Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Abdul Majeed Khan vs Azizuddin and others1989 SCMR 244 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a complainant in a corruption case, sought leave to appeal against a High Court order upholding the rejection of his request to summon additional witnesses and documents under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The matter had previously been remanded by the High Court to the Trial Court with specific directions to first decide preliminary legal questions regarding the competence and maintainability of the complaint. After remand, the petitioner filed an application to summon new witnesses, which the Trial Court dismissed as an attempt to prolong proceedings and bypass the scope of the remand order. The High Court dismissed the subsequent criminal revision in limine. The Supreme Court held that the remand order explicitly required the Trial Court to decide the preliminary legal objections regarding the competence of the complaint before any factual inquiry or reopening of evidence could take place. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' interpretation of the remand order and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a party reopen factual evidence after a remand order specifically directs the trial court to first decide preliminary legal questions on the competence of a complaint?
- Whether a trial court is justified in refusing an application to summon additional witnesses when the matter has been remanded solely for the determination of legal questions?
- Does the refusal to summon additional witnesses at a stage restricted to deciding preliminary legal objections cause legally cognizable prejudice?
- Abdul Majeed and others vs Muhammad Akram and others1989 SCMR 1298 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which accepted a civil revision, set aside the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, and restored those of the trial Court in a property dispute concerning land allotted to an Islamabad oustee. The core legal question involves the validity and enforceability of an agreement to sell executed by an attorney prior to the principal obtaining proprietary rights, and whether it constitutes an outright sale hit by statutory restrictions. The Supreme Court held that the agreement to sell executed by the authorized attorney, accompanied by earnest money and delivery of possession, was legally admissible and could not be equated with an outright sale, rendering the promisee entitled to specific performance. The key principle laid down is that an agreement to sell land prior to the acquisition of full proprietary rights by the vendor through their attorney is valid, enforceable, and distinct from an outright sale prohibited under colonization laws.
Questions settled- Whether an agreement to sell executed by an attorney prior to the principal obtaining proprietary rights is legally admissible?
- Can an agreement to sell involving delivery of possession and receipt of earnest money be equated with an outright sale?
- Is a subsequent purchaser bound by a prior valid agreement to sell executed in favor of another party?
- Abdul Majeed and anothers vs The S.H.O. Police Station Naulakha, Lahore and anothers1989 PLD Lahore 223 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed and Another vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministryof Health, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, and 7 OtherK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 29 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed and 4 others vs Miran Bakhsh and 3 others1989 SCMR 1795 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment in a pre-emption suit where the petitioners challenged the concurrent findings of fact regarding the respondent's status as a tenant. The core legal question was whether the respondent, Miran Bakhsh, had established the ground of tenancy required to secure a pre-emption decree, specifically addressing the application of Section 60-A of the Punjab Tenancy Act regarding the succession of tenancy rights following the death of the previous tenant. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to displace the concurrent findings of fact based on Khasra Girdawari and other evidence confirming the respondent's actual cultivating possession at the time of the sale. The Court clarified that the mere theoretical possibility of another heir inheriting tenancy rights under Section 60-A does not override established factual findings of actual tenancy. The key principle laid down is that where concurrent findings of fact establish a party's status as a tenant, the burden lies on the challenging party to produce material evidence at the trial stage to rebut that status, rather than relying on abstract statutory interpretations.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge concurrent findings of fact regarding tenancy status by relying on abstract statutory succession rules without producing evidence of actual possession?
- Does the mere possibility of an eldest son becoming a tenant under Section 60-A of the Punjab Tenancy Act override evidence of another person's actual cultivating possession at the time of sale?
- Is the burden on the defendant to prove that a deceased tenant did not prefer a specific heir when the plaintiff has established actual tenancy through Khasra Girdawari?
