Latest Judgments

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

• Ahmad Khan Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1989 Criminal Cases 738 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-27Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan And Another vs The State1989 MLD 3720 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-28Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hussain vs Haq Nawaz And Other1989 CLC795 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hayat vs The State1989 MLD 3244 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hayat And Others vs Muhammad Bakhsh1989 MLD 471 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs Muhammad Siddioue1989 MLD 4870 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-04Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs Muhammad Saleem And Other1989 MLD 3264 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs Aleemuddin1989 MLD 257 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-10Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Bakhsh vs Ghulam Rasool And 2 Other1989 MLD 1034 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Bakhsh vs Assistant Engineer, Pakistan Railways, D.G. Khan and 2 others1989 PLC 915 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• Ahmad Alias Ahmad Yar And 11 Others vs The State1989 MLD 4067 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2393 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-01Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali vs Noor Muhammad And 8 Other1989 MLD 2870 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-12Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali vs Muhammad AkramK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 91 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-26Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali Siddiqui vs Sargodha Central Cooperative Bank Limited and another1989 SCMR 824 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-08
  recovery of finesentence of imprisonment in defaultlimitation period for fineattachment of propertysubstantive law versus adjective law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan examines whether a fine imposed under the Pakistan Penal Code could be realized after the appellant had served out his substantive sentence and the default sentence, and whether the issuance of a warrant under section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was barred. The appellant was sentenced on October 12, 1959, to multiple terms of imprisonment, including ten years under section 120-B, and a fine of Rs. 50,000. He was released in August 1966. Subsequently, in 1968, the Sessions Judge ordered the attachment of cash recovered from the appellant to satisfy the unpaid fine. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appellant's revision, leading to the appeal. The Supreme Court held that where an offender is sentenced to imprisonment for a term longer than six years, liability to pay the fine continues until the expiration of that period pursuant to section 70 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and remissions are not counted for this limitation period. Furthermore, adjective law cannot control substantive law, and possessing means to pay constitutes a sufficient special reason under the proviso to section 386(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to issue a warrant. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the amount of fine imposed on an offender can be realized after he has served out his substantive sentence and default sentence when the substantive sentence exceeds six years?
  • Whether the period of remission granted to a prisoner is to be counted for the purpose of the limitation period for recovery of fine under section 70 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether the proviso to subsection (1) of section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prohibits the issuance of a warrant for the levy of fine after the offender has undergone imprisonment in default?
  • Whether having the means to pay a fine constitutes a special reason for issuing a warrant for the levy of fine notwithstanding the offender serving the full term of imprisonment in default?
  Read full judgment →
• Agriculture Engineer, Talagang vs Muhammad Iqbal1989 PLC 34 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-08-16Read full judgment →
• Agricultural Engineer vs Muhammad Bux and others1989 PLC 561 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-02-08Read full judgment →
• Agha Muhammad Ashraf vs Chief Administrative Officer, General Staff1989 PLC (C.S.) 642 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
• Agha Fakhruddin vs Muhammad Paryal and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 16 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-30
  state land allotmentamenity plotslocus standidiscretionary powerpublic interest litigationcolonization of government lands
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two civil appeals challenging a High Court judgment regarding the Government of Sind's allotment of state land parcels in Sukkur to the respondents. The appellants contended that the disputed plots were reserved as amenity plots for a children's park and that their grant for residential and medical clinic purposes violated the statement of conditions issued under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912. The core legal questions were whether the plots were legally reserved as amenity land and whether the appellants possessed the locus standi to challenge the government's discretionary allotment. The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to establish that the plots were ever officially reserved for amenity purposes, noting that mere recommendations did not constitute a legal reservation. Consequently, the Court affirmed the government's authority under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 to dispose of state land. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the appellants lacked locus standi to challenge the allotments, as they were not applicants and held no personal interest in the property. The appeals were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mere recommendation or suggestion to use land as a park constitute a legal reservation of that land as an amenity plot?
  • Does the statement of conditions issued under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 fetter the discretion of the Provincial Government to allot state land?
