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.
- Amjad Hussain Abid vs The State1989 MLD 4807(1) · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-05Read full judgment →
- Amjad Hussain Abid vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 63 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-05Read full judgment →
- Amjad H.Malik vs Mst. Razia Begum1989 SCMR 1117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order passed by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. The High Court had disposed of the petitioner's constitutional petition based on the relief sought by the petitioner and the consent provided by the respondent. The High Court's order directed the trial court to ensure the production of relevant bank records regarding remittances by a specified date to facilitate the timely disposal of the case, while also allowing parties to present rebuttal evidence. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged this order, expressing apprehension regarding potential technical difficulties in producing the entire record. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's direction was limited to the production of 'relevant record' only. Finding the petitioner's apprehension unsubstantiated and noting that the High Court had already granted the relief sought by the petitioner through consent, the Supreme Court held that no valid grounds existed for leave to appeal. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner challenge an order in the Supreme Court that was passed by the High Court based on the petitioner's own requested relief and the respondent's consent?
- Does a direction by the High Court for the production of 'relevant record' constitute a valid ground for appeal if the petitioner fears technical difficulties in producing the entire record?
- Amjad H. Malik vs Mst. Razia Begum and others1989 SCMR 1414 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a single order of the Lahore High Court arising from two consolidated suits concerning specific performance of a contract and a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The trial court dismissed the petitioner's suit and decreed the respondent's suit. Upon appeal, the District Judge reversed the trial court's judgment. The High Court subsequently set aside the lower appellate court's judgment and remanded the matter because the lower appellate court failed to consider and examine the oral and documentary evidence produced by the respondent. The Supreme Court observed that the first appellate court is bound under the law to examine and consider the evidence produced by all parties and provide reasoned judgments. Agreeing with the High Court that the failure to consider material evidence warranted a remand for rehearing, the Supreme Court held that an appellate court cannot ignore evidence on the subjective assumption that it lacks quality. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Is the first appellate court required under the law to consider and evaluate the evidence produced by all parties before reversing a trial court's judgment?
- Can an appellate court ignore evidence produced by a party on the ground that it is allegedly not of a quality that needs discussion?
- Does the failure of a lower appellate court to consider material documentary and oral evidence justify the remand of the case for rehearing?
- Amjad Faiz vs The Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority1989 SCMR 1742 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the removal of the petitioner, a Director (Accounts) at the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The petitioner had been removed from service following allegations of misconduct, specifically related to negligence in handling departmental accounts and failure to maintain proper control over budgetary provisions. The Federal Service Tribunal had partially allowed the petitioner's appeal, setting aside the removal order and substituting it with an order of retirement. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the Tribunal's findings and the petitioner's arguments. The Court held that the Tribunal's decision was unexceptionable, noting that the petitioner's admitted negligence in financial and budgetary oversight justified the disciplinary action taken. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, affirming the Tribunal's decision to retire the petitioner rather than remove him from service.
Questions settled- Can the Federal Service Tribunal substitute an order of removal from service with an order of retirement?
- Does negligence in handling departmental accounts and budgetary control constitute sufficient grounds for disciplinary action under the WAPDA Act?
- Is the finding of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding departmental negligence subject to interference by the Supreme Court if it is found to be unexceptionable?
- Amir vs The State1989 MLD 3292 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
- Amir vs Province of Punjab and 2 others1989 SCMR 1212 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which arose from the refusal of the authorities to grant proprietary rights to the petitioner over State land. The petitioner was allotted the land in 1971 under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, pursuant to a 15-year lease scheme. In 1979, the petitioner applied for proprietary rights, but the Collector rejected the application on the basis that the land was reserved for refugees from Jammu and Kashmir. After exhausting appellate remedies before the Board of Revenue and the High Court, the petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the relevant notification scheme and the petitioner's arguments regarding the applicability of the reservation condition. Ultimately, the petitioner conceded that the condition regarding the reservation of land was validly applicable to the grant of proprietary rights and that such rights could not be granted under the scheme governing the 1971 allotment. Consequently, the Court found no justification for granting leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can proprietary rights be granted on State land if the land is reserved for a specific class of persons under the governing scheme?
- Does a condition regarding the reservation of land for refugees apply to the grant of proprietary rights for land allotted under a 15-year lease scheme?
- Amir Muhammad and others vs Sardar and others1989 SCMR 95 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by vendees against the dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal by the High Court in a pre-emption case. The petitioners raised two primary contentions: first, that the suit was barred by the principle of partial pre-emption because the plaint failed to specifically mention a 1/6th share in an irrigation well included in the sale transaction; and second, that the respondents lacked a superior right of pre-emption as they were not owners in the village. Regarding the first issue, the Court held, relying on precedent, that an unintentional omission to mention a portion of the subject matter in the plaint does not constitute partial pre-emption. Concerning the second issue, the Court noted that the argument was not raised before the trial court and, being a question of fact, did not warrant interference by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the lower court's decision.