- Abdul Latif vs The State1989 MLD 825 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif vs Mst. Zainab Bibi And Other1989 MLD 2949 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-18Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif vs Mst. Surat Khatoon and another1989 SCMR 456 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from an order of the Chairman of the Arbitration Council, which was subsequently upheld in revision by the Deputy Commissioner and in writ jurisdiction by the High Court. The petitioner challenged the maintenance order on the ground that the Arbitration Council, while fixing the maintenance amount for the wife, had also allocated an amount for the maintenance of the parties' minor child, whereas its jurisdiction was limited to awarding maintenance to the wife alone. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the Arbitration Council did not fix any separate amount for the minor child, but had merely taken into account the financial burden borne by the wife in maintaining the minor daughter when assessing her rate of maintenance. The Court held that such an assessment does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Noting that a separate maintenance suit was pending before the Family Court, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, directing the Family Court to consider the Arbitration Council's order and the wife's responsibility in looking after the daughter.
Questions settled- Can the Arbitration Council take into account the financial burden of maintaining a minor child when assessing the rate of maintenance for a wife?
- Does an order of the Arbitration Council suffer from legal infirmity if it considers the wife's responsibility for a minor child without fixing a separate maintenance amount for that child?
- Abdul Latif vs District Magistrate, Muzaffargarh1989 P Cr. L J 414 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-01Read full judgment →
- Abdul Lal Etc vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 68 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-12Read full judgment →
- Abdul Khaliq vs Secretary, Establishment Division and 2 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 630 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Khaliq vs The State1989 SCMR 2002 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by Abdul Khaliq against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained his conviction for the murder of two individuals and for murderous assault, while reducing his death sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the evidence and the subsequent sentencing. The Supreme Court examined the ocular and medical evidence, noting that the defence version, which attempted to shift responsibility to a deceased co-accused, was inconsistent with medical findings. The Court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Regarding sentencing, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment, identifying mitigating circumstances arising from the complainant party's provocative act of taking the accused party's cattle without justification. The principle laid down is that while a conviction may be sound based on consistent ocular and medical evidence, the presence of provocation by the complainant party constitutes a valid mitigating factor justifying the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Does the taking of an accused party's cattle by the complainant party constitute sufficient provocation to mitigate a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the defence version is inconsistent with medical evidence and autopsy reports?
- Is the appellate court justified in maintaining a conviction where the prosecution's case is supported by both ocular and medical evidence?
- Abdul Khaliq vs Nasir Jawaid and others1989 SCMR 480 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the High Court of Sind, Karachi, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal as time-barred while granting him six months to vacate the premises. The core legal question concerns the limitation period for filing an appeal and the protection of rights of a person claiming to be a tenant who was not originally impleaded in ejectment proceedings before the Rent Controller. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having been ordered to vacate without being treated as a tenant or being allowed to raise objections under relevant statutory provisions, has arguable points on limitation based on precedent. The Court granted leave to appeal, directed security to be furnished, and ordered status quo regarding possession.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal dismissed as time-barred by the High Court warrants interference when precedent allows for condonation or computation of limitation?
- Can a person claiming to be a tenant be ordered to vacate premises without being impleaded or proceeded against as a tenant before the Rent Controller?
- Whether a person affected by an ejectment order is entitled to raise objections under Section 22 of the Sind Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Abdul Khaliq vs Muhammad Yaseen1989 MLD 1151 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Khaliq vs Khuda Bakhsh And 4 Other1989 CLC 1316 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Khaliq and others vs Muhammad Ali and another1989 SCMR 1825 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning the redemption of property. The trial court initially passed a preliminary decree in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Subsequently, the petitioners' appeal against this decree was dismissed by the appellate court on the procedural ground that the petitioners failed to file a copy of the formal decree along with their memorandum of appeal. This decision was upheld by the High Court in civil revision proceedings. The petitioners challenged this dismissal before the Supreme Court, contending that the issue regarding the necessity of filing a formal decree with the memorandum of appeal was a significant legal question requiring further examination, particularly in light of previous Supreme Court precedents. Finding that the matter involved a substantial legal question similar to issues raised in other pending matters, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. The Court directed that the appeal be prepared on the existing record and scheduled it to be heard alongside the cited precedent to ensure consistency in the adjudication of procedural requirements for filing appeals.
Questions settled- Is it mandatory to file a copy of the formal decree along with a memorandum of appeal in a suit for redemption of property?
- Does the failure to attach a formal decree to a memorandum of appeal justify the dismissal of the appeal?
