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.
- All India Medical Corporation vs A.R. Almeida & OtherPTCL1989 FC. 239 · Bombay High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Alim Din vs Niaz Muhammad alias Daula and 4 others1989 SCMR 1132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which had affirmed the lower appellate court's judgment. The suit was originally instituted for the possession of a small plot of land measuring 5 Marlas in Khasra No. 7492, claimed to have been allotted to the petitioner under Settlement Scheme No. VII. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was validly allotted the specific plot claimed by him or a different piece of land, and whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower forums warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that no justification existed for setting aside the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below, as the case did not present any violation of law or principle justifying a re-appraisal of evidence. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on proper appraisal of evidence will not be disturbed in leave to appeal proceedings unless a clear violation of law or principle is demonstrated. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a civil matter during leave to appeal proceedings?
- Is a re-appraisal of evidence permissible when no law or principle has been violated by the impugned judgments?
- Ali Zaman vs Yaqub1989 CLC 2354 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-21Read full judgment →
- Ali Sher vs Mst. Bilqees Begum1989 SCMR 169 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as an appeal arising from a dispute between the parties, Ali Sher and Mst. Bilqees Begum. The core legal question concerned the final resolution of the litigation through a mutually agreed-upon settlement. Upon review, the Court noted that the parties had reached a formal compromise regarding the suit land. The terms of this compromise, which were duly recorded and signed by the appellant, the respondent, their respective counsel, and the respondent's attorney, stipulated that the respondent shall pay half of the batai of the suit land to the appellant until his death. The agreement further specified the annual payment amount of Rs. 1,500, the payment schedule, and the modalities for payment, including the requirement for written receipts or alternative payment methods such as cross cheques or money orders. Consequently, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal in accordance with the terms of the compromise, with parties directed to bear their own costs throughout the proceedings, thereby settling the dispute based on the voluntary agreement of the parties.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court dispose of an appeal based on a compromise reached between the parties?
- Is a compromise agreement signed by parties and their counsel binding in appellate proceedings?
- Ali Shah Zahir Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 448 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-13Read full judgment →
- Ali Raza vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1187 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-15Read full judgment →
- Ali Raza Shah vs Ahmad Bakhsh1989 SCMR 168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a suit for pre-emption which was initially decreed, but the District Court allowed the respondent's first appeal and set aside the decree. The petitioner's subsequent civil revision was dismissed by the High Court on 8-12-1981, leading to the current petition seeking leave to appeal. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner could be non-suited solely due to a deficiency in the court-fee. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held, relying on its precedent in Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another (PLD 1984 SC 289), that the contention regarding the deficiency in court-fee supported the petitioner's case. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal, directed that the appeal be prepared on the present record with liberty to file additional documents, and ordered it to be fixed for hearing along with similar cases.
Questions settled- Can a plaintiff be non-suited solely on account of a deficiency in the court-fee?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when a pre-emption suit is dismissed due to court-fee deficiency in light of established precedent?
- Ali Raider vs Ijaz Hussain Malik And Another1989 MLD 3032 · Lahore High Court · 1967-05-26Read full judgment →
- Ali Nawaz vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1271 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
- Ali Nawaz vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1316 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
- Ali Nawaz vs Mumtaz Ali1989 MLD 982 · Board of Revenue · 1988-10-27Read full judgment →
- Ali Nawaz and others vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1989 PLD Karachi 237 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
- Ali Muzaffar vs Taj Muhammad and 2 others1989 SCMR 609 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court upholding the judgment of the Additional District Judge, which reversed the Rent Controller's dismissal of an ejectment petition and ordered the eviction of the petitioner. The core legal question concerns the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the consequent jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, as the petitioner contended he was a licensee rather than a tenant, making a Civil Court the only competent forum. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the questions regarding the relationship of the parties and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller require closer examination. The key principle laid down is that where the foundational relationship of landlord and tenant is disputed and the evidence suggests a different legal status such as a licensee, the jurisdictional competence of the Rent Controller warrants detailed consideration by the appellate court.
Questions settled- Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties?
- Does the Rent Controller have jurisdiction to proceed against a person whose status is alleged to be that of a licensee?
- Can an appellate court reverse the finding of a Rent Controller regarding the existence of a tenancy relationship?