  • Do neighbors who are not applicants for state land have the locus standi to challenge the government's allotment of such land?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Abdul Hameed and 7 others vs Mst. Naseem Begum1989 SCMR 2038 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-11
  succession certificateMuslim Law of inheritancecompensation distributiontrusteeleave to appealadditional evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a Civil Revision regarding the distribution of compensation money paid following the death of one Abdul Ghafoor in Saudi Arabia. The High Court had ruled that the respondent, the widow of the deceased, was entitled to the entire amount exclusively, based on an entry designating her as the beneficiary. The petitioners, representing other heirs, challenged this, arguing the funds should be distributed according to Islamic law. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether there was sufficient material to determine the conditions of the payment, whether the High Court erred in failing to call for additional evidence, and whether the respondent held the funds as a trustee for all heirs. The Court further sought to determine if the compensation amount was liable to be distributed among all legal heirs under Muslim Law of inheritance. The Supreme Court granted the leave to appeal and permitted the petitioners to file additional fresh material for consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court erred in failing to call for additional evidence to determine the conditions of a compensation payment?
  • Whether a widow receiving compensation for a deceased spouse holds the funds as a trustee for all legal heirs?
  • Whether compensation money paid upon the death of an individual is liable to be distributed among all heirs in accordance with Muslim Law of inheritance?
  Read full judgment →
• Afzal Hussain and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 471 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-08Read full judgment →
• Aftab Hussain vs The State1989 MLD 3257 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-29Read full judgment →
• Aftab Gul vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1599 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-25
  pre-arrest bailconstructive possessionguilty knowledgeexplosive substancescriminal liabilitytrial in absentia
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Aftab Gul, facing charges under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the Arms Ordinance, 1965. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could be held criminally liable for the recovery of incriminating articles (missiles and cartridges) from a house where he was not present, as he was abroad at the time of the search, and whether the prosecution established a prima facie case of possession. The Court observed that the petitioner was out of the country during the search and that the house was occupied by his parents, not him exclusively. Relying on the principle that 'possession' under the relevant statutes requires actual possession with guilty knowledge rather than mere constructive possession, the Court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to connect the petitioner to the recovered items. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, holding that a prima facie case for bail was established given the lack of evidence of the petitioner's direct involvement or knowledge.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'possession' in the context of the Explosive Substances Act 1908 refer to actual possession with guilty knowledge or constructive possession?
  • Is a person liable for the recovery of incriminating articles from a house where they were not present and which was not in their exclusive possession?
  • Is an allegation of mala fides against the police a mandatory requirement for the grant of pre-arrest bail when the investigation is already complete?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmad vs The Water and Power Development Authority and others1989 SCMR 1534 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-05
  civil servicedismissal from serviceremoval from servicegross negligenceshow-cause noticeleave to appealjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had converted the petitioner's dismissal from service into removal from service. The petitioner, a Lineman of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), was dismissed following a fatal accident of an Assistant Lineman under his supervision, which was attributed to the petitioner's gross negligence. The petitioner challenged his dismissal before the Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, which declined jurisdiction, and subsequently appealed to the Federal Service Tribunal. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing, examined the merits, and dismissed the appeal while modifying the penalty. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law, as the petitioner had refused to receive the show-cause notice despite repeated efforts. The Court affirmed that the fatal accident resulted from the petitioner's lack of sense of duty and declined to grant leave to appeal, finding no merit to interfere with the Tribunal's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether disciplinary proceedings are valid if a public servant refuses to receive a show-cause notice despite repeated efforts?
  • Can a civil servant seek relief from a Labour Court if the court lacks jurisdiction over the service matter?
  • Whether gross negligence resulting in a fatal accident of a subordinate justifies the termination of a supervisor's services?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmad Sheikh vs Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 697 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmad and 4 others vs The State1989 PLD Lahore 520 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-19Read full judgment →
• Administrator, Punjab Livestock Dairy vs Pakistan Dairy Engineering1989 MLD 3125 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-22Read full judgment →
• Administrator, Municipal Committee vs Mst. Shamim Akhtar And Other1989 MLD 3615 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
• Administrator General of West Bengal vs Collector, Varanasi1989 MLD 1827 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-02-16Read full judgment →
• Aditya Mills Ltd. vs Union of India1989 MLD 2464 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-08-29Read full judgment →
• Adil Rashid Etc. vs Irshad Ali and OtherK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 37 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
• Adil Hussain vs Sub-Divisional Education Officer and OtherK.L.R 1989 Labour and Service Cases 79 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
• Adil Hussain vs Sub-Divisional Education Officer (Female), Abbottabad and 2 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 534 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
• Adeeb Javedani, Printer and Publisher Moon Digest, Lahore vs Yahya1989 PLD Quetta 21 · Balochistan High Court · 1988-12-05Read full judgment →
• Adbul Rehman And Another vs Faiz Bakhsh And Other1989 CLC 2338 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmad Shah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 112 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-31
  post-arrest bailseditiontentative assessmentmedical grounds for bailsuppression of terrorist activitiescode of criminal procedurefurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of five criminal bail applications filed by various accused persons, including Aftab Ahmed Shah Jamote and Mumtaz Ali Bhutto, arising out of cases registered under section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, section 13 of the Prevention of Anti-National Activities Act 1974, and other provisions. The core legal questions involved were whether the joint police reports and DIB summaries lacking individual speech scripts constitute sufficient material to establish reasonable grounds of guilt at the bail stage, whether provisions of sections 497 and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be invoked alongside the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975, and whether bail should be granted on medical grounds. The court held that the lack of individual material makes the case one of further inquiry, that sections 497 and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 remain applicable in the absence of explicit statutory bar, and that severe illness justifies bail. The key principles laid down are that courts must conduct a tentative assessment of evidence at the bail stage, joint extra-judicial reports or lack of individual attribution weaken the prosecution's case for pre-trial incarceration, and serious medical conditions warrant the grant of bail even in scheduled offences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether sections 497 and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be invoked in cases triable by Special Courts under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975?
