the ejectment orders solely on this technical ground while granting the landlords liberty to file fresh applications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a power of attorney executed subsequent to the filing of a legal proceeding can validate the unauthorized filing of that proceeding under the doctrine of ratification?
  • Can a power of attorney be construed to ratify past unauthorized acts of an agent if the instrument only refers to acts in futuro?
  • Are the provisions of Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to proceedings before a Rent Controller under rent restriction laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Babu Khan vs Chairman, WAPDA and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 857 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1987-11-30Read full judgment →
• B.G. Francis And Others vs Government of Netherland And Other1989 CLC 129 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
• B.D. Avari vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1989 PTD 670 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
• B a ZM Es Ala T and others vs Messrs United Bank Ltd.s1989 PLD Karachi 150 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-12
  banking recovery suitsummary suitinchoate stamped instrumentpromissory noteletter of guaranteelimitation periodestoppelexecutant death
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal arose from a suit filed by the respondent Bank under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for recovery of bank dues based on a promissory note and letter of guarantee, which was decreed by the Single Judge. The appellants contended that the suit was barred by limitation, that an inchoate promissory note filled after the death of an executant was invalid, and that the letter of guarantee was signed in an official rather than personal capacity. The High Court affirmed the decree and dismissed the appeal. The Court held that under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, the holder has authority to fill in blanks of an inchoate stamped instrument within a reasonable time, which exists in addition to the three-year limitation period. Filling blanks within fifteen months was deemed reasonable, especially where the executant's death was concealed. The Court further ruled that while Section 20 does not apply to letters of guarantee, the doctrine of estoppel precludes the signatory from denying liability when execution is admitted and no evidence is produced to rebut personal liability.

  Questions settled

  • Does the holder of an inchoate stamped instrument under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 have the authority to fill in the blanks within a reasonable time in addition to the statutory limitation period?
  • Whether the death of an executant prior to the filling of blanks by the holder invalidates an inchoate stamped instrument if the fact of death was not disclosed to the holder?
  • Can the doctrine of estoppel apply to bind a guarantor who admits signing a printed letter of guarantee but claims to have executed it only in an official capacity without leading evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Azmat Bibi and 2 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1605 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
• Azizur Rehman vs Muhammad Yasin1989 MLD 1445 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-03Read full judgment →
• Azizullah Khan vs Government of Pakistan and 4 others1989 SCMR 1623 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-13
  locus standiwrit jurisdictionadministrative lawconstitutional petitionexhaustion of remedies
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition challenging the installation of a petrol/diesel pump. The core legal question addressed was whether the petitioner possessed the requisite locus standi to invoke the High Court's writ jurisdiction to challenge the administrative decision regarding the installation of the pump. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the petitioner lacked the necessary locus standi to maintain the challenge in the writ jurisdiction. The Court held that the petitioner's remedy lay in agitating the grievance before the relevant administrative authorities or government agencies. The ratio established is that a party lacking locus standi cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to challenge administrative actions such as the installation of a petrol pump, and must instead exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention, provided that any subsequent adverse order may then be challenged in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does a petitioner have locus standi to challenge the installation of a petrol pump in writ jurisdiction?
  • Is it necessary to approach administrative authorities before invoking writ jurisdiction against the installation of a petrol pump?
  Read full judgment →
• Azizullah Khan And 2 Others vs The State1989 MLD 636 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
• Azizullah and 2 others vs Muhammad Ali and 2 others1989 SCMR 264 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-04
  criminal appealacquittaleye-witness credibilitySection 164 CrPCbenefit of doubtmurderballistic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court of Sind, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in discarding the testimony of eye-witnesses and acquitting the respondents based on minor discrepancies and omissions in their statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reasons for disbelieving the prosecution witnesses were inadequate. The Court found the eye-witness to be natural and disinterested, and the ocular evidence consistent with the medical evidence and the prompt F.I.R. The Court established the principle that minor discrepancies or omissions in statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 do not necessarily invalidate the substantial part of a witness's testimony, especially when the prosecution's case is otherwise corroborated by ballistic evidence and a proven motive. Consequently, the Court set aside the acquittal and restored the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court, granting the respondents the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does a minor discrepancy or omission in a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically invalidate the testimony of an eye-witness?
  • Can an appellate court set aside an acquittal if the trial court's assessment of evidence was sound and the High Court's reasons for disbelieving witnesses were inadequate?