- Ali Muzaffar vs Mst. Amtul Begum and 3 others1989 SCMR 678 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a petition for special leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the trial court, the Additional District Judge, and the High Court, which held that the decision in an earlier writ petition brought by the petitioner operated as res judicata. The core legal question is whether a prior judgment rendered in a writ petition filed by the same petitioner constitutes res judicata to bar subsequent proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts' finding on res judicata was free from any legal infirmity. The key principle laid down is that a prior judicial decision involving the same parties and subject matter, particularly from a writ petition previously instituted by the same litigant, effectively operates as res judicata to preclude subsequent agitation of the same issues.
Questions settled- Does a decision in a prior writ petition brought by a petitioner operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings?
- Can concurrent findings regarding the application of res judicata be sustained if they suffer from no legal infirmity?
- Ali Muhammad vs The State1989 MLD 781 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →
- Ali Muhammad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 846 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
- Ali Muhammad vs Saeeda Begum1989 MLD 1430 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
- Ali Muhammad vs Ch. Muhammad Ali and 3 others1989 SCMR 1248 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a Constitutional petition concerning the appointment of a Lambardar. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretionary writ jurisdiction in upholding the Board of Revenue's decision to deny the petitioner's appointment. The High Court had based its dismissal on two primary factors: first, that the petitioner already held the position of Lambardar in two other villages, and second, that the reasoning provided by the Member, Board of Revenue for the refusal was substantial. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no justification to interfere with the High Court's decision. The Court held that the High Court's approach regarding its discretionary writ jurisdiction in Lambardari appointment cases was unexceptionable. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused, affirming the principle that the High Court's discretionary jurisdiction in administrative appointments, particularly where valid grounds for refusal exist, will not be lightly disturbed by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction in Lambardari appointment cases?
- Is the fact that a candidate already holds the position of Lambardar in other villages a valid ground for the Board of Revenue to refuse a new appointment?
- Ali Muhammad Aziz vs Government of Pakistan through President of Pakistan and 30 others1989 PLD Karachi 142 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
- Ali Muhammad And Others vs Salamat Ullah1989 MLD 1040 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
- Ali Muhammad And Others vs Federal Land Commissioner And Other1989 MLD 4331 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
- Ali Mohammad And 2 Others vs Bashir Ahmad Through Legal Heirs1989 CLC 2194 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-28Read full judgment →
- Ali Khan vs The Principal, Government Vocational Poly-Technic1989 PLC (C.S.) 307 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Ali Khan vs Rahim Bakhsh And Other1989 MLD 3625 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
- Ali Hussain and 2 others vs Presiding Officer, Special Court for Offences in Respect of Banks Karachi and 3 others1989 PLD Karachi 157 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These are two writ petitions challenging the cognizance taken by a Special Court for Offences in Respect of Banks regarding a private criminal complaint involving the sale of pledged shares. The core legal question was whether the alleged acts of conspiracy and fraud constituted 'scheduled offences' under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, thereby conferring jurisdiction upon the Special Court. The High Court held that the Special Court lacked jurisdiction because the complainant alleged personal loss rather than loss to the bank, failing the statutory requirement that the offence be committed in connection with the business of a bank. Consequently, the court declared the proceedings without lawful authority and quashed them. The judgment establishes that a Special Court is a creature of statute and cannot exceed its jurisdiction. It affirms that where proceedings are ex facie without jurisdiction, the High Court may exercise constitutional jurisdiction without requiring the exhaustion of alternate remedies like Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, special statutes must be construed strictly, favoring the accused in cases of ambiguity.
Questions settled- Does a Special Court have jurisdiction over an offence where the alleged harm is personal to the complainant rather than to the bank?
- Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to quash proceedings that are ex facie without jurisdiction despite the availability of alternate remedies?
- What are the two essential ingredients required to classify an offence as a 'scheduled offence' under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984?
- Ali Hassan and 6 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2390 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-10Read full judgment →
- Ali Hasan vs Government Transport Service1989 PLC 132 · Labour Court · 1978-01-09Read full judgment →
- Ali Haider Shah vs Manzur Mehdi and others1989 SCMR 1133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a plaintiff against the dismissal of his declaratory suit, appeal, and subsequent civil revision challenging a gift made by him in favour of the respondents. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's challenge to the gift on merits and technical grounds warrants interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that since all courts below found against the petitioner on merits and the petitioner did indeed make the gifts in dispute in favour of his own son and grandson, the Court would decline to grant leave to appeal in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, notwithstanding any technical or procedural defects. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal where concurrent findings on merits are against the petitioner and the transaction in question involves a gift made to close family members, despite alleged technical defects.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against concurrent findings on merits regarding a gift?