Questions settled- Does an unintentional omission to mention a portion of the subject matter in a pre-emption plaint constitute partial pre-emption?
- Can a question of fact not raised before the trial court be agitated for the first time in the Supreme Court?
- Amir Muhammad and others vs Member, Board of Revenue,N.W.F.P. and others1989 SCMR 969 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These proceedings arose out of two separate civil petitions for leave to appeal concerning pre-emption decrees granted in favor of tenants under Paragraph 25(3)(d) of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 (Martial Law Regulation 115). The core legal issue was whether a declaration by the Shariat Bench of the Peshawar High Court holding the tenant's right of pre-emption repugnant to Islamic Injunctions rendered pre-emption decrees passed before the Supreme Court's Shariat Appellate Bench decision of 1986 incompetent or ineffective. The Supreme Court converted the first petition into an appeal by consent and remanded it to the High Court for adjudication on merits. In the second petition, the Supreme Court held that under the proviso to Article 203-D(2) and Articles 203-F and 203-H of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, a declaration of repugnancy does not take effect until appeals are finally disposed of by the Supreme Court. Since the Supreme Court fixed 31-07-1986 as the effective date for the invalidation of the provision, pre-emption decrees passed and affirmed prior to that date remained fully valid and enforceable.
Questions settled- Does a Shariat Bench recommendation to delete a statutory provision with immediate effect make the declaration of repugnancy operative upon announcement without a specified date under Article 203-D of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Whether the proviso added to Article 203-D(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 suspends the operation of a Shariat Bench judgment declaring a law repugnant to Islam during the pendency of appeals before the Supreme Court?
- Does a declaration of repugnancy against Paragraph 25(3)(d) of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 render invalid pre-emption decrees passed and affirmed prior to the effective date specified by the Supreme Court Shariat Appellate Bench?
- Amir Khan vs Moiiib Textile Mills Ltd., Muzaffargarh1989 PLC 592 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-02-28Read full judgment →
- Amir Khan vs Mohib Textile Mills Ltd., Muzaffargarh1989 PLC 636 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-03-06Read full judgment →
- Amir Hussain vs The State1989 MLD 158 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
- Amir Bakhsh And Others vs Muhammad Rafiq1989 MLD 3979(2) · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-29Read full judgment →
- Amir Ali vs Additional District Judge And Other1989 MLD 32 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-04Read full judgment →
- Amir Ali Bhatti vs Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab And Other1989 MLD 3628 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-21Read full judgment →
- Amir Akbar vs Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary, Revenue1989 SCMR 925 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Peshawar High Court, which had challenged the regularization of services of certain Naib Tehsildars. The petitioner and respondents Nos. 4-13 were initially appointed as Naib Tehsildars on an ad hoc basis. Following the promulgation of the North-West Frontier Province Civil Servants (Regularization of Services) Act, 1988, a selection board was constituted under the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1975, to regularize ad hoc appointments. The respondents were selected for regular appointment, leading to the regularization of their services and the subsequent reversion of the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the regularization process and the subsequent reversion of the petitioner were legally sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the selection of the respondents was conducted on merits by a competent board in accordance with the law. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's challenge, affirmed the High Court's dismissal of the constitutional petition, and refused leave to appeal, establishing that ad hoc appointees have no vested right to regularization over those selected on merit by a duly constituted board.
Questions settled- Whether an ad hoc appointee has a legal right to challenge the regularization of other ad hoc appointees selected by a duly constituted board?
- Can a court interfere with the regularization of civil servants performed under the North-West Frontier Province Civil Servants (Regularization of Services) Act, 1988, if the selection was made on merit?
- Amir Ahmad Khan vs Rehmat Ullah And Another1989 MLD 449 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
- Amir Abdullah vs Tota And 5 Other1989 CLC 1294 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
- Amir Abdullah Khan vs Pak American Fertilizer Ltd. and another1989 SCMR 1525 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which accepted the respondent's regular first appeal, set aside the trial court's decree, and dismissed the petitioner's suit for recovery of arrears of export tax. The petitioner had been leased the right to collect a tax imposed by the Zila Council on the export of fertilizers from District Mianwali and sued the respondent, Pak American Fertilizer Ltd., for unpaid tax on fertilizer consignments. The core legal question was whether the respondent company, as a manufacturer maintaining a factory railway siding, qualified as an 'exporter' liable to pay the tax, and whether it could be treated as the same juristic entity as its subsidiary, National Fertilizer Marketing Ltd., which handled sales. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly found that the respondent was solely a manufacturer and that the sales and exports were conducted by a separate corporate entity. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a manufacturer of goods can be held liable as an 'exporter' for the payment of an export tax under a Zila Council notification when its sales are conducted by a separate corporate entity?
- Can a parent company and its subsidiary corporate entity be treated as one and the same juristic person for the purpose of tax liabilities without cogent evidence of unity?
