Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Atta Muhammad and others vs Mst. Aziz and others1989 PLD Revenue 14 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1988-10-19Read full judgment →
- Atta Muhammad and Other vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Cirminal cases 87 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-31Read full judgment →
- Atta Muhammad and 2 others vs Hakim Ali and 3 others1989 SCMR 1113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendants against a High Court judgment that dismissed their Civil Revision in a suit for specific performance. The petitioners, who were second vendees, contended that the discretionary relief of specific performance should not have been granted because the respondents could be adequately compensated through monetary damages, as suggested by the pleadings and the agreement in question. The Supreme Court, having previously settled other issues regarding the parties' rights in earlier litigation, examined this sole remaining contention. The Court held that the discretion to grant specific performance was exercised correctly by the lower courts. It further observed that the High Court had addressed the argument regarding monetary compensation with adequate reasoning, which did not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, affirming the lower court's decision to grant specific performance.
Questions settled- Can the discretionary relief of specific performance be denied solely on the ground that the plaintiff could be adequately compensated by money?
- Does a High Court's reasoned dismissal of an argument regarding monetary compensation in a specific performance suit warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Atlas KHANPetitioncr vs Mazamullah Khan and another1989 P Cr. L J 2044 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition was filed under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the Sessions Judge, Bannu, following the acquittal of his co-accused. The core legal question revolved around whether an accused who has absconded for a long period is entitled to bail merely because his co-accused has been acquitted after a trial. The Peshawar High Court held that long abscondence is a significant factor against the grant of bail, and the acquittal of a co-accused does not automatically entitle an absconding accused to bail, as absconsion cannot be rewarded. The court laid down the principle that an accused who absconds for a noticeable period after the occurrence is not invariably entitled to bail solely on the ground that a co-accused has been acquitted, and such abscondence forms relevant material that must be considered alongside other incriminating evidence.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of a co-accused automatically entitle an absconding accused to post-arrest bail?
- Is long abscondence of an accused relevant when considering a petition for bail after the acquittal of a co-accused?
- Can an accused who has absconded for a prolonged period claim bail solely on the ground that eyewitnesses were disbelieved during the trial of a co-accused?
- Ataurrehman vs Capt. Shahid Saleem Lone and others1989 SCMR 998 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside orders allowing the amendment of a plaint in a suit for specific performance. The core legal dispute arose when the trial court permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint to implead the legal heirs of a deceased defendant, a decision initially upheld by the District Judge in revision. However, the High Court subsequently declared the trial and revisional courts' orders to be of no legal effect, effectively barring the impleadment of the deceased's widow and daughters. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the petition, granted leave to appeal to examine whether the trial court possessed the authority to correct the record or allow the amendment of the plaint under the circumstances. The Court held that the matter warranted a deeper examination of the procedural propriety of the lower courts' decisions. Consequently, the Supreme Court admitted the appeal for hearing, directed the parties to file necessary documents, and imposed an injunction restraining the alienation of the suit property during the pendency of the proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a trial court allow the amendment of a plaint to implead the legal heirs of a deceased defendant?
- Does the High Court have the authority to set aside an order allowing the correction of a plaint in a revisionary capacity?
- Under what circumstances can a trial court correct the record regarding the parties in a suit for specific performance?
- Ataur Rehman Khan vs Fateh Muhammad and 2 others1989 PLD Peshawar 191 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-08Read full judgment →
- Ata Muhammad vs Town Committee, Bhalwal1989 MLD 4587 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-14Read full judgment →
- Ata Muhammad vs The State1989 MLD 3727 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-17Read full judgment →
- Ata Muhammad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1674 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
- Ata Muhammad and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2401 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-25Read full judgment →
- Ata Mohammad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 684 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-17Read full judgment →
- Astan Muhammad vs Haji Amanullah Khan And Another1989 CLC 2257 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
- Associated Tanners, Viziangaram, A.P. (M_S.) vs Commercial Tax Officer, Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh And OtherPTCL 1989 FC. 32 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- Assistant General Manager (a & B) Pakistan Railways and another vs Abdul Majid1989 PLC 888 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Assistant Director, Labour Welfare (Inspection), Multan vs Occupier_Manager, Hilal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd1989 PLC 167 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-06-17Read full judgment →
- Assistant Director, Fisheries, D.G. Khan vs Hafiz Ahmad Qureshi , .1989 PLC 28 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-01-28Read full judgment →
- Assistant Controller of Customs and 3 others vs Messrs Link1989 SCMR 1698 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside a customs valuation assessment imposed by the Assistant Collector of Customs. The respondent-company had imported copper wire from Taiwan, but customs authorities assessed the value based on the price of similar goods originating from Japan and Poland, effectively doubling the valuation. The High Court accepted the respondent's writ petition, holding that the respondent's original valuation should be accepted. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that under Sections 25 and 30 of the Customs Act, the valuation should be based on the price fetched in an open market sale between independent buyers and sellers in the country of export. The petitioners contended that if the valuation methodology was flawed, the High Court should have remanded the matter to the customs authorities for reassessment rather than setting aside the order entirely. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether, in the circumstances, the High Court should have remanded the case to the customs authority for proper valuation.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court should remand a case to the customs authority when the valuation methodology is found to be legally flawed?