  • Does a joint DIB report or police summary lacking individual speech scripts constitute reasonable grounds for believing an accused is guilty of sedition at the bail stage?
  • Whether serious illness substantiated by a medical board constitutes a sufficient ground for granting bail in scheduled offenses?
  • Whether a court is required to make a tentative assessment of the available evidence when considering a pre-trial bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Adarah Tamir E Millat And Others vs Government of Sind And Other1989 MLD 24 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-12Read full judgment →
• Adamjee Insurance Company Ltd. vs Assistant Director, Economic1989 P Cr. L J 1921 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-29
  Federal Investigation AgencyFirst Information Reportinquiry and investigationconstitutional petitionfundamental rightsright to tradeinsurance companies
  Summary & questions settled

  This common order disposes of nine constitutional petitions filed by insurance companies challenging notices issued by the Assistant Director of the Federal Investigation Agency requiring them to produce extensive business records, claim files, and insurance cover notes. The core legal questions involved whether the Federal Investigation Agency could initiate an inquiry or investigation without first recording a First Information Report or obtaining a Magistrate's permission, and whether issuing such notices to companies not named in the complaint violated fundamental rights under Articles 13, 14, and 18 of the Constitution. The Sindh High Court held that the receipt and recording of a First Information Report is not a mandatory condition precedent to the commencement of a criminal inquiry or investigation by the Agency. However, the Court ruled that while a roving inquiry is permissible regarding entities specifically named in a complaint with definite allegations, issuing blanket notices to companies against whom no material or information exists constitutes an unwarranted interference with trade and violates Articles 14 and 18 of the Constitution. Consequently, petitions concerning companies named in the complaint were dismissed, while petitions regarding unnamed companies were allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Investigation Agency can initiate an inquiry or investigation without first recording a First Information Report?
  • Does the issuance of notices for the production of documents during a preliminary inquiry violate the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Whether conducting a roving inquiry against business entities whose names do not figure in the initial complaint violates Articles 14 and 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 competent against a preliminary inquiry or investigation launched by an investigative agency?
  Read full judgment →
• Adamjee Insurance Co. Ltd., Karachi vs The Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 3 others1989 PTD 1090 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-20
  general insuranceincome tax assessmentreopening of assessmentKhas Deposit Certificatesinsurance businesstax exemptionstatutory interpretationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions filed by various general insurance companies challenging notices issued under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, which sought to reopen tax assessments. The core legal question was whether income derived from Khas Deposit/Defence Saving Certificates, when included in the annual accounts of general insurance companies, remains exempt under the Second Schedule of the Ordinance, or whether it constitutes taxable 'profits and gains' of the insurance business under Section 26 and the Fourth Schedule. The Court held that the computation of profits for general insurance companies is governed exclusively by the special provisions of Section 26 and the Fourth Schedule of the Ordinance, which override general provisions. Consequently, income from such certificates included in annual accounts submitted to the Controller of Insurance loses its character as 'interest on securities' and becomes part of the unified 'profits and gains' of the insurance business, rendering it taxable. The Court affirmed that the special regime for insurance companies precludes the bifurcation of income into separate heads, and that notices issued based on Central Board of Revenue clarifications regarding this legal position are valid.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 provide a special, overriding regime for the computation of profits and gains of insurance companies?
  • Is income from Khas Deposit Certificates, when included in the annual accounts of a general insurance company, exempt from tax under the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
  • Can an Income Tax Officer reopen an assessment under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 based on a clarification issued by the Central Board of Revenue?