- Abdul Khaliq and anothers vs The State1989 SCMR 909 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the conviction and death sentences of the appellants for the murder of the deceased, upheld by the Lahore High Court. The appellants admitted to causing the death but pleaded grave and sudden provocation and private defence of property, alleging the deceased damaged their crops and acted rudely. The Supreme Court examined whether the conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, was sustainable and whether the sentence of death was appropriate given the circumstances. The Court held that the defence of grave and sudden provocation was not established to the extent required by Exception 1 to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, to reduce the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. However, the Court found that the deceased's conduct provided sufficient provocation to warrant mitigation of the sentence. Consequently, the Court set aside the death sentences, substituting them with life imprisonment, while maintaining the fines and compensation, and granted the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Does the conduct of a deceased person that is rude or provocative automatically satisfy the requirements of Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be granted to a convict whose death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment?
- Is a court required to accept a defence version in its entirety if the prosecution version is rejected?
- Abdul Khaliq and 5 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 4 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul KH a Liq vs Muhammad Aslam and 11 others1989 PLD Supreme Court 247 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a complainant against a High Court judgment that partially accepted the respondents' criminal appeal. The High Court had maintained the conviction of respondents Muhammad Aslam and Mushtaq under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but reduced their imprisonment sentences by two years while doubling the fine. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence of imprisonment given the nature of the injuries and the alleged intention to kill. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision to reduce the imprisonment while doubling the fine effectively balanced the sentence rather than merely reducing it. The Court found that the circumstances relied upon by the High Court regarding the sudden nature of the quarrel and the lack of repeated injuries were relevant considerations for sentencing. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, determining that the case did not warrant interference with the appellate court's discretion in sentencing matters under the circumstances presented.
Questions settled- Does a conviction under Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 necessarily imply an intention to kill?
- Can an appellate court balance a reduction in imprisonment by increasing the fine?
- Are the circumstances of a sudden quarrel relevant factors for an appellate court when considering the reduction of a sentence?
- Abdul Karim vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2100 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 63 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-02Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim vs S.H.O., Bhowana And 2 Other1989 MLD 4064 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-09Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim vs Nadir Khan And 3 Other1989 CLC 349 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim vs Muhammad Riaz and 2 others1989 SCMR 1186 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a Civil Revision. The underlying dispute originated from a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction regarding the utilization of 'Nikkal' (tail discharge from a water-course), previously determined under the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873. The petitioner, a co-sharer of land, challenged the respondents' entitlement to increased water time for their share of the land, which they had purchased and subsequently converted into an orchard. The petitioner argued that the temporary nature of orchard irrigation should not justify altering the established water-sharing arrangement. The Supreme Court held that the respondents' entitlement to extra water time for the orchard, which was granted by separate, unchallenged orders, provided a valid basis for the proportionate increase in Nikkal water usage. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the potential future cessation of orchard irrigation warranted depriving the respondents of their current water allocation. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision, emphasizing that the validity of the orchard water grant was not under challenge in the instant proceedings.
Questions settled- Does the temporary nature of orchard irrigation preclude a landholder from receiving a proportionate increase in water-course discharge time?
- Can a party challenge the allocation of water for a specific land use when the underlying order granting that water usage is not under challenge?
- Abdul Karim vs Government of the Punjab and others1989 SCMR 680 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding his service grade placement. The petitioner, a former Secretary/Chief Officer in the Town Committee of Rajanpur, challenged his induction into the junior grade of class II service, arguing he should have been placed in the senior grade, similar to two other officers whose representations for grade upgrades were accepted by the Government in 1981. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner's appeal before the Service Tribunal was time-barred and whether he had a valid claim on merits. The Supreme Court held that the petition was barred by four days, for which no satisfactory explanation was provided. Furthermore, the Court found no merit in the case, noting that the petitioner's initial grade placement occurred in 1964 and he failed to challenge it for nearly two decades. Consequently, the Court upheld the Service Tribunal's decision that the appeal was time-barred and dismissed the petition, reinforcing the principle that inordinate, unexplained delay in challenging administrative service decisions renders claims non-maintainable.
Questions settled- Does an inordinate delay of nearly two decades in challenging a service grade placement render an appeal before the Service Tribunal time-barred?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when the petitioner fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for a delay in filing?