- Does the Customs Act require the normal price of imported goods to be determined based on the price of goods from the country of export rather than goods of other origins?
- Is the valuation of imported goods under the Customs Act to be assessed based on a sale in the open market between a buyer and seller independent of each other?
- Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Asst.) and Dharwar1989 PTD 839 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-05-05Read full judgment →
- Bachal vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 76 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-13Read full judgment →
- Assistant Collector, Kharian vs Bagh Ali1989 MLD 4120 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-17Read full judgment →
- Assessee vs DepartmentPTCL 1989 CL. 9 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1988-04-17Read full judgment →
- Aspi C. Patel vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1207 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-02Read full judgment →
- Asmatullah Khattak and 10 others vs Ehsanullah Khan, Manager, Administration Wyeth Laboratories (Pak) Ltd., Gulberg, Lahore and another1989 PLC 441 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1988-06-12Read full judgment →
- Asmat Qadri vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 276 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-26Read full judgment →
- Aslam Saeed vs Messrs United Bank Ltd. and another1989 PLC 1 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1988-09-22Read full judgment →
- Aslam Pervaiz and another vs The State and others1989 SCMR 389 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two petitions: a jail petition filed by Aslam Pervaiz challenging his conviction and sentence for murder and attempted murder, and a criminal petition filed by the complainant, Muhammad Akram, seeking enhancement of the sentences awarded to Aslam Pervaiz and Nazir Ahmad. The core legal questions concerned whether the evidence sufficiently established the guilt of the accused under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the sentences of life imprisonment imposed by the High Court were inadequate and required enhancement. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Supreme Court held that the convictions were well-founded, noting that the incident arose from an exchange of hot words followed by firing, which resulted in one death and two injuries. The Court concluded that the sentences awarded were neither capricious nor outrageous. Consequently, the Court dismissed both petitions, maintaining the convictions and the sentences imposed by the High Court. The key principle affirmed is that appellate courts will not interfere with sentences that are proportionate to the circumstances of the offence and are neither capricious nor outrageous.
Questions settled- Does an exchange of hot words preceding a shooting incident justify the enhancement of a life sentence to death?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a sentence imposed by the High Court?
- Is a conviction under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable where the evidence shows a sudden escalation from a verbal altercation to firing?
- Aslam Masih vs The State1989 MLD 4169(1) · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
- Aslam Khan And Others vs The State1989 MLD 2716 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-04Read full judgment →
- Asif Mahmood alias Kukoo and anothers vs The State1989 PLD Peshawar 43 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This post-arrest bail application arose out of a murder case registered under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the petitioners were detained as under-trial prisoners for over two years without trial conclusion. The primary legal questions were whether the delay in the trial was attributable to an act or omission on the part of the accused so as to disentitle them to bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether remands granted under the signature of a Court Reader rendered their custody illegal under Section 344 of the same Code. The Peshawar High Court granted bail to the petitioners, holding that the prosecution bears the duty to produce witnesses, and adjournments caused by its failure cannot be debited to the defence. Additionally, raising a valid objection against piecemeal evidence does not constitute delay by the accused. The Court further held that remand orders signed by a Court Reader in the absence of the Presiding Officer render the detention illegal under Section 344, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if statutory delay in trial was not caused by an act or omission of the accused?
- Does raising a valid objection against the recording of piecemeal evidence of prosecution witnesses constitute a delay attributable to the accused?