  • Does the existence of an alternative remedy under the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 bar a constitutional petition under Article 199 when the authority has already expressed a final opinion on the matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Adam Khan vs Mian Rafiuddin and others1989 SCMR 701 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-26
  constitutional petitionland commissionmartial law regulationland resumptiontenant allotment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which allowed a constitutional petition filed by the successors-in-interest of a deceased landowner and set aside orders passed by the Land Commission Authorities. The core legal question concerned the determination of land excess under Martial Law Regulation 115 and whether the High Court erred in interfering with factual determinations regarding land calculations and the benefit of gifts under Martial Law Regulation 64. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal on the basis of a concession made by the respondents' counsel, allowing the appellant-tenant to retain the specific land allotted to him. The Court held that the appeal succeeds to the extent of the area allotted to the appellant in view of the mutual agreement of the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can act as an appellate court to decide pure questions of fact within the exclusive jurisdiction of Land Commission Authorities?
  • Can an appeal by a single tenant succeed to the extent of the specific land allotted to him based on a concession made by the respondents?
  Read full judgment →
• Adam Foundation vs Income-Tax Officer1989 PTD 343 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-25Read full judgment →
• Adalat Khan And Another vs The State1989 MLD 4900 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
• Adalat Hussain vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 34 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-26Read full judgment →
• Adal Hussain vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 287 · Lahore High Court · 1988-03-05Read full judgment →
• Abu Talha Ansari vs Secretary, Economic Affairs Division, Islamabad1989 PLC (C.S.) 634 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-03-09Read full judgment →
• Abu Bakar vs The State and another1989 P Cr. L J 369 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-04
  quashment of FIRoffence committed outside Pakistanextraterritorial jurisdictionsanction for inquiryPolitical Agent certificateHudood Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal miscellaneous application filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of an F.I.R. registered under section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 at Police Station Baghdadi, Karachi, concerning allegations of theft committed by a Pakistani citizen in Oman. The core legal question was whether an F.I.R. can be registered and investigated in Pakistan for an offence allegedly committed outside the territorial limits of Pakistan without prior compliance with section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that while section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prohibits the actual inquiry or trial of an offence committed abroad without the requisite certificate from a Political Agent or the sanction of the Federal Government, it does not bar the mere registration of an F.I.R. or police investigation. The court ruled that the investigation should be postponed until the mandatory certificate or sanction is obtained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an F.I.R. can be registered in Pakistan for an offence committed beyond the territorial limits of Pakistan without prior procurement of a certificate under section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the bar under section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against inquiring into offences committed outside Pakistan extend to the mere registration of an F.I.R.?
  • What is the statutory requirement for inquiring into an offence committed by a citizen of Pakistan outside the country?
  Read full judgment →
• Absar Ahmad Siddiqui And Another vs The State And Another1989 MLD 2644 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
• Abm. L Hanan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 487 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
• Abiodun Akanbi vs The State1989 MLD 2796 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
• Abida Parveen Etc vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 756 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-11Read full judgment →
• Abid. vs Abdul Karim1989 SCMR 1824 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-08
  evictionbona fide personal requirementleave to appealrent restrictionconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the Rent Controller's eviction order. The core legal question concerned whether the landlord had successfully established a bona fide personal requirement of the demised premises for his son to set up a business and facilitate his marriage, including the sufficiency of presently available accommodation and allegations of alternate properties. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Rent Controller and the High Court regarding the bona fide personal need were based on proper and cogent reasons derived from the evidence. Consequently, the petition was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed, affirming the concurrent orders of eviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide personal requirement for eviction can be interfered with when supported by evidence?