  • Is the prompt lodging of an F.I.R. a relevant factor in assessing the credibility of ocular evidence in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ullah and 11 others vs Rasool Bakhsh and 29 others1989 SCMR 842 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-29
  civil appealAdhlapi agreementconcurrent findingstitle to landmutationleave to appealadverse possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arises from concurrent judgments of three lower courts regarding the title to disputed land claimed by the defendants/petitioners under an Adhlapi agreement. The core legal questions involved whether the defendants established the existence and fulfillment of the Adhlapi agreement, including the sinking of a well and making the land cultivable, and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to prove the Adhlapi agreement or the fulfillment of its conditions, and could not demonstrate any misreading or non-reading of evidence by the lower courts. Consequently, the Court ruled that no case was made out for interference with the concurrent findings of fact. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding title and possession, supported by evidence and free from material irregularity, will not be interfered with in leave to appeal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding title and possession can be interfered with without showing misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • Is the attestation of a mutation based on an Adhlapi agreement sustainable when the conditions of sinking a well and cultivating the land are not fulfilled?
  • When does limitation start in a suit challenging mutation entries where the defendants threaten interference with ownership and possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Aziz Begum And Others vs Custodian of Enemy Property And Other1989 MLD 931 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-30Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ahmed Khan vs Messrs Afghan National Bank Pak. Private Ltd., Karachi1989 PLC 1001 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-10-30Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ahmad vs Muhammad Tufail and another1989 SCMR 1661 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-15
  pre-emptionestoppel by conductvendeewrit petitionBoard of Revenuerevisional jurisdictionconstitutional jurisdictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of the petitioner vendee's constitutional writ petition by the High Court in a pre-emption dispute. Although the petitioner's right of pre-emption was admittedly weaker than that of the respondent pre-emptor, the primary controversy concerned whether the pre-emptor was estopped by conduct from exercising his pre-emption right. Specifically, upon gaining knowledge of the transaction, the pre-emptor allegedly sought time from the vendor on the ground of lacking funds instead of concluding the bargain immediately. The Supreme Court observed that the Additional Commissioner's finding on the bar of estoppel prima facie appeared correct. Consequently, it required determination whether the Member, Board of Revenue, was justified in overturning that decision in revision, and whether the High Court ought to have intervened under its constitutional jurisdiction. Finding that substantial legal questions required consideration, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal subject to security.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-emptor is estopped by conduct from claiming a right of pre-emption if, upon gaining knowledge of the sale, he seeks time from the vendor due to lack of funds instead of concluding the transaction immediately?
  • Whether the Member, Board of Revenue, properly exercised revisional jurisdiction in reversing a finding of estoppel against a pre-emptor?
  • Whether the High Court ought to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to set aside an order of the Member, Board of Revenue that improperly reversed a finding on estoppel?
  Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ahmad vs Director Education (Schools), N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 3 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 89 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
• Azhar Mohsin vs The State1989 MLD 4033(1) · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-30Read full judgment →
• Azhar Hussain Nasim And Another vs Judge Family Court1989 MLD 345 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
• Azeem Khatoon And Another vs Muhammad Amin And Other1989 MLD 3080 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-25Read full judgment →
• Azam Riaz Farooqi vs Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 4 others1989 SCMR 320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-31
  colonization of government landsleave to appealallotment of landlegal heirsboard of revenue directives
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a civil petition for leave to appeal arising from a dispute adjudicated by the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court is whether section 19-A of the Colonization of Government Lands Act is subject to the control of section 10 of the said Act, along with the terms and conditions laid down in relevant schemes and directives issued by the Board of Revenue. Granting leave to appeal, the Court held that the appeal may proceed subject to the condition that the petitioner implead the Muslim Law heirs of the original allottee as appellants and that any potential benefit from the success of the appeal shall accrue to those heirs. The key principle laid down relates to the interplay between statutory provisions governing government land colonization and the necessity of joining all legal heirs in appellate proceedings concerning allotted estates.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 19-A of the Colonization of Government Lands Act is subject to the control of section 10 thereof and the relevant schemes and directives issued by the Board of Revenue?
  • Can leave to appeal be made conditional upon the impleadment of the Muslim Law heirs of the original allottee?