- Does a technical or procedural defect warrant interference when a gift is made to one's own son and grandson?
- Can discretionary jurisdiction be exercised to refuse leave to appeal in a declaratory suit challenging a gift?
- Ali Gul vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2385(2) · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
- Ali Gohar vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 24 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-13Read full judgment →
- Ali Gohar vs Sher Muhammad and others1989 SCMR 685 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute over the allotment of a property (Kotha) by the Border Allotment Committee. The petitioner, Ali Gohar, was allotted the property in 1961, a decision later affirmed by the Committee, which also determined that the respondents were in unauthorized occupation and directed them to vacate. The respondents had previously failed in civil litigation to establish ownership and had their subsequent writ petition dismissed by the High Court on grounds of alternative remedy and the presence of disputed questions of fact. However, a Division Bench of the High Court later accepted the respondents' Intra-Court Appeal. The petitioner challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that his 1961 allotment was valid and that the respondents were unauthorized occupants. The Supreme Court found merit in the petitioner's arguments, noting that the petitioner had been properly allotted the property and should not be deprived of his legitimate entitlement. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and ordered the continuation of the stay order until the final disposal of the main appeal.
Questions settled- Can a party be deprived of a property allotted to them by a competent authority like the Border Allotment Committee when the occupants are found to be in unauthorized possession?
- Is an Intra-Court Appeal maintainable against a judgment dismissing a writ petition on the grounds of alternative remedy and disputed questions of fact?
- Ali Gohar vs S.H.O., Jauharabad1989 P Cr. L J 1825 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-03Read full judgment →
- Ali Gohar Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1963 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-18Read full judgment →
- Ali Gohar Khan vs Sher Ayaz and others1989 SCMR 130 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court concerning a suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellant to restrain respondents from raising construction over joint land. The core legal question was whether a co-sharer can deal with joint immovable property or change its nature without partition by metes and bounds and without the consent of other co-sharers. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that each co-sharer is interested in every inch of joint property and cannot alter its nature or raise construction until the property is partitioned by metes and bounds in accordance with law. The Court laid down the principle that a co-sharer cannot act in a manner that invades the rights of other co-sharers by changing the nature of joint property prior to formal partition.
Questions settled- Whether a co-sharer can raise construction over joint property without a formal partition?
- Can a decree for perpetual injunction be issued to restrain a co-sharer from changing the nature of joint property?
- Does a co-sharer have an interest in every inch of joint immovable property irrespective of the quantity of their share?
- Ali Gohar and others vs Chief Secretary, Government of Sind and others1989 SCMR 585 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of four consolidated appeals filed by civil servants who were retired from service under Martial Law Order 114 in March 1972 and subsequently reinstated under Martial Law Order 23 in 1978. The core legal question was whether civil servants who remained out of service during that period could claim seniority in the next grade over officers junior to them prior to retirement who were promoted while the appellants were out of service. The Supreme Court held that the matter is governed by the principles laid down in Government of Pakistan v. Junejo Muhammad Iqbal (PLD 1987 SC 427), which established that reinstated officers are not entitled to automatic promotion under the 'next below' rule but are to be placed in the position they would have enjoyed absent retirement, pursuant to the Establishment Division's Office Memorandum dated 5th July 1978. The Court concluded that even though one of the appellants secured a favorable seniority determination in a lower grade via an appellate order, his subsequent supersession in the higher grade occurred due to promotions made while he was out of service. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether civil servants retired under Martial Law Order 114 and reinstated under Martial Law Order 23 can claim automatic seniority over officers promoted during their absence from service?
- Does the rule established in Government of Pakistan v. Junejo Muhammad Iqbal apply to determine the seniority of officers reinstated under Martial Law Order 23?
- Are Office Memorandum instructions of the Establishment Division regarding reinstatement seniority applicable notwithstanding contrary provisions in normal rules?
- Ali Bin Abdul Qadir vs Messrs Habib Bank Ltd. and others1989 SCMR 1301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition, which had challenged concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the appellate authority. The core legal question concerns whether a power of attorney used to initiate eviction proceedings by a bank landlord can be challenged for lack of formal proof when it was received in evidence without objection before the Rent Controller. The Supreme Court held that since the power of attorney was admitted into evidence without any objection at the relevant stage before the Rent Controller, the petitioner is precluded from subsequently contending that it was not formally proved. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings of fact regarding the petitioner's default in rent payment.