  • Does a landlord's requirement of premises to set up a business for his son's marriage constitute a valid ground for eviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Shah vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 66 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-27Read full judgment →
• Abid Khan And Others vs Mushtaq And Other1989 MLD 2936 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-26Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs Board of Trustees And Another1989 MLD 1220 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-05Read full judgment →
• Abid Hassan Janjua and another vs Election Board, Sui Northern Gas1989 PLC 197 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1988-06-29Read full judgment →
• Abid Ali vs The State1989 MLD 2815 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
• Abid Ali And Another vs The State1989 MLD 4942 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-16Read full judgment →
• Abdus Sattar And Others vs The State1989 MLD 292 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-12Read full judgment →
• Abdus Sattar and others vs Nawab Din and others1989 SCMR 1204 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-06
  pre-emptionlimitationcourt closurecivil revisioncontempt application
  Summary & questions settled

  These two matters arise out of the same case, involving a civil petition for leave to appeal concerning a pre-emption matter and a related contempt application. In Civil Petition No. 1140 of 1984, the vendees challenged the dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court, focusing primarily on the question of limitation. The core legal question examined was whether the pre-emption suit filed on 1-9-1975 was time-barred, considering that the trial court was closed on 31-8-1975. The Supreme Court held that since the suit could not have been instituted prior to 31-8-1975 due to the court closure, a suit filed on the next open day (1-9-1975) was within time, thereby refusing leave to appeal. Additionally, the Court declined to deal with the contempt application on merits at this stage, resulting in the dismissal of both petitions. The key principle laid down is that when a court is closed on the last day of limitation, a suit instituted on the next immediate working day is within time.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-emption suit filed on the reopening day of a court is within time when the limitation period expired while the court was closed?
  • Can a contempt application be dismissed without being addressed on merits at a preliminary stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdus Sattar and another vs The Federal Land Commissioner and 181989 SCMR 1545 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-20
  Land Reformsmartial law regulationcultivating tenantsremand for fresh inquirywrit petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court concerning the implementation of Land Reforms under Martial Law Regulation (M.L.R. 115). The petitioners claimed the disputed land as cultivating tenants under Paragraph 18(1) of the Regulation, while contesting respondents claimed it under Paragraph 18(3). Two conflicting inquiry reports were generated—one favorable from the Patwari and another unfavorable from the Assistant Commissioner. Ultimately, the authorities remanded the case for a fresh inquiry, which the petitioners unsuccessfully challenged in the High Court. The core legal question was whether the remand order and the second inquiry initiated by the Assistant Commissioner were lawful. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly refused to interfere with the remand order, noting that the remand provided an opportunity for both parties to support their claims and that the fresh inquiry would proceed uninfluenced by prior adverse observations on merits. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a remand order for a fresh inquiry in land reform matters can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction when conflicting reports exist?
  • Can a second inquiry initiated by an Assistant Commissioner regarding tenancy claims under land reforms be challenged as without lawful authority?
  • Does a remand order providing an opportunity for a fresh inquiry prejudice the rights of the contesting parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdus Sattar And 5 Others vs Sahibzada Mashooo Elahi And 9 Other1989 CLC 1747 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-18Read full judgment →
• Abdus Sattar and 2 others vs Additional Commissioner, Goraya, District Gujranwala and 4 others1989 PLD Lahore 384 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-17Read full judgment →
• Abdus Samad vs Messrs Sanaullah Woollen Mills1989 PLC 184 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-02-14Read full judgment →
• Abdus Samad vs Azad Jammu & Kashmir Government and 8 OtherK.L.R 1989 Labour & Service Cases 53 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1987-11-29Read full judgment →
• Abdus Samad Khan And Others vs Molvi Abdullah1989 CLC 1563 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-30
  benami transactionbeneficial ownershipostensible ownerburden of proofbona fide purchasercivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a civil suit concerning the ownership of a house purchased in an open auction. The respondent claimed to be the true owner, asserting that the property was purchased 'benami' in the name of the appellant, his step-brother, who acted as the ostensible owner. The core legal question was whether the respondent successfully established his beneficial ownership despite the auction documents and municipal records being in the appellant's name. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, finding him to be the actual owner. The High Court upheld this decision, holding that the respondent proved his case through consistent evidence of payment of consideration, possession, and the fact that original title documents remained in his custody. The Court reaffirmed the principle that in benami transactions, the source of consideration and the custody of title deeds are critical factors in determining true ownership. Furthermore, the Court rejected the appellants' claim of being bona fide purchasers, noting that their own inconsistent testimony regarding the sale agreements undermined their defense.

  Questions settled

  • What are the primary factors to be considered in determining whether a transaction is benami?
  • Does the fact that auction documents and municipal records are in the name of an ostensible owner preclude a claim of beneficial ownership by another party?
  • Is the custody of original title deeds a relevant factor in proving a benami transaction?