- Is a custody remand order signed by a Court Reader instead of the Presiding Judge or Magistrate valid under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Asian Associated Agencies vs Pakistan through Secretary,Ministry of Industries, Government of Pakistan1989 SCMR 2029 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an order of the High Court dismissing a review application, which sought to challenge an earlier order regarding execution proceedings and the interpretation of a stay application. The appellant sought to contest the High Court's findings on whether a previous order constituted a consent order and whether it could be subsequently recalled. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the appellant's counsel abandoned the initial contentions regarding the nature of the orders and the procedural propriety of the High Court's review. Instead, the appellant attempted to raise new arguments concerning the relevant date for determining exchange rates for remitting decretal amounts under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The Supreme Court held that these new questions did not arise from the High Court's order under review, nor were the findings in that order being challenged. Consequently, the Court determined that leave to appeal had been granted under a misapprehension of the scope of the appeal. The Court recalled the order granting leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal, affirming that appellate review is limited to the specific order under challenge.
Questions settled- Can an appellant raise new questions of law in an appeal that were not the subject of the order under review?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to recall an order granting leave to appeal if it determines the leave was granted under a misapprehension?
- Is a review application under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record?
- Ashraf Mian vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1079 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 489-C, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the possession of forged American currency notes, which resulted in a five-year rigorous imprisonment sentence. The core legal questions were whether the procedural requirements for recording an accused's statement under Section 364, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, were satisfied, and whether the prosecution successfully established the essential elements of the offence, specifically the forged nature of the currency and the appellant's guilty knowledge or intent. The court held that the trial judge's failure to provide the mandatory certificate under Section 364(3), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, constituted a fatal illegality. Furthermore, the court found the prosecution failed to prove the notes were forged, as no expert evidence or verification from the issuing authority was provided. The court established that mere possession of currency is insufficient for conviction; the prosecution must prove the accused knew the notes were forged and intended to use them as genuine, neither of which was established here. Consequently, the conviction was set aside.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a trial judge to provide the certificate required by Section 364(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a curable irregularity or a fatal illegality?
- What are the essential elements that the prosecution must prove to secure a conviction under Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the mere possession of forged currency notes sufficient to establish an offence under Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of knowledge or intent?
- Can a conviction under Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained solely on the testimony of police officers regarding the forged nature of currency without expert verification?
- Ashraf Ali Shah vs Noor Muhammad And Other1989 MLD 3088 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
- Ashnaghar vs Secretary Education, Government of N.-W.F.P.1989 PLC (C.S.) 439 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1989-03-06Read full judgment →
- Ashiq Muhammad vs Fazal Hussain1989 PLD Revenue 7 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1988-08-25Read full judgment →
- Ashiq Hussain vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 154 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-09Read full judgment →
- Ashiq Hussain vs Mst. Parveen Akhtar And Another1989 CLC 1557 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-26Read full judgment →
- Ashiq Hussain Shah vs The State1989 MLD 717 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-15Read full judgment →
- Ashiq Hussain Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1989 Criminal Cases 317 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-15Read full judgment →
- Ashiq Hussain Shah vs StateK.L.R. 1989 Criminal Cases 260(1) · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-15Read full judgment →
- Ashiq Hussain and 3 others vs The State1989 SCMR 1580 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's dismissal of a bail application filed by the petitioners, who sought release under the 3rd proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, on the grounds that their trial had not concluded within the statutory period of two years. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to statutory bail when delays in the trial proceedings were partially attributable to their own acts or omissions. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to bail, affirming that the statutory concession is unavailable where the delay in concluding the trial is occasioned by the accused's own conduct. The Court established the principle that the 3rd proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, does not require a precise mathematical calculation of delay caused by the defence; rather, it requires determining whether the finalization of the trial has been delayed, in any manner, by an act or omission on the part of the accused.
Questions settled- Is a precise calculation of the time constituting delay caused by the defence required to deny bail under the 3rd proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the statutory right to bail under the 3rd proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, apply if the delay in the trial is occasioned by an act or omission of the accused?
- Can an accused claim the benefit of the 3rd proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, if the trial has been delayed due to the accused's own transfer applications and requests for leave?