- Does the maintenance of a railway siding within factory premises for dispatching goods render the manufacturing concern an exporter in the eyes of the law?
- Aminurrahman Khan and another vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry1989 SCMR 1948 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioners' appeal as incompetent. The core legal question is whether the allotment of government quarters or houses falls within the terms and conditions of service of civil servants so as to attract the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the finding of the Service Tribunal regarding the incompetency of the appeal is unexceptionable, as the allotment of quarters and houses is not a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with the petitioners being granted a grace period of two months to vacate and hand over possession of the quarter. The key principle laid down is that disputes regarding government accommodation allotment do not constitute terms and conditions of service for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of a service tribunal.
Questions settled- Whether the allotment of quarters and houses is included in the terms and conditions of service of civil servants?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear appeals relating to the allotment of government accommodation?
- Amie Investment Ltd vs Pakistan through its Secretary Ministry of Finance1989 PTD 844 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
- Ami Chand vs Fajroo1989 SCMR 1239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the trial court, District Judge, and the High Court, which dismissed a suit challenging the validity of a gift mutation. The petitioner, owner of 164 kanals and 4 marlas of land, alleged that a mutation of gift attested in 1966 in favour of his three daughters and the respondent, Fajroo, was fraudulent and misrepresented. The petitioner contended that he never gifted land to the respondent and that the respondent received a disproportionately larger share (5/6th) compared to the petitioner's daughters (1/6th). Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the gift remained inchoate due to the non-delivery of possession. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the contentions regarding the lack of motive for the gift, the disproportionate distribution of land, and the legal requirement of delivery of possession for a valid gift. Finding that these contentions raised substantial questions requiring deeper judicial scrutiny, the Court granted leave to appeal. Consequently, the Court ordered that the status quo be maintained between the parties pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
Questions settled- Does the non-delivery of possession render a gift inchoate under the law?
- Can a mutation of gift be challenged on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation regarding the donor's intent?
- Is a disproportionate distribution of land in a gift deed a material circumstance for determining the validity of the gift?
- Amer Alias Pawa vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 680 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-27Read full judgment →
- Amer Alias Pawa And Others vs The State1989 MLD 4867 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-27Read full judgment →
- Ameerzada vs Messrs Shalimar Silk Mills Ltd., Karachi1989 PLC 698 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
- Ameer Hussain and others vs Ahmad Zaman Khan and others1989 SCMR 108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil appeals arise from a common judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the validity of notifications declaring certain evacuee lands as Katchi Abadi under the Transfer of Evacuee Land (Katchi Abadi) Act, 1972. The core legal questions involved whether confirmed allotments of land stood cancelled upon the issuance of notifications declaring an area as Katchi Abadi, whether permanently transferred land could be classified as evacuee property for such purposes, and whether the High Court correctly interfered with questions of fact regarding the existence of a cluster of houses. The Supreme Court held that by virtue of subsequent statutory amendments extending the definition of evacuee land retrospectively, permanently transferred land could indeed be declared as Katchi Abadi, and that the High Court erred in summarily determining disputed questions of fact without taking evidence. The appeals were consequently allowed, subject to specific determinations regarding an industrial brick-kiln concern.
Questions settled- Whether confirmed allotments of evacuee land stand cancelled upon the issuance of a notification declaring the area as Katchi Abadi under the Transfer of Evacuee Land (Katchi Abadi) Act, 1972?
- Can land that has been permanently transferred to a refugee or claimant still be treated as evacuee property for the purpose of declaration as a Katchi Abadi?
- Whether the High Court can properly resolve disputed questions of fact regarding the existence of a cluster of houses on evacuee land without taking formal evidence?
- What is the legal effect of the extended definition of evacuee land introduced by the Transfer of Evacuee Land (Katchi Abadi) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1977?
- Ameer and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 182 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-02Read full judgment →
- Amanullah Khan vs Mazhar Ali and 2 others1989 PLD Federal Shariat Court 47 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-04-12Read full judgment →
- Amanullah and others vs Mst. Ghulam Janat and others1989 SCMR 547 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The core dispute involved the validity of a property sale by the original owner, Ali Muhammad, and the plaintiffs' locus standi to challenge it, which depended on proving their predecessor-in-interest, Fateh Din, was an heir of Ali Muhammad. While the trial and first appellate courts had conflicting findings regarding the relationship and the sale, the High Court set aside these findings, resolved the limitation issue in the plaintiffs' favor as a recurring cause of action, and admitted additional evidence regarding the pedigree table under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings on the relationship were sustainable even without the additional evidence, as oral evidence already supported the claim. The Court affirmed that the cause of action was recurring, dismissed objections regarding non-joinder of parties, and refused leave to appeal, noting that the findings were based on evidence and did not warrant interference.
Questions settled- Can a High Court admit additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if it is necessary to pronounce judgment?
- Does a claim regarding inheritance rights against a disputed property sale constitute a recurring cause of action for the purposes of limitation?
- Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with findings of fact regarding the appreciation of evidence if no legal infirmity is shown?
- Amanullah and 3 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1959 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-04Read full judgment →
- Aman Ullah vs The State1989 MLD 4059 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-27Read full judgment →
- Aman Ullah vs District Manager, PRTC (Intercity) Depot1989 PLC 70 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-06-08Read full judgment →
- Amal Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1769 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
- Am Sadiq Ali vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1910 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application sought pre-arrest bail for an applicant apprehending arrest in a 1977 murder case under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code, read with Section 120-B. The core legal questions revolved around the grounds for pre-arrest bail, particularly concerning allegations of mala fides, lack of overt act, disbelieved motive, and parity with co-accused who had been acquitted. The court confirmed the interim bail, holding that the applicant's name was not in the initial complaint, the prosecution's motive for the murders was disbelieved by both the trial and High Courts, and no overt act of killing was attributed to him. The court also noted that the case against the applicant was on a better footing than some acquitted co-accused. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail can be granted where there are allegations of mala fides, no direct involvement in the overt act, and where the prosecution's foundational elements like motive have been disbelieved by superior courts, especially when the investigation is complete.
Questions settled- What are the valid grounds for granting pre-arrest bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted if the applicant's name was not in the initial complaint?
- Does the discrediting of the prosecution's motive by superior courts constitute a ground for pre-arrest bail?
- Is an applicant entitled to pre-arrest bail if no overt act is attributed to them and co-accused with similar or stronger allegations have been acquitted?
- Can a High Court transfer a pending trial to another court while confirming pre-arrest bail?
- Alwaye Agencies vs Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-1989 PTD 696 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-05-04Read full judgment →
- Altaf Hussain vs The State1989 MLD 4141 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-25Read full judgment →
- Altaf Hussain vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 2377 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-25Read full judgment →
- Altaf Hussain vs Mehr BakhshK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 111 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
- Altaf Hussain And Others vs Mehr Bakhsh1989 CLC 1651 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
- Altaf Hussain and 2 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1676 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
- Altaf Akhtar Ahmad Bijarani vs Sind Public Service Commission and 31989 PLC (C.S.) 213 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-11Read full judgment →
- Altaf Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 3774 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-29Read full judgment →
- Altaf & Sons vs Collector of Customs And Other1989 MLD 1451 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-24Read full judgment →
- Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. vs Muhammad Nazir And 3 Other1989 CLC 1614 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-03Read full judgment →
- Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd vs Messrs Ahmad Autosjudgmentdebtor1989 MLD 995 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-29Read full judgment →
- Almast vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1592 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-18Read full judgment →
- Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited vs Ziaulqamar Bhatti And Another1989 MLD 366 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-01Read full judgment →
- Allied Bank Limited vs Khalid Mahmood and others1989 PLC 12 · Lahore High Court · 1988-03-15Read full judgment →
- Allahdino vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 643 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-04Read full judgment →
- Allah Yar vs Raja And Other1989 MLD 3856 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-16Read full judgment →
- Allah Yar and anothers vs Raja and another1989 SCMR 802 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellants' second appeal and upholding the judgment of the Additional District Judge, which had set aside the trial court's dismissal of pre-emption suits as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the pre-emption suits were filed within the period of limitation, which turns on the date physical possession of the disputed land was transferred under an oral sale transaction. The Supreme Court held that the revenue records, corroborated by oral evidence, clearly established that physical possession was delivered to the vendee-appellants on the date of the oral sale transaction, prior to the attestation of the mutation, and not on the date of attestation. Consequently, the period of limitation commenced from the date of taking physical possession pursuant to section 30 of the Punjab Limitation Act, rendering the subsequent pre-emption suits time-barred. The Supreme Court accordingly accepted the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Additional District Judge, and restored the trial court's judgment dismissing the suits.
Questions settled- Does the period of limitation in a pre-emption suit run from the date of physical possession taken under an oral sale transaction?
- What is the evidentiary value of revenue record entries regarding the delivery of possession in pre-emption cases?
- When does time begin to run for the purpose of limitation under section 30 of the Punjab Limitation Act?
- Allah Yar and another vs Mst. Khan Bibi and 42 others1989 SCMR 1624 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' civil revision challenging concurrent findings of the lower courts. The dispute concerned the inheritance rights of the petitioners, who claimed to be collaterals of the deceased, Noor Muhammad. The trial court had dismissed the suit, finding that the petitioners were related to the deceased at too remote a degree to inherit. This decision was upheld by the Additional District Judge in appeal and subsequently by the High Court in revision. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners sought to challenge these findings. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit because the arguments raised pertained exclusively to questions of fact that had already been concurrently decided against the petitioners by the lower courts. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact are not subject to interference in revisional jurisdiction unless a significant question of law is demonstrated. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, maintaining the finality of the lower courts' factual determinations.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Is a finding regarding the degree of relationship for inheritance purposes considered a question of fact?
- Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in its revisional jurisdiction?
- Allah Wasaya vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1595 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
- Allah Wasaya vs Station House Officer and others1989 P Cr. L J 2175 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
- Allah Wasaya vs S.H.O.,Etc.K.L.R. 1989 Civil Cases 381 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
- Allah Wasaya Nasim and 9 others vs Director Operation, P.R.T.C. and another1989 PLC 52 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-02-25Read full judgment →
- Allah Rehman and others vs Amtul Qayyum and another1989 SCMR 1817 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court. The High Court had declined to interfere with an order of the Board of Revenue, which affirmed the order of the Additional Commissioner making adjustments in a consolidation scheme. These adjustments resulted in the petitioners being deprived of certain fields in the Nian area, though they did not allege receiving less land than their total entitlement. The core legal question was whether orders made by consolidation authorities regarding the allocation of land can be challenged through writ jurisdiction under the Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision and refused leave to appeal, holding that orders passed by consolidation authorities concerning the allocation or adjustment of land are not appropriate matters for agitation or interference under writ jurisdiction. Relying on established precedent, the Court reiterated that the allocation of specific land parcels during consolidation proceedings falls within the exclusive domain of consolidation authorities and does not warrant constitutional review.
Questions settled- Can orders made by consolidation authorities regarding the allocation of land be agitated in writ jurisdiction?
- Whether the High Court can interfere with adjustments in a land consolidation scheme under its constitutional jurisdiction when total land entitlement is preserved?
- Allah Reham vs The State1989 MLD 4024 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
- Allah Rasi vs Member (Cons.), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 61989 SCMR 1744 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, in a consolidation of holdings case. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the improvement of land made by a party during the pendency of consolidation proceedings creates a vested right or entitlement that overrides the legitimate claims of other parties to the land in dispute. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the order of the Member, Board of Revenue was neither unlawful nor without jurisdiction. The Court held that the mere fact that a petitioner has improved the land after consolidation proceedings have commenced does not deprive the respondents of their legitimate entitlement to the land in dispute. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no legal infirmity in the High Court's reasoning and refused to grant leave to appeal, thereby maintaining the finality of the revenue authority's decision regarding the land allocation.
Questions settled- Does the improvement of land by a party during the pendency of consolidation proceedings entitle that party to retain the land against the legitimate entitlement of others?
- Is an order passed by a Member, Board of Revenue in a consolidation matter subject to interference if it is neither unlawful nor without jurisdiction?
- Allah Rakha vs The Commissioner; Sargodha Division and others1989 SCMR 321 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Allah Rakha against the order dated 20-9-1982 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal concerning an adverse entry in his annual confidential report for the year 1972. The core legal question involves determining whether the Tribunal's order suffered from any error of law or presented a question of public importance warranting interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's counsel failed to point out any error of law or question of public importance, and that the Tribunal's order was in accordance with law and not a fit case for leave to appeal. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with service tribunal orders upholding adverse confidential reports in the absence of legal error or a question of public importance.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding an adverse entry in an annual confidential report without an error of law?
- Is an adverse entry in an annual confidential report a matter raising a question of public importance?
- When will leave to appeal be refused against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal?
- Allah Rakha And Another vs The State1989 MLD 4023 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-29Read full judgment →
- Allah Raichio vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 299 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-22Read full judgment →
- Allah Ditta vs Zafar (Minor) and others1989 SCMR 1236 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil dispute involving a decree granted under Custom, which had invalidated a sale on the grounds of lack of consideration or legal necessity. The High Court had previously dismissed the petitioner's civil revision against this decree. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged the validity of the decree in light of Section 2-A(b) of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983, arguing that this legislative change effectively annulled such decrees. The petitioner further contended that the exceptions regarding past and closed transactions or transferred possession were inapplicable because the vendors were still alive, meaning the decree had not yet become operative. The Supreme Court found that the legal questions raised by the petitioner required further examination and granted leave to appeal. Pending the final adjudication of the appeal, the Court directed that the status quo regarding the property and its character be maintained by all parties.
Questions settled- Does Section 2-A(b) of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983, have the effect of annulling decrees granted under Custom based on lack of consideration or legal necessity?
- Can a decree under Custom be considered inoperative if the vendors have not yet died?
- Do the exceptions regarding past and closed transactions apply to a decree where possession has not been transferred?
- Allah Ditta vs The State1989 MLD 4808 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-27Read full judgment →
- Allah Ditta vs The State1989 SCMR 715 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which modified the appellant's death sentence to life imprisonment following his conviction for double murder. The core legal question was whether the appellant's conviction could be sustained despite significant discrepancies in the prosecution's ocular evidence and the acquittal of his co-accused, given that the appellant had confessed to the killings in his statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that while the prosecution's version was riddled with material contradictions and largely disbelieved by the High Court, the appellant's own judicial confession provided a sufficient basis for conviction. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision to maintain the conviction but upheld the reduction of the sentence from death to life imprisonment, acknowledging the element of family honour as a mitigating factor. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case is discredited, a conviction may still be sustained if the accused's own version or confession provides a reliable admission of guilt, though such circumstances may warrant a lesser penalty.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained based on the accused's confession when the prosecution's ocular evidence is disbelieved?