  • Does the failure to frame a specific issue regarding benami status necessarily prejudice the defense in a civil suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdus Salam vs Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab1989 PLC (C.S.) 36 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1988-04-14Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs The Chief Engineer, Sargodha Electricity, Sargodha1989 SCMR 1178 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-08
  back benefitssuspension periodhonourable acquittalservice tribunalwater and power development authorityleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority serving as a Line Superintendent, was caught accepting a bribe and subsequently convicted by a Special Judge. Upon appeal, the High Court acquitted him due to lack of satisfactory corroboration, leading to his reinstatement in service. However, the Authority denied him full pay and allowances for the suspension period, and his subsequent appeal to the Service Tribunal was dismissed on the finding that his acquittal was not honourable. Seeking leave to appeal, the core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an employee acquitted on technical grounds rather than honourably is entitled to full back benefits for the period of suspension. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal's finding that the acquittal was not honourable was sound, and therefore upheld the denial of full pay and allowances. The key principle laid down is that an employee whose acquittal is not honourable is not automatically entitled to full benefits of pay and allowances for the period spent under suspension.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employee entitled to full pay and allowances for the period of suspension upon acquittal?
  • Does an acquittal lacking honourable circumstances disentitle a public servant from claiming full back benefits?
  • Can the Service Tribunal uphold the denial of suspension benefits based on a finding that an acquittal was not honourable?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs Farooq1989 MLD 951 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-05Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman Babar vs N.W.F.P. through the Chief Secretary, Government1989 SCMR 928 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-08
  compulsory retirementservice tribunalproportionality of punishmentmisconductdepartmental proceedingsrevenue officer
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Tehsildar, challenged his compulsory retirement from service following departmental proceedings. He was accused of attesting land mutations in violation of revenue laws, specifically regarding land already subject to acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioner argued before the Service Tribunal that he acted in routine without knowledge of the prior acquisition award, a defense rejected by the Tribunal on the basis of his official position as the Revenue Officer of the circle. Upon seeking leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the penalty of compulsory retirement was disproportionate, particularly noting that other individuals involved in similar defaults received only minor penalties. The Supreme Court observed that the Service Tribunal failed to adequately consider the issue of proportionality in sentencing. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the punishment imposed was excessive and discriminatory compared to the treatment of others similarly situated, thereby requiring further judicial review of the administrative action.

  Questions settled

  • Does the imposition of a severe penalty like compulsory retirement for misconduct require consideration of proportionality when others involved in similar defaults received minor penalties?
  • Is a Revenue Officer presumed to have knowledge of land acquisition awards within their circle of jurisdiction?
  • Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal based on the failure of a Service Tribunal to consider the proportionality of a disciplinary penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman And Others vs Mst. Afroza And Other1989 CLC 2333 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-08-21Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman and another vs Fida Hussain and 3 others1989 P Cr. L J 2028 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman And 2 Others vs Shabbir Hussain Shaikh, A.S.P., Jaranwala And 2 Other1989 MLD 650 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-11Read full judgment →
• Abdur Razzak Shah vs Abdul Alim Durreshani and others1989 SCMR 1039 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-20
  abatement of appeallegal representativesimproperly constituted appealdelay and negligencedeath of appellantleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan where the respondents sought dismissal on the grounds that the appellant had deceased years prior to the grant of leave to appeal, and his legal heirs had not been brought on record. The core legal question was whether an appeal could proceed when leave was granted to a deceased person and no steps were taken to implead legal representatives for over fourteen years. The Court held that the appeal was improperly constituted. It observed that the appellant died in 1975, yet leave to appeal was granted in 1980 without the Court being informed of his death. Furthermore, the legal heirs failed to seek impleadment for an additional nine years after the grant of leave. The Court refused to grant indulgence for this unpardonable delay and negligence in prosecuting the appeal. The principle laid down is that an appeal becomes improperly constituted when the appellant dies before the grant of leave and the legal heirs fail to take timely steps to implead themselves, rendering the proceedings liable to dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal proceed if leave to appeal was granted to a deceased person?
  • Does an unexplained delay of fourteen years in impleading legal heirs justify the dismissal of an appeal?
  • Is an appeal considered improperly constituted if the appellant dies before the grant of leave and no legal representatives are brought on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rauf vs Director, Local Government and Rural Development, Sargodha Division, Sargodha and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 436 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-03Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rauf vs Ali Muhammad1989 MLD 3956 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-21Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 310 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid vs The State (Copy)1989 SCMR 165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  criminal appealsentence mitigationdeath penaltygrave and sudden provocationextenuating circumstancesmurderattempt to murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the appellant's conviction and death sentence for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the appellant, having been convicted under Sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code, was entitled to a lesser sentence due to the background of enmity involving the prior molestation of his sister by the deceased and the complainant. The Supreme Court held that while the conviction was correctly maintained, the background of enmity involving the dishonouring of the appellant's female relative constituted an extenuating circumstance. Consequently, the Court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the conviction and the sentence of fine. The Court affirmed that where a crime is committed in the context of a long-standing grievance involving the molestation of family members, the accused may be entitled to a lesser penalty, as the sting of continuing provocation serves as a mitigating factor in sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Does the history of enmity involving the molestation of a family member constitute an extenuating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing in a murder case?
  • Can the Supreme Court commute a death sentence to life imprisonment based on the background of the crime?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid vs Saqlain Ahmad and others1989 SCMR 1654 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-03
  bona fide personal needevictionconstitutional jurisdictionconcurrent findings of factrent restrictionmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a Constitution Petition challenging an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller and upheld by an Additional District Judge. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's bona fide personal need for the premises. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly declined to exercise its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction to re-examine concurrent findings of fact, particularly when the petitioner failed to demonstrate any misreading or non-reading of material evidence before the High Court. The Supreme Court further emphasized that a petitioner cannot raise a new plea of misreading or non-reading of evidence in the Supreme Court if such a plea was not argued before the High Court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that constitutional jurisdiction is not intended for the reappraisal of evidence where concurrent findings are based on the record.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner raise a plea of misreading or non-reading of evidence in the Supreme Court if it was not raised before the High Court?
  • Is the High Court's extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction available to re-examine concurrent findings of fact made by rent tribunals?
  • What is the remedy for a tenant if a landlord fails to occupy premises after obtaining an eviction order based on personal need?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid vs Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies) And Other1989 MLD 4487 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-25Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid vs Election Tribunal, Narowal, District Sialkot And Other1989 MLD 969 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-31Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid vs Election Tribunal Narowal District Sialkot and Other.K.L.R . 989 Civil Cases 73 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-31Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid vs Chief Administrator of Auqaf And Other1989 CLC 1119 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid vs C.S.C. and another1989 SCMR 1417 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-01
  service lawdisciplinary proceedingsenquiry officerleave to appealservice tribunaladministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a Junior Clerk challenging a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 24-5-1984, which had upheld disciplinary proceedings against him. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Authorized Officer and the Authority are legally bound to accept the recommendations made by an Enquiry Officer in a disciplinary inquiry. The Supreme Court examined the findings of the Tribunal, which had concluded that while the Enquiry Officer may have favourably commented upon the appellant, the Authorized Officer and the Authority are under no legal obligation to agree with or follow such recommendations. The Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding, holding that the Tribunal's decision was in accordance with the law. Consequently, the Court determined that no valid grounds existed to grant leave to appeal, as the disciplinary authorities possess the discretion to disagree with an Enquiry Officer's findings. The petition was accordingly dismissed, reinforcing the principle that an Enquiry Officer's report is recommendatory rather than binding upon the competent disciplinary authority.

  Questions settled

  • Are the Authorized Officer and the Authority legally bound to agree with the recommendations of an Enquiry Officer in disciplinary proceedings?
  • Does a favourable report by an Enquiry Officer create a binding obligation on the disciplinary authority to exonerate the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid vs Additional Settlement Commissioner And 2 Other1989 MLD 1096 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-25Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid Khan and others vs Swat Textile Mills Ltd. and others1989 SCMR 1036 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-01
  land acquisitionsurplus landsettlement agreementrevenue officerproperty rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the return of surplus acquired land to the original owners by the respondents. The parties reached a settlement agreement before the Supreme Court, wherein the respondents consented to return the surplus acquired land to each appellant/petitioner at a fixed market rate of Rs. 55,000 per kanal. The core legal question addressed by the Court was the practical implementation of this settlement, specifically the determination of the exact surplus area claimable by each individual appellant. The Court held that the District Collector, Abbottabad, must appoint a competent Revenue Officer to ascertain the surplus area for each appellant within one month, ensuring the participation of all parties. The Court directed that the appellants must deposit the requisite price for their respective entitlements by a specified date. The key principle laid down is that in land acquisition disputes involving surplus land return, the Court may facilitate settlement by directing administrative authorities to verify and quantify individual entitlements based on the agreed-upon terms, ensuring procedural fairness and compliance through judicial oversight.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court direct a District Collector to ascertain the surplus area claimable by appellants in a land acquisition dispute?
  • Is a settlement agreement regarding the return of surplus acquired land at a fixed market price enforceable through judicial direction?
  • What is the procedure for determining individual land entitlements when parties have agreed to the return of surplus acquired land?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Raoof vs Gulzar Begum1989 MLD 3821 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahman vs Ghulam Muhammad And Other1989 MLD 284 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-05Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahim vs Secretary to Government of NWFP EducationK.L.R 1989 Labour & Service 59 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Abdur Rahim vs Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P., Education1989 PLC (C.S.) 335 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahim and others vs Mst. Sughran Bibi1989 SCMR 1119 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23
  pre-emptionsinker doctrineagreement to sellminor's propertyguardian judge sanctionsuit for pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the petitioners (vendees) challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld an order of remand. The core legal question was whether a sale transaction involving a minor vendee, which was purportedly completed before the filing of the pre-emption suit but lacked the necessary sanction from the Guardian Judge until after the suit's institution, could be treated as a completed sale to avoid the doctrine of sinker. The Supreme Court held that the transaction on behalf of the minor remained merely an agreement to sell until the Guardian Judge's sanction was obtained. Consequently, the sale could not be considered completed before the institution of the suit. The Court affirmed that such a transaction, finalized after the suit's commencement, provided no legal benefit to the vendees in defeating the pre-emption claim. The petition was dismissed as the petitioners' counsel conceded that the transaction was only an agreement to sell until the requisite judicial sanction was granted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a sale transaction involving a minor, which requires the Guardian Judge's sanction, constitute a completed sale before such sanction is obtained?
  • Can a sale transaction finalized after the institution of a pre-emption suit be used to avoid the doctrine of sinker?
  • Is an agreement to sell sufficient to establish a completed sale for the purpose of defeating a pre-emption claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs Mst. Janna T Bibi and others1989 SCMR 735 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-06
  inheritancelimited ownergift deedcustomary lawMuslim personal lawmutation of inheritance
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the inheritance of landed property originally owned by one Nabia, who died in 1947 without male issue. Inheritance was initially mutated in favor of his widow, Mst. Rehmoon. Mst. Rehmoon subsequently gifted the entire property to her son from a previous marriage, the petitioner, Abdullah. The respondents, being the daughters and nephews of the deceased Nabia, filed a suit for joint possession of 7/8th of the land. The petitioner argued that Mst. Rehmoon held the property as a full owner under custom and was entitled to gift it. The lower courts decreed the suit in favor of the respondents. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that Mst. Rehmoon was merely a limited owner. The Court affirmed that even without the application of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Application) Act 1962, the gift was unsustainable. Upon the death of the original owner, the widow was entitled only to a 1/8th share, while the respondents were entitled to the remaining 7/8th share of the estate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a widow holding property as a limited owner under custom is entitled to gift the entire estate to the exclusion of other legal heirs?
  • Does the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Application) Act 1962 affect the validity of a gift made by a limited owner prior to its enactment?
  • What is the entitlement of a widow in the estate of her deceased husband who died without male issue under customary law?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Shah vs The State And Other1989 CLC 2489 · Board of Revenue · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Khan vs The Director, Labour Welfare, N.W.F.P., Peshawar and 2 others1989 SCMR 1193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-16
  service lawinter se senioritycivil servantseniority determinationmerit-based seniorityappointment order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a service appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding a dispute over inter se seniority between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner contended that he was senior to the respondent based on 'merit' assigned at the time of appointment, despite both being appointed on the same day. The Tribunal held that the assignment of merit was merely ceremonious, lacking any formula or marks, and that no statutory rule supported seniority based on such 'merit'. The core legal question was whether seniority could be determined by 'merit' in the absence of any statutory rule or regulation prescribing such a mode. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that the petitioner failed to identify any law or rule supporting his claim. The Court held that in the absence of statutory provisions governing the determination of seniority by 'merit', the Tribunal's reliance on age and the date of joining service as determining factors was legally sound and not prohibited by law. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can seniority be determined based on 'merit' in the absence of a statutory rule prescribing such a mode?
  • Is the determination of seniority based on age and date of joining service permissible when no other statutory criteria are established?
  • Does an appointing authority's informal assignment of 'merit' create a legally enforceable right to seniority?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Larik vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 363 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
• Abdullah And Others vs Shana And Other1989 MLD 64 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →
• Abdullah And Others vs Member, Board of Revenue And Other1989 CLC 2497 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-13Read full judgment →
• Abdullah And Another vs Board of Revenue, Sind And 2 Other1989 MLD 2760 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
• Abdullah And 2 Others vs Sher Khan1989 CLC 1732 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-03Read full judgment →
• Abduljabbar vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 262 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs Syed Ghulam Mujaddad And 6 Other1989 CLC 697 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-15Read full judgment →