- Abdul Karim through his Legal Heirs vs Sardar Khan and others1989 SCMR 763 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal directed against a common judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the decrees passed in favor of respondents granting them a preferential right of pre-emption as collaterals. The core legal question concerned whether the pre-emption suits were barred by limitation. The Supreme Court observed that in the first suit, the trial court correctly computed the limitation period from the date of registration of the sale-deed rather than its attestation, and this point was not further pursued before the appellate or revisional courts. In the second suit, no issue regarding limitation was ever raised or pressed in the trial court or subsequent forums. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that a plea of limitation not raised or pressed in the lower courts cannot be agitated for the first time before the apex court. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the period of limitation for filing a pre-emption suit is to be counted from the date of attestation or the date of registration of the sale-deed?
- Can a plea of limitation not raised or pressed before the lower courts be agitated for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Abdul Karim Khan vs Settlement Commissioner and others1989 SCMR 128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's writ petition regarding the transfer of a disputed plot. The appellant, a displaced person, had applied for the transfer of a building site under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, whereas respondent No. 2 claimed the land as agricultural land transferred to her predecessor. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner rejected the appellant's form, holding the land to be agricultural. Although the Additional Settlement Commissioner reversed this, the Settlement Commissioner restored the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order, which was upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the land in dispute was agricultural or a building site as of 14 August 1947. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the settlement authorities identifying the land as agricultural in 1947 were correct, and new documents produced for the first time in the High Court could not be considered. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether land classified as agricultural on 14 August 1947 can be transferred as a building site under the Displaced Persons laws without a formal declaration by the Chief Settlement Commissioner?
- Can documents produced for the first time in constitutional writ proceedings be considered to overturn concurrent findings of fact by settlement authorities?
- What is the statutory definition of land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
- Abdul Karim Khan vs Mst. Bibi Fatima And 5 Other1989 CLC 2424 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim Chandio vs Thatta Sugar Mills1989 PLC 72 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-03-08Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim Butt vs Government of Baluchistan And 2 Other1989 CLC 1625 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jamil vs Messrs Pakistan Machine Tool Factory, Landhi, Karachi1989 PLC 774 · Labour Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jalil and anothers vs Ajoon and 20 others1989 PLD Peshawar 127 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 300 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar vs Abdul JabbarK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 57 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar Qadari vs The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore1989 SCMR 1290 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's intra-court appeals concerning the allotment of agricultural land. The core legal question involves the validity of competing claims to disputed evacuee land previously allotted to a third party whose original allotment was later cancelled as bogus, and whether a petitioner whose initial claim was finally rejected in earlier writ proceedings can reagitate the same claim. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's claim to the specific land in dispute stood finally rejected in earlier writ proceedings which he failed to challenge, thereby leaving him with no subsisting claim to agitate. The key principle laid down is that a party who fails to challenge an adverse finding and final rejection of their claim in writ proceedings cannot subsequently reagitate the same claim in higher appellate forums.
Questions settled- Can a party reagitate a claim to disputed land when their initial claim was rejected in earlier writ proceedings and left unchallenged?
- Whether an allotment obtained through bogus means is liable to cancellation under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act?
- Does a petitioner have locus standi to challenge the disposal of land after their underlying claim to that specific property has been finally dismissed?
- Abdul Jabbar Khan vs Director, PCSIR Laboratories, Peshawar1989 PLC 23 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-01-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hussain and Other vs Sardar Mohammad Usman JogezaiK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 16 · Balochistan High Court · 1988-05-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hayee vs Sher Afzal And 26 Other1989 CLC 2283 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-07-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Haque vs Province of Sind through Home Department,Karachi1989 PLC (C.S.) 300 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1988-09-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Haque Azad and 2 others vs Rustam Khan1989 PLC 234 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-08-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 4 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid vs The State And Another1989 MLD 713 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid vs Mian Muhammad Hanif And 4 Other1989 MLD 3853 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid vs Masood Ahmad Khan1989 MLD 2985 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid vs Ali Muhammad and another1989 SCMR 1783(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court granting post-arrest bail to the respondent, Ali Muhammad, who was charged alongside five others under sections 302, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Rafiq. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in granting bail given the allegations in the First Information Report. The Supreme Court examined the evidentiary record, noting that while the First Information Report alleged the respondent fired multiple shots at the deceased, this specific allegation was contradicted by the post-mortem report, and no empty cartridges were recovered from the crime scene. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision to grant bail was legally sound and free from defect. The Court affirmed the principle that where material allegations in a First Information Report are unsupported by medical evidence or physical recovery, the grant of bail is appropriate, as the prosecution's case lacks the necessary corroboration to warrant continued incarceration pending trial.