- Does the commission of murder to vindicate family honour entitle an accused to the exception under Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is an accused entitled to a lesser penalty when the murder was committed to vindicate family honour?
- Allah Ditta vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2355 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
- Allah Ditta vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 462 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
- Allah Ditta vs Muhammad Iqbal1989 SCMR 1154 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision, affirming concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts in a suit for possession based on ownership of land measuring one Marla. The core legal question was whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts and upheld in civil revision could be interfered with by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that findings of fact arrived at after properly applying the mind to the evidence on record by the lower courts cannot be disturbed in these proceedings. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent factual determinations of lower courts where evidence has been duly evaluated.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court disturb concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the lower courts and upheld in civil revision?
- Whether a petition for leave to appeal is maintainable against an order dismissing a civil revision based on factual determinations?
- Allah Ditta vs Muhammad Ashraf and others1989 SCMR 92 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a pre-emption matter arising from the dismissal of a civil revision by the High Court, in which the vendee sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal questions examined by the court include whether a Civil Court can question a decree granted by a Revenue Court in a pre-emption matter, whether a Civil Court can set aside such a decree in cases of fraud and collusion notwithstanding the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure without framing specific issues and affording an opportunity to lead evidence, and whether the Supreme Court can decide the propriety of the competing decrees on merits under the circumstances. Granting leave to appeal, the court held that the matter required detailed examination of these questions and directed the preparation of the appeal on the existing record along with the filing of additional documents, while ordering the maintenance of status quo subject to the petitioner furnishing security for mesne profits.
Questions settled- Can a Civil Court question the decree granted by a Revenue Court in a pre-emption matter?
- Whether a Civil Court can set aside a Revenue Court decree in cases of fraud and collusion without framing issues and affording an opportunity to lead evidence?
- Whether the Supreme Court can decide the question with regard to the propriety of competing decrees on merits under the circumstances?
- Allah Ditta vs Mst. Najma Akhtar1989 PLD Karachi 78 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
- Allah Ditta vs Iftikhar Hussain Shah and another1989 SCMR 713 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that acquitted the respondent of murder and arms possession charges. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its reappraisal of evidence when faced with conflicting prosecution and defense versions of a fatal incident. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly reappraised the evidence, noting that the trial court had failed to properly test the veracity of witnesses and had erroneously relied on inadmissible statements made to the police. The Supreme Court affirmed that where two versions of an occurrence exist, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the veracity of witnesses must be tested rather than simply accepting the prosecution's narrative. Furthermore, the Court found that the trial court misapprehended evidence regarding the recovery of crime empties and the plausibility of the defense's self-defense plea. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, finding no violation of legal principles in the High Court’s assessment of the facts.
Questions settled- Can a trial court rely on a statement made to the police to incriminate an accused?
- How should a court evaluate evidence when the prosecution and defense present conflicting versions of an occurrence?
- Is the recovery of crime empties valid corroborative evidence if they do not match the weapon allegedly recovered from the accused?
- Allah Ditta vs Ghulam Fatima and another1989 SCMR 1947 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal was filed by a subsequent purchaser against the dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal by the High Court. The underlying dispute arose from a suit filed by respondent No. 2 (alleged donor) challenging a purported gift made in favour of respondent No. 1 (alleged donee) and the consequential alienation made by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner. The suit had been decreed in favour of respondent No. 2 by the lower courts. The Supreme Court observed that the alleged donor did not acknowledge making the gift, and his testimony was believed by the courts below. Furthermore, the donee herself resiled from her initial admission regarding the gift. Consequently, the basis for upholding any subsequent alienation in favour of the petitioner vanished. The Supreme Court held that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts did not suffer from any error of law or principle. Finding no justification for interference, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a subsequent alienation by an alleged donee can be sustained when the alleged donor disowns the initial gift and is believed by the courts?
- What is the evidentiary weight of an interested donee's statement regarding a gift when the alleged donor denies having made such a gift?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the invalidity of a gift be interfered with in the absence of an error of law or principle?
- Allah Ditta vs Board of Revenue and 2 others1989 SCMR 1676 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of service appeals by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore. The petitioners, revenue officials including a Qanoongo and a Patwari, were dismissed from service following an inquiry into allegations of misconduct regarding the fraudulent lease allotment of 112 kanals of land, which consisted largely of sand dunes and a highway, through fictitious reports and manipulated revenue records. The core legal question concerns whether the Punjab Service Tribunal committed any illegality or violated any rules in upholding the dismissal orders after examining the factual and legal aspects. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had thoroughly examined both cases, ensured the petitioners were afforded opportunities to defend themselves, and correctly dismissed the appeals. The Court laid down the principle that leave to appeal will be declined when petitions fail to raise any substantial question of law of public importance and the concurrent findings of the service tribunal disclose no legal infirmity.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal against the dismissal of a service appeal where no question of law of public importance is involved?