- Ashiq Hussain and 2 others vs Superintendent of Police, Multan and 21989 PLC (C.S.) 84 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Ashiq Etc vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 184 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-11Read full judgment →
- Ashiq and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1611 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-11Read full judgment →
- Ashiq alias Kaloo vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 601 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-06-28Read full judgment →
- Ashiq Ali vs Ghulam Muhammad and 3 others1989 SCMR 519 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute concerning the identity and location of property. The lower courts, including the High Court, resolved the factual controversy regarding the property's identity and location against the petitioner, primarily based on the petitioner's own pleadings. The Supreme Court found that the questions raised were essentially factual and had been correctly determined by the courts below. Consequently, the Court found no justification for interference and refused leave to appeal. Furthermore, the Court addressed the petitioner's intent to re-agitate the same plea before the executing court. The Supreme Court held that raising the same controversy again before the executing court would not constitute an honest pursuit and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The petition was dismissed with these observations.
Questions settled- Can a party re-agitate a factual controversy regarding property identity before an executing court after it has been resolved against them by the High Court?
- Does the re-litigation of a settled factual issue before an executing court constitute an abuse of the process of law?
- Ashiq Ali and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 983 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-10Read full judgment →
- Ashio Hussain and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 28 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-28Read full judgment →
- Ashfaq Muhammad vs Managing Director, Pakistan State Oils1989 SCMR 1671 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of the petitioner, a former Depot Officer of the Pakistan State Oil Company, for the misappropriation of 9,100 litres of petrol. The petitioner initially challenged his dismissal through a constitutional petition in the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed on the grounds that no service rules were produced to substantiate procedural irregularities and no evidence demonstrated the dismissal was passed without lawful authority. An Intra-Court Appeal subsequently affirmed this decision. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that his dismissal violated Section 16 of the Marketing of Petroleum Products (Federal Control) Act, 1974, which mandates the continuance of service under existing terms and conditions. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate how this provision was violated or that the Managing Director had altered his terms of service in a manner contrary to law. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner failed to establish any merit in his challenge and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the lower courts' findings.
Questions settled- Does the dismissal of an employee of a managed company under the Marketing of Petroleum Products (Federal Control) Act, 1974, require proof of violation of specific service rules?
- Can an employee challenge a dismissal order in constitutional jurisdiction without demonstrating that the order was passed without lawful authority?
- Does Section 16 of the Marketing of Petroleum Products (Federal Control) Act, 1974, prevent the dismissal of an employee for misconduct if their terms and conditions of service remain unaltered?
- Ashfaq alias Mithoo and 2 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 311 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-16Read full judgment →
- Ashfaq Ahmed Bajwa vs United Bank Ltd., Karachi and 2 others1989 PLC 881 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-12-20Read full judgment →
- Ashfaq Ahmed Alias Shakoo vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 64 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-28Read full judgment →
- Ashfaq Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 4187 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-19Read full judgment →
- Ashfaq Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 678 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-19Read full judgment →
- Ashfaq Ahmad Bajwa vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal1989 MLD 296 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-21Read full judgment →
- Asghar Munir vs Chairman, WAPDA and 2 others1989 SCMR 289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a civil servant working in WAPDA, sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal regarding the fixation of his seniority. The core legal question was whether a civil servant can claim the settlement of seniority in a lower cadre for the purpose of claiming benefits in a higher grade when the applicable rules do not permit such benefit. The Supreme Court held that a civil servant has no right to demand the settlement of seniority in a junior grade unless the non-determination of that seniority directly affects their seniority in the higher grade under the applicable rules. Finding no question of law requiring further examination, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant have a right to get their seniority settled in a junior grade?
- When can a civil servant claim the determination of seniority in a lower cadre while attacking their present seniority?
- Does the non-determination of seniority in a lower grade necessarily aggrieve a civil servant?
- Asghar Hussain vs Shoukat Ali1989 MLD 2496 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
- Asghar All vs Additional District Judge And Other1989 MLD 3044 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
- Asghar Alias Kala vs The State1989 MLD 4899 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-04Read full judgment →
- Asghar Ali vs Anwarul Haque And 5 Other1989 MLD 1840 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-19Read full judgment →
- Asghar Ali Shah vs Additional Commissioner, Revenue, Faisalabad And Other1989 MLD 209 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
- Asghar Ali and Other vs Abdul GhafoorK.L.R.1989 Criminal Cases 341 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Asghar Ali And 4 Others vs Abdul Ghafoor And Another1989 MLD 752 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-04Read full judgment →
- Asghar Ali alias Sajid and 4 others vs Fazal Karim and another1989 SCMR 1781 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by objectors against the dismissal of their civil revision concerning the execution of a decree for possession. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioners, as purchasers pendente lite, could successfully object to the execution of the decree and whether their alternative grounds in the objection petition were legally competent. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioners' claim as purchasers pendente lite was rightly rejected under the principle of lis pendens, and further held that the objection petition on the remaining grounds was not competent. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming the principle that purchasers pendente lite are bound by ongoing litigation and that objections on untenable grounds are incompetent.
Questions settled- Can purchasers pendente lite successfully object to the execution of a decree for possession?
- Is an objection petition challenging a decree on other grounds competent when raised by purchasers pendente lite?
- Does the principle of lis pendens apply to purchasers of property during the pendency of litigation?
- Arshad vs The State1989 MLD 4809 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-27Read full judgment →
- Arshad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 693 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-27Read full judgment →
- Arshad Mehmood vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 574 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-10Read full judgment →
- Arshad Mahmood Jadoon vs Land Acquisition Collector, Abbottabad1989 SCMR 1130 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court regarding compensation awarded for the acquisition of land. The petitioner contended that the High Court erred by consolidating two separate appeals concerning compensation for trees, arguing that the considerations and evidence relevant to one case improperly influenced the adjudication of the other. The Supreme Court examined whether, under the specific facts and circumstances, the appeals should have been adjudicated separately or, if consolidated, whether the evidence and its legal effect should have been analyzed distinctly for each matter. Noting that a related direct appeal was also pending in the High Court, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to further examine the propriety of the High Court's joint treatment of the distinct claims. The Court directed that the appeal be prepared on the existing record, permitted the filing of additional necessary documents, and ordered that the appeal be heard alongside the connected direct appeal filed by another party against the same impugned judgment.
Questions settled- Should separate appeals regarding land compensation be adjudicated distinctly rather than consolidated?
- Does the consolidation of appeals require separate analysis of evidence and legal considerations for each case?
- Is it appropriate for a court to allow considerations from one case to influence the outcome of a separate, albeit related, case?
- Arshad Mahmood and others vs Maqbool Ahmad and others1989 SCMR 1739 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by way of an appeal by Arshad Mahmood and others against Maqbool Ahmad and others. The core legal question concerns whether the pending appeal can be disposed of in terms of an out-of-court compromise reached between the parties. The Supreme Court accepted the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the duly signed compromise deed, which enhanced the sale price from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 25,000 and stipulated the deposit of the additional amount by the pre-emptor decree-holder within one month, failing which the trial court decree would be set aside. Holding that the compromise is lawful and acceptable, the Court allowed the appeal and disposed of the matter in terms of the compromise deed, making no order as to costs. The key principle laid down is that appellate proceedings may be lawfully concluded and decrees modified in accordance with a genuine, lawful out-of-court compromise verified by the parties' counsel.
Questions settled- Can an appeal before the Supreme Court be disposed of in terms of an out-of-court compromise between the parties?
- What is the legal effect of a default in depositing the enhanced sale price specified in a compromise deed?
- Arshad Mahmood and 3 others vs The ST a Te1989 PLD Lahore 266 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
- Arshad Hussain vs The State1989 MLD 2953 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
- Arshad Ali Alias Achhu vs The State1989 MLD 2688 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
- Arif Medicine Co. vs The C.I.T.,Lahore1989 PTD 817 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-17Read full judgment →
- Arif Masih vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 744 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-18Read full judgment →
- Arif Ali vs Muhammad Khan And Other1989 MLD 280 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-27Read full judgment →
- Arfuat Textile Factory vs The Registrar of Trade UnionK.L.R 1989 Labour & Services 61 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
- Arafat Woollen Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer ,1989 PTD 935(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a judgment of the High Court dated 16-1-1986, which had presumably upheld certain tax-related notices issued by the Income-Tax Officer. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan involved the validity of an impugned notice dated 18-9-1984, along with subsequent notices dated 20-1-1985 and 26-1-1985, issued to the appellant, Arafat Woollen Mills Ltd. The Supreme Court, upon review, allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment. Consequently, the Court allowed the appellant's Constitution petition, declaring the impugned notices to be issued without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Court further issued a permanent restraint against the respondent, prohibiting them from acting upon, implementing, or taking any further action in pursuance of the aforementioned notices, either personally or through any agency. The judgment establishes the principle that administrative notices issued without lawful authority are void ab initio and unenforceable, and that the judiciary possesses the power to restrain tax authorities from acting upon such invalid notices to protect the rights of the taxpayer.
Questions settled- Can a court declare tax notices issued without lawful authority to be of no legal effect?
- Does a court have the power to restrain tax authorities from acting upon invalid notices?
- Is a Constitution petition an appropriate remedy to challenge administrative notices issued without lawful authority?
- Appabhai And Another vs State of Gujarat1989 MLD 3695 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-02-05Read full judgment →
- Apar Private Ltd. And Other vs Union Of India And OtherPTCL1989 FC. 281 · Bombay High Court · 1985-10-17Read full judgment →
- Anwarul Haq vs Investment Corporation of Pakistan1989 PLC 65 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-02-23Read full judgment →
- Anwar vs The State1989 MLD 3711 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
- Anwar vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
- Anwar Shah vs Pakistan Railways and others1989 PLC 495 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-12Read full judgment →
- Anwar Saeed and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1863 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-28Read full judgment →
- Anwar Mahmood vs The Chairman, Area Electricity Board, WAPDA and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 389 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad vs Partab1989 MLD 4314 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, which had reversed the trial court's decree in a suit for possession of land. The appellant's father had executed a registered sale deed in favor of the respondent, which the appellant claimed was void due to fraud, misrepresentation, lack of consideration, and the executant's unsound mind and advanced age. The High Court held that the appellant was indeed the son of the deceased, reversing the lower appellate court's finding on paternity based on the un-contradicted testimony of the mother. However, on the question of limitation, the Court held that since the appellant sought to set aside a registered sale deed on grounds of fraud, Article 91 of the Limitation Act 1908 applied, requiring the suit to be filed within three years of discovering the fraud. As the appellant failed to plead or prove the specific date of knowledge of the fraud, the suit was barred by time. Furthermore, the Court held that advanced age alone does not presume mental incapacity, and actual non-payment of consideration does not invalidate a sale contract if consideration was fixed.
Questions settled- Whether Article 91 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to a suit for possession where the plaintiff must first set aside a registered sale deed on grounds of fraud?
- Is a plaintiff required to plead and prove the specific date of knowledge of fraud to satisfy the limitation period under Article 91 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can a court dismiss a suit as barred by limitation under Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1908 even if the plea of limitation was not raised in the written statement?
- Does the non-payment of the agreed sale consideration invalidate a registered sale deed, or does it merely give the executant a right to recover the amount?
- Anwar Khan and others vs Bakhsheesh Ah Mad and others1989 SCMR 784 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' Regular Second Appeal, which arose from a suit for possession of land through pre-emption that was decreed in favor of the respondents and upheld by the District Judge. The core legal question concerns whether the respondents had waived their right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court held that the petition must be dismissed because the issue of waiver was explicitly conceded and not pressed by the defendants' counsel before the trial Court, and was not argued before the lower appellate Court or raised as a ground in the Regular Second Appeal. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot be permitted to reagitate an issue in a higher forum that was explicitly conceded or abandoned as not pressed before the trial Court and omitted from grounds of appeal in intermediate appellate courts.
Questions settled- Can a party raise an issue in the Supreme Court that was conceded or not pressed before the trial Court?
- Whether a Regular Second Appeal can be maintained on a point not argued before the lower appellate Court and omitted from the memorandum of appeal?
- Anwar Khan And 16 Others vs Mst. Sahibzada And 3 Other1989 CLC 1327 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-25Read full judgment →
- Anwar Jehan Ara Begum And Others vs National Bank of Pakistan1989 MLD 977 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-14Read full judgment →
- Anwar alias Anoo and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1749 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-09Read full judgment →
- Anwar Ali vs The State1989 MLD 4170 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
- Anwar Ali vs Shah Nawaz and others1989 PLD Karachi 246 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 concerning a pre-emption suit for agricultural land, which the Court converted into a civil revision due to the suit's valuation. The core legal questions involved whether the presence of a Katcha path between two survey numbers defeats the right of pre-emption based on adjacency (Shafi-i-Jar), and whether the failure to reference the first demand (Talab-e-Mowasibat) during the second demand (Talab-e-Ishhad) invalidates a pre-emption claim. The Court held that, under Islamic law, it is mandatory for a pre-emptor to reference the first Talab while making the second Talab; failure to do so is fatal to the claim. Regarding the adjacency issue, the Court determined that the record was insufficient to establish whether the Katcha path separated the lands or formed part of them. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellate judgment and remanded the case for the recording of additional evidence to determine if the lands remained adjoining.
Questions settled- Does the presence of a Katcha path between two survey numbers automatically defeat a claim of pre-emption based on adjacency?
- Is it mandatory for a pre-emptor to explicitly reference the first demand (Talab-e-Mowasibat) when making the second demand (Talab-e-Ishhad)?
- Can a second appeal be treated as a civil revision when the subject matter value is below the statutory threshold?
- Is a Talab-e-Mowasibat made before the registration of a sale deed valid for the purposes of a pre-emption claim?
- Anwar Ali and 4 others vs Hayat1989 SCMR 821 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Lahore High Court judgment in a pre-emption suit where the petitioners, who were tenants, purchased a fractional share of a larger khata. The core legal questions were whether the High Court was competent to decree the suit following the Supreme Court's ruling in Government of N.-W.F.P v. Malik Said Kamal Shah, and whether a tenant-vendee purchasing a share in a larger khata is entitled to retain the entire area under their tenancy from pre-emption or only the share corresponding to their purchase. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the controversy regarding the effect of Said Kamal Shah was resolved against the petitioners by Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali. Regarding the tenancy issue, the Court held that the vendees only acquired ownership to the extent of the fractional share purchased in the land under their tenancy, not the entire tenancy area. The key principle established is that a tenant-vendee purchasing a share in a larger khata becomes an owner only to the extent of the purchased share in every parcel of the land, including the land under their tenancy, and cannot claim protection for the entire tenancy area.
Questions settled- Can a tenant-vendee who purchases a fractional share in a larger khata claim exemption from pre-emption for the entire area under their tenancy?
- Does the decision in Government of N.-W.F.P v. Malik Said Kamal Shah preclude the High Court from decreeing a pre-emption suit in the circumstances presented?
- Does a purchaser of a fractional share in a larger khata become an owner of the entire parcel of land under their tenancy or only to the extent of the share purchased?
- Anjun Khan and others vs Firda Us Khan and anothers1989 PLD Lahore 333 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-11Read full judgment →
- Anjum and 2 others vs Mst. Sufaidan and 3 others1989 PLD Lahore 103 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from a civil suit instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration of ownership and a perpetual injunction to prevent the defendants from interfering with her possession of the suit land. The plaintiff had previously obtained a decree for possession in 1961, which she did not execute. The defendants contended that the plaintiff's failure to execute the decree barred her from claiming any benefit under it. The trial and first appellate courts both found that the plaintiff was in possession of the land and decreed in her favour. The High Court affirmed these findings, holding that if a decree-holder obtains possession of the property without the intervention of the court, her possession is ascribed to the decree, making execution unnecessary. The Court further laid down that limitation only bars the remedy of execution but does not extinguish the substantive right itself under the Limitation Act 1908, unless covered by Section 28, and that the possession of one co-sharer is deemed to be the possession of all co-sharers.
Questions settled- Whether a decree-holder who obtains possession of property without court intervention is required to execute the decree to preserve their rights?
- Does the failure to execute a decree for possession within the limitation period extinguish the underlying substantive right of ownership?
- Can a co-sharer's right to joint property be extinguished solely because they are in possession of less than their entitlement, in the absence of exclusion by other co-owners?
- Anis Fazal Kiyani vs Messrs Pakistan Steel1989 PLC 727 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-03-19Read full judgment →
- Anis Ali Rehmani vs Messrs United Bank Limited1989 PLC 724 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
- and Mishahullah Khan, Member Asgharuddin and another vs Ministry of Communications and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 134 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-10-17Read full judgment →
- and Daigahi L. Mangi, Member Shaikh Zaffar Iqbal and another vs Government of Sind and 7 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 513 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1988-09-25Read full judgment →
- Amtal Sarosh vs Khalid Saleem1989 MLD 4756 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-27Read full judgment →
- Amjad Hussain vs Khalid Mahmood and 2 others1989 PLD Federal Shariat Court 11 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-10-11Read full judgment →