Questions settled- Whether a power of attorney can be challenged for lack of formal proof when it was received in evidence without objection before the Rent Controller?
- Does the failure to pay rent from January 1980 onwards render a tenant a defaulter liable to eviction?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding rent default?
- Ali Asghar Shah vs Bagh Ali and others1989 SCMR 53 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the finality of a withdrawal application in settlement proceedings. The appellant filed a revision petition regarding the transfer of a house but subsequently filed an application to withdraw it. Although no formal order was initially recorded, the Settlement Commissioner later confirmed the revision stood withdrawn as of the date of the withdrawal application. The appellant later attempted to retract the withdrawal, prompting the Settlement Commissioner to review his previous order and remand the case for fresh determination. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to review his own order and revive proceedings once a revision petition had been effectively withdrawn. The Supreme Court held that the revision petition was validly withdrawn upon the appellant's initial request, and the Settlement Commissioner lacked the legal authority to review his subsequent order confirming that withdrawal. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court’s judgment, ruling that the Settlement Commissioner's remand order was illegal and without lawful authority, as the revision petition was no longer pending and the matter had attained finality.
Questions settled- Can a Settlement Commissioner review an order confirming the withdrawal of a revision petition?
- Does a revision petition stand withdrawn from the date of the application for withdrawal, even if a formal order is not immediately recorded?
- Can a party revive a revision petition after formally requesting its withdrawal and allowing the proceedings to be consigned to record?
- Ali Asghar Khan vs The State and another1988 P Cr. L J 303 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
- Ali Asghar and another vs Additional Settlement Commissioner, (Land)_A.C. and 2 others1989 SCMR 1536 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a Constitutional petition regarding a land settlement dispute. The core legal question involves the determination of whether the petitioners possessed the requisite 109 P.I. Units at the relevant time for adjustment against disputed land. During the proceedings, the petitioners' counsel had previously undertaken to withdraw the petition if they could not satisfy the respondents regarding the availability of these units. Upon hearing, the respondents' counsel acknowledged some ambiguity in the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector regarding the availability of units, suggesting that the matter required clarification by the Settlement Authorities. The Supreme Court, after examining the relevant documents and considering the arguments, determined that the case warranted further examination of the questions raised by both parties. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, directing the parties to file necessary additional documents and ordering the Settlement Department to produce the relevant records for the final disposal of the appeal.
Questions settled- Does the ambiguity in a lower authority's order regarding the availability of P.I. Units warrant further judicial review by the Supreme Court?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when there is a dispute regarding the factual determination of land units available for adjustment?
- Ali Anwar Soomro And Another vs The State1989 MLD 666 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-22Read full judgment →
- Ali Anwar Ghanghro vs Government of Sind1989 PLC (C.S.) 339 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1988-09-19Read full judgment →
- Ali and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 168 · Sindh High Court · 1988-01-20Read full judgment →
- Ali Ahmad vs Secretary, Ministry of Industries, Islamabad and 2 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 476 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
- Ali Ahmad vs Faiz Ahmad And Other1989 MLD 3352 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
- Ali Ahmad vs CH. Muhammad Ashraf And Other1989 MLD 4727 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-29Read full judgment →
- Aleem Jaffar vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 472 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
- Aleem Jaffar vs Superintending Engineer, WAPDA1989 PLC (C.S.) 467 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
- Alamgir vs Deputy Director, Health Services, Multan and another1989 PLC 348 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-05-09Read full judgment →
- Alamgir Khan vs Aqiq Khan1989 SCMR 504 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal against the orders of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench Abbottabad, dated 23-6-1987 and 8-9-1987, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision and subsequent writ petition arising from concurrent failures before revenue authorities and civil courts. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of a petition for leave to appeal that is barred by time against a revisional order, and the propriety of invoking writ jurisdiction to challenge a prior revisional order passed by the same High Court. The Supreme Court held that the petition against the revisional order was time-barred with no sufficient ground for condonation, and that the writ petition was rightly dismissed as no jurisdictional defect was shown and the High Court could not set aside its own revisional order through writ jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that a High Court cannot exercise writ jurisdiction to set aside its own prior order passed in revisional jurisdiction, and time-barred petitions without valid grounds for condonation will be dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a petition for leave to appeal filed beyond the period of limitation can be entertained without sufficient grounds for condoning the delay?
- Can the High Court set aside its own order passed in revisional jurisdiction by subsequently exercising its writ jurisdiction?
- Whether a writ petition is maintainable against concurrent judgments of revenue authorities and civil courts without highlighting any jurisdictional defect?
- Alamdinand 12 Others vs Administrator Auqaf, Azad Government of the State1989 CLC 578 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
- Alam Zeb Khan vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others1989 PLD Peshawar 231 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
- Alam Sher and Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1989 Criminal Cases 364 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-12Read full judgment →
- Alam Sher And 2 Others vs The State1989 MLD 780 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-12Read full judgment →
- Alam Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 729 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
- Alam Khan vs Ahla And 6 Other1989 MLD 3659 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
- Alam Khan vs Abdul RaufK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 229 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
- Alam Bibi vs Senior Civil Judge And Other1989 CLC 56 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-25Read full judgment →
- Alam and others: vs Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue,1989 SCMR 319 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition regarding a consolidation matter. The core dispute arose from an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, which adjusted the Khatas of the parties based on their alleged mutual consent. The petitioners contested this, claiming they had not consented, and submitted affidavits to the High Court to support their position. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, reasoning that the petitioners' affidavits could not be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the judicial order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, which recorded the consent. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no error in the High Court's conclusion. The Supreme Court held that a judicial order recording consent in a consolidation proceeding carries significant weight and cannot be easily overturned by subsequent affidavits asserting a lack of consent. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lacking substance.
Questions settled- Can affidavits submitted by parties be given greater weight than a judicial order recording consent in a consolidation matter?
- Is a judicial order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue regarding adjustments in Khatas subject to interference when based on recorded mutual consent?
- Al Tradico Enterprises vs Export Promotion Bureau And Other1989 MLD 610 (2) · Sindh High Court · 1987-11-23Read full judgment →
- Al Qaim Traders vs Habib Bank Ltd.1989 CLC 1633 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-27Read full judgment →
- Akram Saeed Khan and 3 others vs Sohrab Malik, Managing Director1989 PLD Lahore 219 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-31Read full judgment →
- Akram Khan and 6 others vs The State and 7 others1989 P Cr. L J 183 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-01Read full judgment →
- Akram Beg And Others vs The State1989 MLD 4379 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-22Read full judgment →
- Akhtar Hussain vs The District Magistrate1989 MLD 4607 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-21Read full judgment →
- Akhtar Hassan Shah And Others vs Muhammad Ramzan1989 MLD 4725 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-03Read full judgment →
- Akhtar Ali vs District Manager, Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Kot Lakhpat Depot, Lahore1989 PLC 665 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Akhtar Ali Khan and anothers vs Settlement Commissioner, Peshawar1989 SCMR 506 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, granted leave by the Supreme Court, challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment dated June 7, 1974, which dismissed a Constitutional Petition concerning the transfer of urban evacuee property. The property was initially transferred to appellant No. 1, then set aside, and subsequently transferred to respondent No. 5. The appellants' writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on two grounds: laches and the failure to implead the purchaser from respondent No. 5 as a necessary party. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, noting that the High Court was justified in refusing relief in its writ jurisdiction when all necessary parties were not impleaded. The Court emphasized that the respondents' written statement provided sufficient notice to the appellants regarding the existence of the second transferee, who was a necessary party. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's finding that the writ petition was rightly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a High Court refuse relief in its writ jurisdiction if all necessary parties are not impleaded?
- Does a written statement identifying an absent party constitute sufficient notice for the petitioner to implead them?
- Is non-joinder of a necessary party a valid ground for dismissing a Constitutional Petition in writ jurisdiction?
- Akhtar Ali Hur vs Chairman, Karachi Port Trust1989 PLC 739 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-03-19Read full judgment →
- Akhtar Al1 and others vs Muhammad Hanif and another1989 SCMR 604 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendant petitioners against the dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court, which upheld the concurrent findings of lower courts decreeing the respondents' suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The core legal question concerned whether a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell State land could be decreed in the absence of sanction from the competent authority under section 19 of the Colonization of the Government Lands Act. The Supreme Court held that the statutory limitation under section 19 pertains to actual alienation and not to an agreement to alienate, and consequently, a decree for specific performance of the contract suffers from no legal infirmity. The key principle laid down is that an agreement to alienate State land and a subsequent decree for specific performance do not violate the bar on alienation contained in section 19 of the Colonization of the Government Lands Act 1912.
Questions settled- Does section 19 of the Colonization of the Government Lands Act prohibit an agreement to alienate State land?
- Can a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell State land be decreed without sanction from the competent authority?
- Does a decree for specific performance of a contract regarding State land suffer from infirmity due to lack of prior sanction for alienation?
- Akbar Shah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1548 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
- Akbar Ali vs The State1989 MLD 2836 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-12Read full judgment →
- Akbar Ali vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1989 PLC 16 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-19Read full judgment →
- Akbar Ali vs Mukhtar Ahmad Hashmi Owner Fareed Bus Service1989 PLC 941 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-04-26Read full judgment →
- Akbar Ali Khan Mirza vs The Additional District Judge and others1989 SCMR 1399 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment order against the petitioner, who occupied the first and top floors of a property transferred to the respondents. The respondents issued a notice under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act demanding rent at Rs. 300 per month, which the petitioner ignored, opting instead to deposit Rs. 75 per month with the Rent Controller. The respondents filed an ejectment application under the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, which was granted by the Rent Controller and upheld by the Additional District Judge and the High Court. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller was required to frame a specific issue on default after establishing the landlord-tenant relationship, or if ejectment could be ordered summarily. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that where default is manifest and admitted through the record, the failure to frame a formal issue causes no prejudice. The court affirmed that a tenant who contumaciously ignores a valid rent notice and persists in paying an incorrect, lower rate is not entitled to further inquiry on the issue of default.
Questions settled- Is a Rent Controller required to frame a specific issue on default if the default is manifest from the record?
- Does the failure to frame an issue on default invalidate an ejectment order where the tenant has contumaciously failed to pay the assessed rent?
- Can a tenant who denies the relationship of landlord and tenant but continues to deposit rent at a lower rate be considered a defaulter?
- Akbar Ali And Others vs Muhammad Sabir1989 MLD 92 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
- Akbar Ali And Others vs Ghulam Nabi And Other1989 MLD 4125 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-17Read full judgment →
- Akbar Ali and 4 others vs The Province of the Punjab and 2 others1989 SCMR 1040 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan examines whether the Lahore High Court was justified in rejecting the appellants' application under section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and dismissing their Regular First Appeal due to a deficiency in court-fee. The appellants' land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894, and dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Senior Civil Judge acting as the District Court, they filed an appeal bearing an insufficient court-fee stamp of Rs. 15 instead of the required amount. Upon the deficiency being pointed out during arguments, an application under section 149, C.P.C. read with sections 8 and 28 of the Court Fees Act 1870 was filed. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the appellants failed to establish a bona fide mistake. The Supreme Court held that the appellants were victims of circumstances and the oversight regarding the court-fee was not a wilful default on their part, particularly considering the role of counsel and the failure of court functionaries to scrutinize the document. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, granted the application under section 149, C.P.C., and allowed fifteen days for the appellants to make up the deficient court-fee, laying down principles regarding the lenient exercise of discretion for bona fide mistakes in court-fee matters.
Questions settled- Whether an application under section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 should be rejected when a memorandum of appeal is insufficiently stamped due to an oversight?
- Does the failure of court functionaries to detect a court-fee deficiency at the time of filing afford a ground for leniency to an appellant?
- Whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in dismissing an appeal for deficient court-fee without considering the bona fides of the litigants and the circumstances involving their counsel?
- Ajmal Khan vs Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd.1989 PLC 771 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
- Aiwaz Khan and Other vs Allah BakhshK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 157 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-20Read full judgment →
- Aitzaz Ahsan and others vs Chief Election Commissioner and others1989 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of multiple writ petitions challenging the validity of amendments made to Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act 1976 via Ordinance XIV of 1988, Ordinance XXVI of 1988, and Ordinance XXVII of 1988. The amendments mandated the production of a National Identity Card as a compulsory condition for the issuance of a ballot paper. The petitioners contended that this requirement was directory, not mandatory, and placed an unconstitutional clog on the right to vote. The High Court analyzed the factual discrepancies in the registration data and the constitutional guarantees under Article 51 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the right to vote is a substantive constitutional right that cannot be abridged or nullified by subordinate legislation. It ruled that while electors are entitled to vote upon producing their identity cards, those who do not possess one may establish their identity through other satisfactory means, or utilize the challenged ballot paper procedure under Section 35 of the Representation of the People Act 1976.