- Did the Punjab Service Tribunal err in law by dismissing the service appeals of revenue officials found involved in fraudulent land allotments?
- Allah Ditta vs Amir Bakhsh1989 CLC 335 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-22Read full judgment →
- Allah Ditta And Others vs Muhammad Ishaq And Other1989 MLD 4602 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-05Read full judgment →
- Allah Ditta and anothers vs The State1989 PLD Supreme Court 744 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1989-07-02Read full judgment →
- Allah Ditta And 7 Others vs Muhammad Ibrahim1989 CLC 166 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-15Read full judgment →
- Allah Dino vs The State1989 MLD 1704 · Sindh High Court · 1988-04-13Read full judgment →
- Allah Din vs Habib1989 SCMR 96 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment in a land inheritance dispute. The core legal question involves the distribution of the estate of the deceased, Ranjha, specifically examining the impact of the Punjab Shariat Application Act V of 1962 (as amended by Ordinance XIII of 1983) on the inheritance rights of the parties. The dispute originated from a 1946 mutation where the respondent, Habib, claimed ownership of the land based on an adoption by the deceased, which was contested by the petitioner. A previous 1947 compromise decree had divided the property. Following the death of the original owner, the petitioner sought possession, leading to litigation regarding limitation, adverse possession, and heirship. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether, under the relevant Shariat Application laws, the estate must be distributed according to Muslim Law of Inheritance, the legal validity and effect of the respondent's adoption, and the binding effect of the prior compromise decree on the current inheritance claim.
Questions settled- Does the Punjab Shariat Application Act V of 1962, as amended by Ordinance XIII of 1983, mandate the distribution of a deceased's estate according to Muslim Law of Inheritance?
- What is the legal effect of an adoption of a son on the inheritance of property under the applicable law?
- What is the effect of a previous compromise decree on a subsequent suit for possession of the same land?
- Allah Di Tta vs The State1989 PLD Revenue 11 · Board of Revenue · 1988-05-26Read full judgment →
- Allah Dad vs S.M. Khan1989 CLC 2287 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-07-06Read full judgment →
- Allah Dad vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and another1989 PLC 741 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-06Read full judgment →
- Allah Dad vs Government of Pakistan And 53 Other1989 CLC 1571 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a civil suit for a declaration that he and certain pro forma defendants were mortgagees of the suit land, that the redemption period of sixty years had expired, and that they had acquired prescriptive title, while also challenging revenue entries dating back to the 1904-1905 settlement. The trial court ultimately decreed the suit, but upon appeal, the District Judge set aside that judgment and dismissed the suit. The petitioner challenged this dismissal through a revision petition before the Peshawar High Court. The core legal question concerned whether an erroneous entry in the initial 1872 settlement record could override consistent subsequent settlement records of 1904-1905 and 1948-1949 which verified government ownership and military possession, and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that settlement records prepared after physical measurement and inquiry carry a much stronger presumption of truth than routine Jamabandis, and that an erroneous initial entry does not override subsequent corrected settlement records when a challenge is time-barred.
Questions settled- Whether an erroneous entry in an initial settlement record can override subsequent settlement records prepared after physical measurement and inquiry?
- What is the evidentiary difference between revenue entries in a Jamabandi prepared by a Patwari and a record-of-rights prepared upon the conclusion of a settlement operation?
- Whether a plaintiff can claim prescriptive title on the basis of a time-barred mortgage when subsequent settlement records consistently show government ownership and military possession?
- Allah Dad and another vs Mst. Rashidan and others1989 SCMR 517 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their Regular Second Appeal by the High Court, which had affirmed the decree in favor of the respondents regarding inheritance and a gift of property belonging to the parties' father. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of evidence, concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts, and the proper placement of the burden of proof concerning the alleged gift. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact suffered from no legal infirmity and that the burden of proof was correctly placed given the nature of the dispute, noting that no prejudice was suffered by the parties. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, reaffirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence will not be disturbed by the apex court in the absence of a jurisdictional error or material irregularity.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding inheritance and gift can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Whether the burden of proof regarding a disputed gift was wrongly placed on the petitioners?
- Does an alleged misplacement of the burden of proof furnish justification for setting aside concurrent findings of fact where no prejudice is suffered?
- Allah Banda and another vs Niaz Ahmad and others1989 SCMR 1188 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by landlords against concurrent findings of the High Court and appellate courts dismissing their civil revision and writ petition, which arose from a civil suit for recovery of rent and an eviction application. The core legal question is whether the petitioners established their ownership of the disputed property to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant, and whether a rent note could establish such a relationship independently of disputed title. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to establish their title, that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed without proof of title in the circumstances of the case, and that the relied-upon rent note did not pertain to the disputed property. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the dismissal of the petitioners' claims on both merits and factual findings.