  Read full judgment →
• Azam Khan and another vs The State and another1989 P Cr. L J 2286 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-08-19Read full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad1989 CLC 905 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-02-18Read full judgment →
• Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Through Chief1989 CLC 575 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
• Ayyas Mahmood vs Additional District Judge and others1989 SCMR 1743 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-22
  writ petitionconstitutional jurisdictionfrauddiscretionary reliefsale of landdecreeleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition, which stemmed from the dismissal of his application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging a land sale decree on the ground of fraud. The core legal question concerns whether discretionary constitutional relief can be granted to a party attempting to use technicalities to defraud another despite concurrent findings that no fraud was committed against him and that he received the sale consideration. The Supreme Court held that a writ shall not issue in aid of injustice under constitutional jurisdiction and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that discretionary relief under constitutional jurisdiction will be withheld from a litigant whose conduct shows an attempt to perpetuate injustice or defraud an opposing party.

  Questions settled

  • Can a writ issue in aid of injustice under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Is a party who has received sale consideration and attempted to retain it without justification entitled to discretionary relief on the ground of fraud?
  • Whether an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging a decree on the ground of fraud can succeed when findings establish no fraud was committed against the applicant?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayub Hassan vs Government of the Punjab and others1989 SCMR 1255(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-19
  service tribunalcompulsory retirementqualifying servicecivil servantleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, formerly an Additional District and Sessions Judge, challenged his retirement from service after completion of 25 years of qualifying service, arguing that his prior service under the Central Government should not have been combined with his Provincial Government service of 15 years for computing the retirement threshold, relying on precedent. The core legal question is whether Central Government service can be included by the Provincial Government when computing the 25 years of qualifying service for premature retirement under the applicable rules. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contention raised regarding the computation of qualifying service requires detailed examination. The key principle laid down is that the amalgamation of Central and Provincial government service for calculating qualifying service for retirement requires judicial scrutiny when challenged under the governing service rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether prior service under the Central Government can be counted towards qualifying service for retirement under the Provincial Government?
  • Does the computation of twenty-five years of service for retirement permit the amalgamation of federal and provincial tenures?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayub Ali Khan And Of Heirs vs Brig. Gul Sher Khan And Other1989 MLD 261 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
• Awami Silk Mills Workers Union vs Messrs Awami Silk Mills1989 PLC 794 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-08-25Read full judgment →
• Awaid Akhtar vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 239 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-06Read full judgment →
• Awadhesh And Another vs State of Madhya Pradesh1989 MLD 3327 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-04-12Read full judgment →
• Avid Iqbal and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1395 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-14Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1727 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →
• Attaur Rehman and another vs Mst. Azra Bibi and another1989 SCMR 1426 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-14
  minor custodyguardian and wardwelfare of the minormuslim personal lawconstitutional jurisdictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the custody of a minor, Nazimur Rehman. The Guardian Judge initially awarded custody of the minor to the mother after recording evidence, which decision was subsequently upheld in appeal by the Additional District Judge and confirmed by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. The core legal question pertained to the proper custody of the minor and the welfare of the child. The Supreme Court held that none of the courts below committed any illegality in awarding the custody of the minor to the mother, noting that the High Court rightly kept in view the welfare of the minor as a paramount consideration alongside Muslim Personal Law. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in determining child custody matters?
  • Can the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction be invoked against concurrent findings of lower courts in custody matters?
  • Is the mother entitled to the custody of a minor under Muslim Personal Law and surrounding circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Attaullah vs Province of Sind Through Deputy Commissioner, Thatta1989 MLD 3171 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Attar Khan vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Criminal Cases 443 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-30Read full judgment →
• Attar Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2354 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-30Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs Ali Sher And Other1989 MLD 4504 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-17Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad Khan Niazi vs The Deputy Inspectorgeneral of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha and another1989 SCMR 1566 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-13
  Service Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsreversion in rankunauthorized absencepolice serviceleave to appealquestion of law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Head Constable, challenged his reversion to the rank of Constable following an order by the Superintendent of Police due to unauthorized absence from duty. After exhausting departmental remedies, he appealed to the Service Tribunal, alleging that the daily diary register at the police station had been forged to falsely record his absence. The Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the absence was willful and that there was no evidence of tampering with the register. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution, contending that an inquiry report supported his defense. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings, noting that the inquiry report relied upon by the petitioner was inconclusive and contradictory. Finding that the Service Tribunal's factual determination regarding the willful absence was sound and that no substantial question of law was presented, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, thereby upholding the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inconclusive and contradictory inquiry report provide sufficient grounds to challenge a disciplinary finding of willful absence?
  • Is the factual determination of a Service Tribunal regarding the integrity of official police records subject to interference by the Supreme Court when no question of law is involved?
  • Can a disciplinary order of reversion be set aside on the basis of alleged forgery of departmental records if the evidence does not substantiate the claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad Etc. vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 688 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-28Read full judgment →