Questions settled- Can a sub-constitutional or subordinate legislation impose additional qualifications or conditions on the right to vote beyond those specified in Article 51(2) of the Constitution?
- Is the requirement of producing a National Identity Card under Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act 1976 directory or mandatory in nature?
- Whether an elector who does not possess a National Identity Card can be completely debarred from casting a vote if they can establish their identity through other satisfactory means?
- Aijaz Hussain Kazi, vs The Govt. of Sindh through the Chief Secretary, Sindh,Karachi and OtherK.L.R 1989 Labour & Service Cases 64 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1988-08-10Read full judgment →
- Aijaz Haroon vs Inam Durrani1989 PLD Karachi 304 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit, filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, concerned a claim for recovery of money based on a Demand Promissory Note, specifically addressing the legality of interest claims. The core legal question was whether interest is recoverable in Pakistan following the insertion of Article 2-A into the Constitution, which makes the Objectives Resolution an operative and enforceable part of the Constitution. The court held that interest is prohibited under the Injunctions of Islam and that statutory provisions allowing interest, specifically Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Sections 79 and 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the Interest Act, 1839, are no longer valid law. However, the court established that to prevent injustice caused by inflation, creditors are entitled to the real worth of the loaned amount in terms of purchasing power. The key principle laid down is that all laws must conform to the Objectives Resolution, and while interest is prohibited, courts may adjust the decretal amount to reflect the intrinsic value of the currency to ensure equitable justice.
Questions settled- Is interest recoverable in Pakistan in light of the Objectives Resolution and Article 2-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Are the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 and the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding interest still valid law?
- Can a court grant a preliminary decree to assess the real worth of a loan to compensate for currency inflation?
- Does the Objectives Resolution have the status of an enforceable constitutional provision?
- Aided Schools Management Associations vs The Government of Sind1989 MLD 3020 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
- Ahmedan Bibi vs Rustam Ali and 10 othersPLD 1989 Lahore 53] · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-13Read full judgment →
- Ahmed Maritime Brokers (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The Collector Of CustomsPTCL 1989 CL. 475 · Sindh High Court · 1988-04-30Read full judgment →
- Ahmed Khan vs Asghar Ali And Other1989 CLC 2483 · Board of Revenue · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
- Ahmed Hussain vs Karachi Transport Corporation1989 PLC 283 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-12-01Read full judgment →
- Ahmed Din alias Ahim vs The State1989 SCMR 180 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-09-16Read full judgment →
- Ahmed Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory vs Cotton Trading1989 MLD 2202 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
- Ahmed And Other vs Abdul Aziz And Other(K.L.R. 1989 Revenue Cases 166) · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a series of petitions before the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking to clarify the scope and effect of the judgment in Government of N.W.F.P. vs. Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1986 S.C. 360) regarding the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 and related laws. The core legal question was whether the declaration of repugnancy to Islamic Injunctions in Said Kamal Shah's case rendered the entire pre-emption law ineffective or only the specific provisions explicitly struck down, and whether requirements like 'Talabs' could be engrafted onto the remaining statutory provisions. The Court held that the Shariat Appellate Bench's jurisdiction under Chapter 3-A of the Constitution is limited to striking down specific provisions found repugnant. Consequently, only those provisions explicitly declared repugnant ceased to have effect on 31.7.1986. The remaining statutory provisions of the pre-emption law, where not specifically challenged or struck down, remain intact and enforceable. The Court established the principle that it cannot legislate or engraft new requirements, such as 'Talabs', onto the surviving statutory law, and that pre-emption suits must be adjudicated based on the law as it stands after the specific repugnant provisions are removed.
Questions settled- Does the declaration of repugnancy in Said Kamal Shah's case render the entire Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 ineffective or only the specific provisions struck down?
- Can the Supreme Court engraft requirements like 'Talabs' onto the surviving provisions of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
- Does the jurisdiction of the Shariat Appellate Bench under Chapter 3-A of the Constitution allow for the striking down of laws in an omnibus manner without specific examination?
- Must a pre-emptor possess a subsisting right of pre-emption at the time of sale, institution of the suit, and the decree?