Questions settled- Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant can be established without proving ownership of the disputed property in the circumstances of a case?
- Does a rent note that does not relate to the property in dispute suffice to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Can a suit for recovery of rent and an application for eviction succeed if the petitioners fail to establish their title?
- Allah Bakhsh vs The State1989 MLD 4807(2) · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-18Read full judgment →
- Allah Bakhsh vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2384 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-12Read full judgment →
- Allah Bakhsh vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2450 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
- Allah Bakhsh vs S.H.O., Sammasatta1989 MLD 649 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
- Allah Bakhsh vs S.H.O. Police Station, Liaquatpur1989 P Cr. L J 1598 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-02Read full judgment →
- Allah Bakhsh vs Muhammad Sharif and others1989 SCMR 1791 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a regular second appeal, which itself affirmed the dismissal of a first appeal by the Additional District Judge on the sole ground of a deficiency in the court-fee on the memorandum of appeal. The core legal question was whether the appellate court was justified in refusing to extend time to make up the deficiency in the court-fee under Section 6 of the Court-fees Act, where the deficiency arose due to new rates introduced by the Punjab Finance Act, 1973, and was not contumacious or mala fide. The Supreme Court held that the lower appellate court and the High Court erred in refusing to allow the appellant to make good the deficiency, especially since no objection was raised by the office or the court upon admission and the appellant had paid the fee indicated in the decree sheet. The Court laid down the principle that under Section 6 of the Court-fees Act, a duty is cast upon the court to determine the correct amount of court-fee, and where a shortfall is not contumacious or mala fide, the appellant should be granted an opportunity to make up the deficiency.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court is bound to allow an appellant to make up a deficiency in the court-fee on a memorandum of appeal where the shortfall is neither contumacious nor mala fide?
- Does Section 6 of the Court-fees Act cast a duty upon the court to determine the correct amount of court-fee?
- Can an appeal be dismissed solely on the ground of deficient court-fee without first affording the appellant an opportunity to make good the deficiency?
- Allah Bakhsh vs Muhammad Ramzan1989 CLC 344 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
- Allah Bakhsh vs Muhammad RamzanK.L.R. 1989 Revune Cases 79 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
- Allah Bakhsh vs Jaffir Iqbal and OtherK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 701 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-05Read full judgment →
- Allah Bakhsh Kaka vs Government of Sind and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 887 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-03-27Read full judgment →
- Allah Bakhsh and others vs Muhammad Shafi and another1989 SCMR 780 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the restitution of land originally mortgaged by a Muslim to a non-Muslim prior to independence, which was subsequently declared evacuee property, allotted to a claimant, and purchased by the petitioners. The core legal question is whether the failure of a mortgagor's successor-in-interest to lodge a claim before the Settlement Authorities regarding mortgaged land extinguishes their right to seek restitution against a bona fide purchaser from a refugee allottee. The Supreme Court held that the Member, Board of Revenue erred in holding that the failure to lodge a claim with settlement authorities bars the mortgagor's right, as such a view conflicts with established precedent. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision setting aside the Board of Revenue's order, laying down that failure to assert claims before settlement authorities does not override settled law protecting redemption rights against evacuee property transfers.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of a mortgagor to lodge a claim before the Settlement Authorities regarding mortgaged land extinguishes their right to seek restitution?
- Does an order of the Member, Board of Revenue contrary to settled Supreme Court precedent regarding evacuee property warrant interference in writ jurisdiction?
- Allah Bakhsh and others vs Abdul Qadir and others1989 SCMR 1314 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which accepted the respondents' Regular Second Appeal and decreed their pre-emption suit. The petitioners challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that the pre-emptors failed to make up the deficiency in court-fee within the time specified by the trial court and that the suit was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the suit could be dismissed for non-payment of court-fee when the exact amount of court-fee payable had not yet been determined by the court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the suit could only be dismissed if the pre-emptors failed to make up the deficiency after the court-fee had been properly determined. The Court affirmed the principle that a plaintiff cannot be non-suited for failing to pay a deficiency that has not been judicially determined, following the precedent in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan.
Questions settled- Can a pre-emption suit be dismissed for failure to make up a deficiency in court-fee when the exact amount of court-fee payable has not yet been determined by the court?
- Does the failure to correct the valuation of a suit within the given time attract rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when court-fee remains undetermined?
- Allah Bachaya vs Station House Officer and others1989 P Cr. L J 1259 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →
- Allah Bachaya vs Muhammad Afzal And Other1989 CLC 1064 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-18Read full judgment →
- All Pakistan WOMEN's Association And Another vs Feroze Ahmad Khan1989 MLD 2175 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →