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.

• Abdul Wahid vs Mahmood Ahmad and others1989 P Cr. L J 1907 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid and others vs Khail Gul and another1989 SCMR 1771(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-22
  ejectmentleave to appealconcurrent findings of factlandlord and tenantcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 12-11-1988, which dismissed the civil revision and upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts decreeing the ejectment suit in favour of the respondents. The core legal question concerned whether interference was warranted against concurrent factual findings establishing the tenancy of the petitioners over the disputed house. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the three courts below holding the petitioners to be tenants under the respondents on payment of khakrim constituted a pure finding of fact not warranting interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed as meritless. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by subordinate courts in ejectment matters where the relationship of landlord and tenant is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding tenancy in an ejectment matter?
  • Can a tenant deny the ownership of the landlord based on an unproven oral purchase?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab Local1989 SCMR 1415 (2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-02
  service lawstoppage of incrementscumulative effectservice tribunaldisciplinary penaltyleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal filed by an Officiating Assistant Municipal Engineer against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioner challenged an order issued by the respondent, which had imposed a penalty of stopping three increments with cumulative effect. The core legal question before the Tribunal was the validity of imposing a penalty of withholding increments with cumulative effect. The Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the order but modified the penalty, ruling that increments cannot be stopped with cumulative effect, and consequently converted the punishment to stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the Tribunal's modification of the penalty was in accordance with the law. The Court held that the Tribunal's decision to rectify the penalty by removing the cumulative effect was legally sound. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal, affirming that the Tribunal's modified order was not contrary to law. The key principle established is that the stoppage of increments in service matters cannot be imposed with cumulative effect.

  Questions settled

  • Can a penalty of stoppage of increments be imposed with cumulative effect in service matters?
  • Does a Service Tribunal have the authority to modify a disciplinary penalty imposed by a department?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed vs Muhammad Ziaul Haq1989 MLD 353 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed Khan vs Moula Din And Other1989 MLD 4660 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed and Another vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 159 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab Khan vs Government of the Punjab and 3 others1989 PLD Supreme Court 508 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-08
  service matterconstitutional jurisdictionService Tribunalbar of jurisdictionintra-court appealleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's Intra-Court Appeal by the Lahore High Court concerning a service dispute involving a departmental proceeding and the appointment of an authorized officer. The core legal question addressed is whether the constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 excludes the jurisdiction of the High Court in service matters lying within the competence of a Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that Article 212 explicitly bars the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain proceedings in respect of matters to which the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal extends. The Court laid down that where an impugned departmental order is not immediately appealable before the Service Tribunal, the aggrieved civil servant must await a final or appealable order before approaching the tribunal, and cannot invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in the interim.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Service Tribunal has been established under Clause (1) of Article 212 of the Constitution for dealing with service matters?
  • Whether the phrase no other Court in Clause (2) of Article 212 of the Constitution includes the High Court?
  • Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court is barred in respect of matters to which the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal extends?
  • Can a petitioner approach the High Court against a departmental interlocutory order that is not appealable before the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 172 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor vs Additional District Judge And Other1989 MLD 1038 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor and another vs Punjab Road Transport Corporation1989 PLC 233 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-08-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor And 4 Others vs Muhammad Akram Baitoo, Additional1989 MLD 80 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs The StatePTCL 1988 CL. 69 · Special Appellate Court Customs · 1988-02-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs The State and others1989 P Cr. L J 77 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 649 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 580 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Superintendent of Police, Sheikhupura and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 374 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-10-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Income-Tax Officer Circle XV, East Zone, Karachi and another1989 PTD 556 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Family Court And Other1989 MLD 989 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Deputy Collector of Customs, Karachi and anothers1989 PLD Karachi 598 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Shah Zaidi vs University Ot Karachi through its Vice-1989 PLD Karachi 71 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Qureshi and others vs Senior Civil Judge and others1989 SCMR 1215(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-05
  pre-emptionconsent decreecompromiseauthority of counselleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the vendees in a pre-emption case challenging a consent decree and the subsequent dismissal of their writ petition by the High Court. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners' counsel possessed the authority to enter into a compromise agreement. The Supreme Court held that the compromise was in fact entered into directly by the parties themselves, and the counsel merely made a statement in proof of that existing agreement rather than negotiating it independently. Consequently, the Court found no justification for granting leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, establishing that where a compromise is established to be between the parties themselves and verified by counsel, the validity of the consent decree remains unimpaired.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a counsel has the power to enter into a compromise agreement on behalf of a party?