- Ahmad Zia Durrani vs Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 351 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-01-13Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Yar vs Manzoor Ahmad1989 CLC 1271 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Yar and others vs Muhammad Ashiq and others1989 SCMR 1302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case concerns a pre-emption suit where the vendees sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment. The pre-emptors claimed a superior right, and the trial court initially dismissed the suit as time-barred and deficiently stamped. On appeal, the District Judge remanded the case, setting aside the findings on limitation and directing the trial court to determine court-fee deficiency and re-determine issue No. 6-B regarding superior right. The District Judge's order, dated 20-7-1986, recorded findings on the pre-emptors' superior right. Subsequently, the Civil Judge determined the court-fee deficiency on 29-1-1987. The core legal question was whether the pre-emptors' right had vested before the crucial date of 31-7-1986, after which certain pre-emption grounds became unenforceable. The Supreme Court held that mere findings recorded by the District Judge on 20-7-1986 did not constitute a formal, executable pre-emption decree. Since no such decree had been passed by 31-7-1986, the pre-emptors could not claim a vested right, and their suit for possession was dismissed.
Questions settled- When does a pre-emptor's right vest in the context of pre-emption law?
- Do findings recorded by an appellate court regarding a superior right of pre-emption constitute a vested right before a formal decree is passed?
- Can a pre-emption suit succeed if a formal decree of possession is not passed before the crucial date of 31-7-1986?
- What is the effect of a remand order on the finality of findings in a pre-emption suit?
- Ahmad Yar And 4 Others vs Rasool Bakhsh And Other1989 MLD 1043 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-14Read full judgment →
- Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R 19S9 Criminal Cases 74 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-13Read full judgment →
- Ahmad vs Muhammad Nawaz and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 440 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted the respondents of triple murder charges. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence, specifically regarding the credibility of the sole eyewitness, Ahmad, who admitted to consulting village elders before lodging the First Information Report (FIR) due to existing enmity. The Supreme Court examined whether this consultation cast doubt on the authenticity of the FIR and the witness's reliability. The Court held that the eyewitness's testimony, in the absence of independent corroboration, was insufficient to sustain a conviction, particularly given the lack of weight in the recovery and medical evidence regarding the identity of the assailants. Affirming the acquittal, the Court laid down the principle that an appellate court should not interfere with a judgment of acquittal unless there is a serious defect in the reasoning or a disregard for accepted principles of evidence appreciation, and that the mere possibility of a different view is insufficient to overturn such a finding.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances should the Supreme Court interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
- Does the consultation of village elders by an eyewitness before lodging an FIR necessarily undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case?
- Can medical evidence and recovery evidence alone sustain a conviction in a murder case without reliable eyewitness testimony?
- Ahmad Shah vs Anwar ShahK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 60 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-17Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Shah vs Anwar Shah And Other1989 MLD 975 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-17Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Nawaz Khan vs Senior Accounts Officer (Admn.), Pakistan1989 PLC (C.S.) 398 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1988-09-13Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Mst. Safia Blgum vs Abdul Aziz Ibrahim and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 771 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses multiple petitions seeking to clarify the scope and effect of the landmark Shariat Appellate Bench decision in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1986 SC 360) regarding pre-emption laws in Pakistan. The core legal questions involved whether statutory provisions not explicitly struck down by the Shariat Appellate Bench remained in force, whether Islamic legal requirements like Talabs could be automatically engrafted into statutory pre-emption laws, and whether pending suits based on remaining grounds like co-ownership or contiguity could proceed after 31 July 1986. The Supreme Court held that under Chapter 3-A of Part VII of the Constitution, the Shariat jurisdiction only invalidates specific statutory provisions explicitly declared repugnant to Islam; it confers no power to engraft Islamic principles or observations onto surviving statutes. Consequently, surviving statutory grounds such as co-ownership or contiguity remain available, and pending pre-emption suits based on such preserved grounds can proceed to trial, allowing parties to amend their pleadings where necessary.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Shariat Court or Shariat Appellate Bench have jurisdiction to engraft Islamic legal principles into surviving statutory provisions not expressly declared repugnant?
- Do statutory pre-emption rights based on co-ownership or contiguity remain enforceable after the deadline fixed in Said Kamal Shah's case where specific provisions were not struck down?
- Can the requirement of making Talabs be imported into statutory pre-emption laws without legislative amendment?