  • Does a statement made by a counsel in proof of an agreement between parties validate a consent decree?
  • Is leave to appeal maintainable against a consent decree where the compromise was settled directly by the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Malik vs Government of Punjab1989 SCMR 695 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-27
  senioritynecessary partiesservice appealnon-joinder of partiesmunicipal corporation
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 8-10-1977. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of an appeal seeking seniority over other engineers of the Lahore Municipal Corporation without impleading them as parties. The court held that since the persons over whom the appellant seeks seniority are necessary parties, no relief can be granted in their absence. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, with the observation that the appellant is at liberty to approach the relevant authorities for redress. The key principle laid down is that necessary parties must be impleaded in service matters where seniority is contested, failing which the petition or appeal is liable to be dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can relief regarding seniority be granted in the absence of necessary parties?
  • What is the consequence of failing to implead persons over whom seniority is claimed?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and others vs Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department and 4 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 853 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-01-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar And Another vs The State1989 MLD 75 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar And Another vs Lal Bux And 3 Other1989 MLD 2876 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and 2 others vs Kaka Khel Industries Ltd. and 2 others1989 PLC 272 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-08-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Abbasi vs Mst. Rafiqua Begum and 7 others1989 SCMR 1147 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-07
  settlement disputeevacuee propertydivision of propertyconstitutional jurisdictionleave to appealP.T.O.settlement commissioner
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the decision of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's constitutional petition regarding the transfer and division of an evacuee residential property. A double-storeyed building was originally allotted in separate portions to the petitioner and the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents in 1948. Following prolonged settlement litigation over whether the property was indivisible or capable of division, the Additional Settlement Commissioner vertically divided the house into two equal portions, leaving the main entry and staircase common, which was affirmed by a Single Judge of the High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's refusal to interfere under its constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that the Settlement authority's finding was based on a thorough examination of evidence and spot inspection, yielding an equitable result considering both parties had peacefully resided in their respective portions since 1948. Finding no merit or legal flaw, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court properly exercised its constitutional jurisdiction in declining to interfere with an equitable vertical division of evacuee property determined by settlement authorities?
  • Whether long-standing physical possession and allotment of separate portions of a property justify its vertical division by settlement authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sari And 4 Others vs Syed Sajid Hussain Sherazi, Settlement1989 MLD 443 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Samad Khan vs Jiwan And Other1989 MLD 3082 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Samad Dadabhoy vs Government of Pakistan and others1989 P Cr. L J 1719 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Saleem And Others vs Muhammad Sharif1989 MLD 332 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam vs Managing Director, Allied & Sons (Pvt.) Ltd., Sialkot1989 PLC 612 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-01-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam vs Banaras Khan1989 SCMR 98 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-09
  ejectmentpersonal needsubsequent petitionrent restrictioncompromisewithdrawal of petitionres judicata
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an ejectment order, where the petitioner contended that the second ejectment petition filed by the landlord on the ground of personal need was barred by Section 14 of the Baluchistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, having previously been raised in an earlier petition. The core legal question was whether a second ejectment petition is barred under Section 14 of the Ordinance when the first petition was withdrawn pursuant to an out-of-court compromise without a decision on merits. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since no decision on merits was given in the first ejectment petition, the issue was not finally decided, and therefore Section 14 does not operate as a bar to raising the plea of personal need in a subsequent petition. The key principle laid down is that the statutory bar against subsequent ejectment applications under rent restriction laws requires a prior adjudication on merits and does not apply where the earlier petition was simply withdrawn pursuant to a compromise without a judicial determination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second ejectment petition is barred under Section 14 of the Baluchistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, when the first petition was withdrawn following an out-of-court compromise?
  • Does the withdrawal of an ejectment petition without a decision on merits constitute a final adjudication for the purposes of attracting a statutory bar against subsequent petitions?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam And Others vs The State And Another1989 CLC 1070 · Lahore High Court · 1988-02-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sa T T a R vs Income-Tax Officer Circle XV, East Zone, Karachi1989 PLD Karachi 264 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-24
  contempt of courtbenefit of doubtquasi-criminal proceedingsservice of processunconditional apologyevaluation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves contempt proceedings initiated against an Income-tax Officer pursuant to a report by a High Court bailiff alleging that the officer misbehaved, refused to accept a court notice, and had the bailiff physically pushed out of his office. The core legal question concerns whether the alleged contempt of court has been established beyond reasonable doubt based on the conflicting testimonies of the bailiff and the alleged contemner, along with the defense witnesses. The court held that while the bailiff's statement is not declared false, the presence of two divergent versions of the incident creates a reasonable doubt regarding the exact sequence of events. Applying the principle that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and all doubts must be excluded before recording a conviction, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the alleged contemner. The key legal principle laid down is that in contempt of court cases, where conflicting evidence yields two plausible versions and leaves room for doubt, the benefit of that doubt must be given to the person charged, leading to their acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contempt of court is established when there are two divergent and conflicting versions of the incident presented by the bailiff and the alleged contemner?
  • Does a person charged with contempt of court get the benefit of the doubt where the evidence leaves room for uncertainty?
  • Can an unconditional apology submitted along with a denial of charges and presentation of an alternative version still be considered for acquittal when reasonable doubt exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 596 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-11-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Talib HussainK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 14 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Talib Hussain Respondent1989 CLC 1689 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-28
  summary suitpromissory noteleave to defendsupporting affidavitcode of civil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,50,000 based on a promissory note filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether an application for leave to appear and defend a summary suit under Order XXXVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be entertained and granted when it is not accompanied by a supporting affidavit. The Lahore High Court held that under Order XXXVII, Rule 3(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, it is mandatory for the defendant to file an affidavit disclosing facts that would make it incumbent on the holder to prove consideration or otherwise support the application, and the total omission to file an affidavit is fatal to the application. The court laid down the principle that if no leave to defend is obtained due to the absence of a mandatory supporting affidavit, the averments in the plaint are deemed to be admitted, entitling the plaintiff to a decree.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for leave to defend a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is maintainable without a supporting affidavit?
  • What are the consequences under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if a defendant fails to obtain leave to appear and defend the suit?
  • Does the total omission to file an affidavit with an application for leave to defend constitute a curable defect or a fatal omission?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs S.H.O., Police Station, Karianwala And Another1989 MLD 2698 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Channa R vs The Secretary, Education Department,1989 PLC (C.S.) 904 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman And Others vs Settlement Commissioner, Lahore And Other1989 MLD 4501 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and another vs Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Toba1989 SCMR 1740 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-28
  proprietary rightsunauthorised possessionleaselocus standiconstitutional petitionstate land allotment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' writ petition. The petitioners were originally granted a temporary lease of the disputed land for one crop in Rabi 1972, which was never extended. Despite this, the petitioners remained in unauthorised possession until 1983, when they applied for proprietary rights under specific notifications, while the land was granted to respondent No. 3 under the Gallantly Award Scheme. The core legal question was whether unauthorized occupants following the expiry of a temporary lease are entitled to claim proprietary rights and challenge subsequent allotments to third parties. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' possession after 1972 was unauthorised and conferred no right to claim proprietary rights under the notifications, leaving them without locus standi to challenge the permanent grant to respondent No. 3. The petition was accordingly dismissed, laying down the principle that unauthorised post-lease possession does not create proprietary entitlements or legal standing to contest subsequent state land allotments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a lessee whose lease expired can claim proprietary rights on the basis of continued unauthorised possession?
  • Does an unauthorised occupant of state land possess the locus standi to challenge the grant of the same land to a third party under a permanent scheme?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman alias Mani vs The State1989 SCMR 176 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-20
  death sentence commutationcompromise in murder caseconcurrent sentencesSection 382-B CrPCsentencing consistencyvicarious liability
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, Abdur Rehman, was convicted along with a co-accused, Sher Khan, for the murder of two innocent passengers during an attempt on the life of a third party, Sabir. The trial court sentenced the appellant to death under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and to seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with sentences ordered to run consecutively. The High Court maintained these convictions and the death sentence. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, leave was granted solely to examine the sentence, specifically regarding the appellant's claim of acting under the influence of the co-accused. During the proceedings, a compromise was reached with the heirs of the deceased. The Supreme Court held that in light of the compromise, the death sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that the sentences for the murder and the attempt to murder run concurrently rather than consecutively, and extended the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to both the appellant and the non-appealing co-accused to ensure consistency and equality in sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment upon a compromise with the legal heirs of the deceased?
  • Should sentences for murder and attempted murder run concurrently when they arise from a single transaction?
  • Can the Supreme Court extend the benefit of sentencing provisions to a co-accused whose appeal is not formally before the court to ensure consistency?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Zone (B), Lahore and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 393 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-02-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak vs Shamshad Ali Jafri and 4 others1989 P Cr. L J 27 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak vs Mst. Pari Jan And Other1989 MLD 1285 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak vs Liaqat Ali And 6 Other1989 MLD 4852 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak vs Deputy Superintendent (Prev.), Central Excise and Land Customs, Nazimabad and others1989 PTD 7 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 85 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak vs Deputy Superintendent (Prev.), Central Excise And LandPTCL 1989 CL. 326 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak vs Amiran Bibi1989 MLD 1926 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 668 · Lahore High Court · 1988-02-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak and 9 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1431 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razaq vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 285 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razaq and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1601 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razaq and others vs Manzoor Ahmad1989 PLD Lahore 43 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 605 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf vs Lahore High Court, Lahore through Registrar, Lahore High1989 PLC (C.S.) 856 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1989-06-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 302 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 687 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs S.H.OK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 683 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs Mst. Fazal Bibi and others1989 SCMR 1326 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-07
  petition for leave to appealfindings of factsettlement authoritiespossessionallotment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 27-2-1983, which upheld findings of fact made by the Settlement Authorities regarding possession, construction of a shop, plot allotment, and rent payment. The core legal question involves whether concurrent findings of fact by settlement authorities and the High Court regarding possession and construction warrant interference by the Supreme Court under appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the findings of fact were properly examined, supported by material on record, and that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing through written arguments. Consequently, the Court ruled that the impugned order suffered from no error of law and did not involve a question of public importance. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not grant leave to appeal to re-examine concurrent findings of fact that are duly supported by record and free from legal error.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding possession and construction determined by Settlement Authorities and the High Court?
  • Does a petition for leave to appeal lie against findings of fact that involve no error of law or question of public importance?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs District Magistrate, Okara, And Other1989 MLD 2700 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid and others vs Khurshid Ahmad and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-15
  pre-emptionowner of the estateagricultural landsikni landGhairmumkin Abadiland revenueright of pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-emption dispute where the appellants sought to defeat a pre-emption claim by asserting they held an equal right as 'owners of the estate' due to their prior purchase of land in the same estate. The core legal question was whether land purchased as 'sikni' (building site/Ghairmumkin Abadi), which was not under cultivation and not formally assessed to land revenue at the time of sale, could be classified as agricultural land to qualify the purchaser as an 'owner of the estate' under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The Supreme Court held that the status of the land at the time of sale is the crucial test. It determined that land converted into a building site, which loses its culturable character and is not subject to land revenue, does not qualify the owner as an 'owner of the estate' under the Act. The Court affirmed that the expression 'owner of the estate' refers to the ownership of agricultural land, not land destined for residential or building purposes, thereby dismissing the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the purchase of land classified as 'sikni' or 'Ghairmumkin Abadi' qualify a purchaser as an 'owner of the estate' under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913?
  • Is the status of land at the time of sale the determining factor for its classification as agricultural land in pre-emption cases?
  • Does the mere entry of land revenue in revenue records, if surreptitiously made or inconsistent with the land's character as a building site, suffice to classify land as agricultural for pre-emption purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid and anothers vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 42 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs Pakistan Steel Fabricating Co., Ltd.1989 PLC 992 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-11-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahman and 3 others vs Government of Baluchistan through the Collector, Lasbela District and another1989 SCMR 658 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-15
  Martial Law Orderland allotmentnatural justicespecial leave to appealconstitutional petitioncancellation of allotmentstate land
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for special leave to appeal against a Baluchistan High Court judgment that dismissed constitutional petitions challenging the cancellation of state land allotments. The original allotments were made in 1975, but subsequent sale deeds were executed in 1981. Following the issuance of Martial Law Order No. 16 and its successor, Martial Law Order No. 46, the authorities cancelled the allotments, alleging they were obtained through political influence. The petitioners, including subsequent transferees who had established industrial units on the land, challenged the cancellation. The core legal questions involve whether the Martial Law Orders, which specifically targeted allotments made between 1972 and 1977, were applicable to transactions finalized in 1981, and whether the authorities violated principles of natural justice and the express terms of the Martial Law Orders by failing to provide the transferees a reasonable opportunity of being heard before cancellation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that these contentions raised substantial questions of law requiring further examination by the Court to resolve the validity of the cancellation orders.

  Questions settled

  • Do Martial Law Order No. 16 and Martial Law Order No. 46 apply to land allotments where the sale deed was executed after the specified cut-off date of 4-7-1977?
  • Does the cancellation of land allotments without providing a hearing to subsequent transferees violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Are the express provisions of Martial Law Order No. 16 and Martial Law Order No. 46 requiring a hearing for allottees applicable to subsequent transferees of the land?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim vs Mst. Noor Jehan1989 MLD 1174 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim vs Messrs Beecham Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd.1989 PLC 694 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-03-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim Baloch vs Amna Bibi and OtherK.L.R 19S9 Criminal Cases 602 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim And Others vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue And Other1989 MLD 3148 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs Zahir Khan and another1989 P Cr. L J 62 · Sindh High Court · 1987-11-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum Mirza vs The Commissioner and others1989 SCMR 805 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-18
  compulsory retirementcivil servicepublic interestProvisional Constitution Orderleave to appealservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by Abdul Qayyum Mirza, a former Superintendent in the Deputy Commissioner's Office, Rawalpindi, challenging the dismissal of his appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioner had been compulsorily retired from service by the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, under the provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, upon completing 25 years of service in the public interest. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner could maintain his challenge against the order of compulsory retirement in light of prevailing constitutional instruments. Upon hearing the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court held that it could not grant the requested relief. The Court determined that the petitioner's case was barred by the operation of the Provisional Constitution Order, which had come into force on 24 March 1981. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming that the legal protections or avenues for challenge were precluded by the specific constitutional order in effect at the relevant time.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Provisional Constitution Order of 1981 bar a challenge against an order of compulsory retirement?
  • Can a civil servant challenge a compulsory retirement order issued under the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 after the enactment of the Provisional Constitution Order?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum And 10 Others vs Haji Abdul Fateh And Other1989 CLC 702 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayum Khan vs Amir Abdullah Khan and others1989 P Cr. L J 640 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayum and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 500 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayoom vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2439 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs Muhammad Siddiq and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-27
  criminal breach of trustcheatingcompany liquidationmisfeasancequashing of proceedingsshare investmentcriminal complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, by leave, arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court quashing a magistrate's summoning order on a complaint filed under sections 408 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant alleged that the respondents, as directors of a company, had misappropriated loan amounts and share investments, failed to distribute profits, and mismanaged company assets. The core legal questions involved whether the investment in company shares or a loan to a company constitutes an entrustment creating criminal breach of trust, and whether an individual shareholder can directly prosecute company directors during liquidation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a loan or share investment without proof of deception or fraudulent inducement does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust, and that remedies for corporate misfeasance or offenses during winding-up must be pursued through the liquidator or winding-up court under the Companies Act rather than by an individual shareholder filing a direct criminal complaint.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-payment of a loan or the purchase of shares in a company amount to criminal breach of trust or cheating under the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Can an individual shareholder directly file a criminal complaint against company directors for acts committed in relation to a company that has gone into liquidation?
  • What is the proper legal remedy for a shareholder or creditor seeking to address acts of misfeasance or breach of trust by company directors during winding-up proceedings?
  • Whether the non-distribution of profits by a company gives rise to a criminal offence under section 408 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir and anothers vs The State1989 PLD Peshawar 31 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-10-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadeer vs Muhammad Shabbir1989 MLD 68 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Muneer vs United Bank Ltd. and another1989 PLC 985 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Matin vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 14 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Manan vs Abdul Latif And Another1989 MLD 3129 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Manan Khan vs Election Tribunal (Local Councils), Peshawar1989 CLC 1290 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Manan and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1220 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Manan And Another vs Mir Nawaz Khan And 4 Other1989 CLC 2277 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Man an and Another vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 168 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1120 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik vs Muhammad Urfan And Another1989 CLC 2363 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-12
  civil reviewwithdrawal of suitpermission to file fresh suitnatural justicecondemned unheardrevisional jurisdictionlimitation period for review
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil review petition arises from an order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in a revision petition, wherein the plaintiffs-respondents were permitted to withdraw their suit with permission to file a fresh one without notice to the defendant-petitioner. The core legal question is whether an order allowing the withdrawal of a suit with liberty to file a fresh one can be passed in a revision petition without issuing notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the opposite party, and whether such an order violates principles of natural justice and adversely affects accrued rights. The court held that an order under Order XXIII Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 requires the court's satisfaction based on formal defects or sufficient grounds, which contemplates a pre-decisional hearing to the affected party in accordance with natural justice. The key principle laid down is that passing an order of withdrawal with permission to file a fresh suit behind the back of the defendant, thereby destroying valuable rights accrued through the dismissal of the suit and appeal, is illegal and warrants recall through a review petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order permitting the withdrawal of a suit with liberty to file a fresh one can be passed in a revision petition without notice to the opposite party?
  • Does an order allowing withdrawal of a suit without hearing the defendant violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs a review petition filed against an order passed by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction?
  • Whether valuable rights accrued to a defendant due to the dismissal of a suit and appeal can be taken away without affording an opportunity of hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik Ghauri vs Muhammad Hussain Shah And Other1989 CLC 1535 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik alias Mutt vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1648 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs WAPDA, Lahore through its Chairman and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 469 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-01-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs The State1989 MLD 4783 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2205 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid Qureshi vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan1989 PLD Federal Shariat Court 31 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid Khan and anothers vs Mst. Anwar Begum1989 PLD Supreme Court 362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-22
  presumption of marriageMuslim Lawgift (Hiba)prostitutioncohabitationacknowledgementconstitutional protection of marriage
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from petitions for leave to appeal against the High Court's dismissal of civil revisions concerning a gift made by Amir Abdullah Khan to Mst. Anwar Begum. The petitioners challenged the gift, arguing that the respondent was a professional dancing girl, thus precluding a valid marriage or a valid gift. The core legal question was whether a valid marriage could be presumed between a Muslim man and a woman with such antecedents based on prolonged cohabitation and acknowledgement, and consequently, whether the gift was valid. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the validity of the marriage and the gift were unexceptionable. The Court laid down the principle that no hard and fast rule exists barring the presumption of marriage for women with prior questionable antecedents; such presumptions are rebuttable but permissible. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that constitutional mandates, specifically the Principles of Policy regarding the protection of marriage and family under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, support upholding such presumptions to foster social stability and dignity.

  Questions settled

  • Can a valid marriage be presumed between a Muslim man and a woman with a history of prostitution based on prolonged cohabitation and acknowledgement?
  • Does the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 provide a basis for protecting the presumption of marriage in cases involving prior questionable antecedents?
  • Is a gift made by a Muslim husband in favour of his wife irrevocable under Muslim Law?
  • Does the presumption of marriage in Muslim Law apply automatically to a woman who was previously a prostitute?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid And Others vs Town Committee Dellewala Through Its1989 MLD 4699 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs Usman Ghani1989 MLD 1773 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs Muhammad Ishaque Through His Legal Heirs1989 CLC 833 · Lahore High Court · 1988-03-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Mirza vs Government of Pakistan1989 PLD Federal Shariat Court 143 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-06-29Read full judgment →