Questions settled- Does the absence of corroborating medical evidence for specific allegations in a First Information Report justify the grant of bail?
- Is the failure to recover empty cartridges from a crime scene a relevant factor in assessing the strength of a prosecution case for bail purposes?
- Abdul Hamid Shami vs Abdul Majid And Other1989 MLD 2150 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-04-12Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid Puri vs Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd.1989 CLC 146 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-17Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid Khawar and 2 others vs Managing Director, Punjab Road1989 PLC 708 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid Khan vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue Punjab1989 PLD Lahore 516 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-31Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid Khan Achakzai vs Election Commissioner of Pakistan, Islamabad And 24 Of Hers1989 CLC 1833 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Election Commission of Pakistan declaring the election results of constituency PB-9 Pishin IV entirely void and ordering fresh polls under Section 103-AA of the Representation of the People Act 1976, following the forcible removal of ballot boxes from two polling stations. The core legal question was whether the Election Commission could invoke its general supervisory powers under Section 103-AA to annul the entire constituency's election when specific provisions under Section 27(1)(b) catered directly to the disruption of polling at specific polling stations and the final result remained determinable. The Balochistan High Court held that the Election Commission acted unlawfully and in excess of jurisdiction by invoking the general power under Section 103-AA when an express specific remedy was available, and that an innocent candidate cannot be penalized for the misconduct of miscreants where the election result is otherwise clearly ascertainable from the remaining polling stations. The court laid down the principle that general or supervisory statutory provisions cannot be resorted to when express provisions provide a convenient mode of rectifying mischief, and that statutory bars on jurisdiction do not protect arbitrary or excess exercises of power.
Questions settled- Can the Election Commission invoke general supervisory powers under Section 103-AA of the Representation of the People Act 1976 when specific statutory provisions exist to deal with the removal or destruction of ballot boxes at specific polling stations?
- Whether the Election Commission can declare an entire constituency's election void when the final result remains determinable from the remaining polling stations?
- Does a constitutional petition remain maintainable against an order passed by the Election Commission in excess of its jurisdiction despite a statutory bar?
- Can a winning candidate be penalized for the unlawful removal of ballot boxes committed by third-party miscreants?
- Abdul Hamid and othersPctitioriers vs Province of the Punjab through Collector, Faisalabad and others1989 SCMR 1741 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' civil revision. The petitioners were originally in possession of disputed land under the Grow More Food Scheme since 1956, but their allotment was cancelled and the land was resumed in 1961 on the ground that it was not waste land. After failing in a constitutional writ petition, the petitioners instituted a civil suit challenging the resumption order. The plaint was returned by the trial court on the ground that civil court jurisdiction was barred. The petitioners' subsequent appeal and revision petition were both dismissed on the same ground. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether civil courts had jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the resumption of land allotted under the scheme. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the jurisdiction of civil courts was clearly barred under Section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912, making it an unfit case for interference.
Questions settled- Is a civil suit challenging the cancellation or resumption of land allotted under government schemes barred under Section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912?
- Can a civil court entertain a suit where express statutory bar of jurisdiction exists under the Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912?
- Abdul Hamid and others vs Fazalur Rehman and others1989 SCMR 120 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellants against the orders of the Settlement Authorities, which upheld the re-auction of a disputed plot. The appellants had participated in a 1970 auction and offered the highest bid but defaulted on the remaining payment after depositing initial instalments. Consequently, the Settlement Department re-auctioned the property in 1971, where the respondents purchased it, paid the full price, and were issued a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.). The core legal questions involved whether the Settlement Authorities were bound to serve a notice of cancellation or pass a formal resumption order under Settlement Scheme No. VIII before re-auctioning the plot. The Supreme Court held that under the governing provisions applicable at the time of the 1970 auction, the default in paying the balance within thirty days resulted in the automatic cancellation of the bid, obviating the need for a separate cancellation notice or resumption order. The Court laid down that subsequent reconstituted rules do not invalidate automatic forfeiture clauses operational under the specific scheme active at the time of the original transaction.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to pay the balance of auction money within thirty days results in the automatic cancellation of a bid under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
- Are the Settlement Authorities required to serve a demand or cancellation notice before re-auctioning a property upon default under the applicable auction scheme?
- Whether a formal resumption order is a mandatory prerequisite for re-auctioning evacuee property when an auction bid stands automatically cancelled upon default?
- Abdul Hamid And 2 Others vs Mehrban Ali1989 CLC 195 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises from a suit for pre-emption filed by the respondent, claiming a superior right of pre-emption based on his status as an owner of agricultural land in the relevant Revenue Estate. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff qualified as an 'owner of the estate' under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, given that his land holdings were primarily built-up properties (ghair mumkin makan) rather than agricultural land. The trial and appellate courts initially decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. However, the High Court set aside these judgments, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish his status as an owner of the estate. The court reasoned that ownership of an estate requires the ownership of agricultural land assessed to land revenue. Since the plaintiff’s evidence only demonstrated ownership of built-up property, which had been converted into building sites, he did not qualify as an owner of agricultural land. The court established that mere assessment of built-up property to land revenue is insufficient to confer the status of an 'owner of the estate' for pre-emption purposes.
Questions settled- Does the ownership of built-up property assessed to land revenue qualify a person as an 'owner of the estate' for the purpose of exercising a right of pre-emption?
- What are the two necessary requirements for a person to be classified as an 'owner of the estate' under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
- Does land that has been converted into a building site in a village or town cease to be part of an 'estate' for the purposes of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
- Abdul Hameed vs Muhammad Aslam and others1989 SCMR 605 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendant against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court in a suit for partition of a shop. The core legal questions involve whether a Thara in front of the shop is partible and whether an incorrect share was awarded to the respondent side. The Supreme Court held that the partition of the Thara was necessary to make the partition of the shop practical, as without the approach provided by the Thara, the respondent could not utilize their divided portion, and the factual plea regarding share proportion could not be raised for the first time before this court. The court laid down the principle that incidental structures necessary for the utilization and approach of a partitioned immovable property are partible to ensure the efficacy of the main partition. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether a Thara in front of a shop can be partitioned along with the shop?
- Does the failure to partition an access platform render the partition of a shop unpractical?
- Can a factual plea regarding a lesser share of a property be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Abdul Hameed vs Muhammad Asghar and others1989 P Cr. L J 637 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-01Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner and others1989 SCMR 1782 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a property dispute over House No. 609/C, Kucha Sathan, Lahore. The core legal question addressed was whether the petitioner, a non-claimant who had filed an N.C.H. Form in 1959, retained a valid claim to the property despite it having been auctioned to a claimant displaced person in 1960, with the auction confirmed in 1961 and a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) issued in 1963. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's contention that his N.C.H. Form remained pending adjudication was meritless. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision, effectively upholding the rights of the auction-purchaser who had already secured title and possession. The key principle laid down is that where a property has been auctioned to a claimant, the auction confirmed, and a P.T.D. issued, a non-claimant's pending form cannot be used to challenge the established title of the auction-purchaser.
Questions settled- Does the filing of an N.C.H. Form by a non-claimant prevent the auction of property to a claimant displaced person?
- Can a non-claimant challenge the title of an auction-purchaser after a Permanent Transfer Deed has been issued?
- Is a claim form considered pending adjudication if the property has already been auctioned and transferred to a third party?
- Abdul Hameed Khan Niazi vs Province of the Punjab and others1989 SCMR 1452 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Abdul Hameed Khan Niazi, an ex-Additional District and Sessions Judge, challenging the Punjab Service Tribunal's judgment dated 22-5-1984, which dismissed his appeal against his compulsory retirement. The petitioner was proceeded against under the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 following a preliminary inquiry into corruption allegations ordered by the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court. An inquiry officer found the charges proven, and the authorised officer recommended a major penalty, leading to the petitioner's compulsory retirement by the competent authority. The core legal questions involved whether the disciplinary proceedings violated the mandatory provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975, whether the petitioner was illegally denied legal representation, and whether the evidence was properly appreciated. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal rightly considered all legal points and evaluated the evidence correctly, emphasizing that the quality of evidence prevails over the quantity of witnesses. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the proceedings and action taken under the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 were vitiated by procedural irregularities?
- Does the number of defense witnesses outweigh the quality of prosecution evidence in departmental disciplinary proceedings?
- Whether a civil servant facing disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 has an absolute right to be represented by a lawyer?
- Abdul Hameed Alvi vs Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Faisalabad and others1989 PLC 474 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-10-01Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed alias Hameeda vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1041 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed alias Boota vs Muhammad Aslam alias Phillo and others1989 SCMR 1730 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from two separate petitions for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 13-7-1987, one challenging the acquittal of Mohammad Aslam from the charge of murder and the other by Mohammad Younas challenging his conviction and sentence of death for the murder of Roshan Din. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of evidence regarding the identity of the accused, the necessity of an identification parade, and the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction or an acquittal in a murder trial. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly acquitted Mohammad Aslam due to doubtful identity and the lack of an identification parade, and similarly, that the conviction and death sentence of Mohammad Younas were properly upheld based on overwhelming and unblemished incriminating evidence. The key principle laid down is that where the testimony regarding an accused's identity does not inspire confidence and no identification parade is held, acquittal is justified, whereas clear and overwhelming evidence warrants the affirmation of a conviction.
Questions settled- Whether the acquittal of an accused can be sustained when his identity is doubtful and no identification parade was held?
- Does the testimony of a complainant requiring corroboration justify setting aside an acquittal if it does not inspire confidence?
- Whether overwhelming evidence connecting an accused to a murder justifies upholding a conviction and death sentence?
- Abdul Haleem Shahid vs Inspectorgeneral of Police, Punjab and 21989 SCMR 1799 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal which upheld the termination of the petitioner's services as an Assistant Sub-Inspector (A.S.I.). The petitioner was appointed on the condition of undergoing and qualifying in a prescribed training course at the Police Training College, Sihala. Upon failing the initial examination, the petitioner was permitted to retake the examination in the next term; however, the Inspector-General of Police subsequently dispensed with his services, determining there was no justification for the petitioner to undergo further training. The core legal question was whether the termination was lawful given the petitioner's failure to satisfy the mandatory qualification criteria for the post. The Supreme Court held that since qualifying the examination was a strict pre-condition for retention in service, the termination was justified. The Court affirmed the principle that failure to meet mandatory service qualification requirements constitutes valid grounds for the termination of employment, and consequently dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Is the failure to qualify in a mandatory police training examination a valid ground for the termination of an A.S.I.'s services?
- Can a service appointment be terminated if the appointee fails to meet the pre-conditions for retention in service?
- Abdul Hakim K. Khan vs Begum Khanum Jan And Other1989 MLD 1304 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Grant And Others vs Settlement Commissioner And Other1989 MLD 4599 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani vs The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab and others1989 SCMR 793 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the transfer of a composite property comprising two ground-floor shops and a first-floor 'chobara'. The property was initially transferred in its entirety to the petitioner, a claimant, by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. A non-claimant respondent, who occupied one of the shops, successfully challenged this transfer before the Settlement Commissioner, who ordered the shop in the respondent's possession to be transferred to him instead. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged this order through a writ petition in the High Court and a subsequent Letters Patent Appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the core legal question was whether the Settlement Commissioner's order, which sought to equitably distribute the property between the claimant and non-claimant occupants, warranted judicial interference. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner's order was eminently just and fair, reflecting a reasonable exercise of discretion in property settlement matters. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the lower court's decision to uphold the Settlement Commissioner's order.
Questions settled- Does the Settlement Commissioner have the authority to modify a transfer order to equitably distribute property between a claimant and a non-claimant?
- Is a decision by a Settlement Commissioner to transfer a portion of a property to an occupant subject to interference if found to be just and fair?
- Abdul Ghani vs Ilahi Bakhsh And Other1989 MLD 111 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani vs District Magistrate, Rahim Yar Khan1989 P Cr. L J 999 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani And Others vs Hyderabad Municipal Corporation1989 MLD 2878 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani And Another vs Mst. Nur Jahan And Other1989 MLD 3055 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-06Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani and 2 others vs The State and another1989 SCMR 1324 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a respondent advocate. The criminal case, registered under sections 148, 440, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arose from an F.I.R. lodged by the petitioners. Additionally, proceedings under sections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were also quashed. The Supreme Court noted that the petition was time-barred by 51 days, and the grounds for condonation were insufficient. Nevertheless, the Court examined the merits and found no error of law. The High Court had relied on section 78 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which provides immunity for acts done in pursuance of or warranted by a judgment or order of a court of justice while that order remains in force. As the State had conceded this legal position before the High Court, the Supreme Court upheld the quashment, affirming that the High Court correctly applied the law to the facts, and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Does an act done in pursuance of a court order constitute an offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can criminal proceedings be quashed if the alleged acts are protected by judicial immunity under section 78 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Abdul Ghafoor vs The State1989 MLD 4470 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-10Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1906 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Punjab Public Service Commission1989 PTD 1082 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Province of Punjab and others1989 SCMR 1455 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal concerns the status of the petitioner, who claimed to be a civil servant employed as a dispenser at the Government Degree College, Hafizabad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner held the status of a civil servant despite the absence of a formal appointment order from a competent authority. The Service Tribunal had previously examined the record and determined that the petitioner received no remuneration for a specific period, was appointed as a part-time dispenser on a fixed honorarium, and that no regular sanctioned post existed for his appointment. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the Tribunal and found no infirmity in its conclusion that the petitioner was not a regular civil servant. The Court held that the mere endorsement by an administrative authority regarding the drawing of pay against a post does not constitute a valid appointment order. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that a formal appointment order by a competent authority is essential to establish the status of a civil servant.
Questions settled- Does the absence of a formal appointment order by a competent authority preclude an individual from being classified as a civil servant?
- Can an administrative endorsement regarding the payment of salary be construed as a valid appointment order to a sanctioned post?
- Is an individual working on a part-time honorarium basis considered a regular civil servant?
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Ghulam Qadir1989 MLD 3954 · Lahore High Court · 1988-03-06Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Dr. Muhammad Ashraf And Other1989 MLD 4710 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Bashir Ahmad and another1989 SCMR 1775(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision arising from the trial court's refusal to grant a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The core legal question concerns whether interference is warranted with the concurrent discretionary orders of the lower courts refusing a temporary injunction. The Supreme Court held that the case is not a fit one for interference with the discretionary order of the trial court and accordingly dismissed the petition. The Court laid down the principle that discretionary orders regarding temporary injunctions passed by trial courts will not normally be interfered with by higher courts, and clarified that preliminary observations made by higher courts during such proceedings shall not influence the final decision on the merits of the suit.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a discretionary order of the trial court refusing a temporary injunction?
- Do observations made by higher courts during interlocutory proceedings influence the final decision of the suit?
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Abdul SattarK.L.R 1989 Labour & Service Cases 85 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-25Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2202 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor And Others vs M.B.R. And Other1989 MLD 4585 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-02Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor and Other vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Criminal Cases 305 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2382 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor and 6 others vs Abdul Haque1989 SCMR 1565 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a transferee of a portion of a house, initiated civil litigation claiming ownership of a staircase located within the property, asserting it fell within his transferred share. Following the dismissal of his suit, appeal, and revision petition by the lower courts, the petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The lower courts and the Settlement authorities had determined that the staircase was part of the portion transferred to the respondent, primarily because access to the staircase was through the 'dehwari' (courtyard/entrance area) which had been transferred to the respondent. Furthermore, the petitioner's predecessor had previously admitted in a revision petition before the Settlement authorities that the staircase had not been transferred to him, thereby acknowledging the respondent's entitlement. The Supreme Court found no legal error in the concurrent findings of the Settlement hierarchy and the Civil Courts. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any valid grounds for interference, and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner challenge the concurrent findings of Settlement authorities and Civil Courts regarding property transfer boundaries without demonstrating a legal error?
- Does the transfer of an access point like a 'dehwari' imply the transfer of the staircase connected to it?
- Is a previous admission regarding the non-transfer of property in a revision petition binding on a successor in interest?
- Abdul Ghaffar vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1142 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar Qureshi vs Federation of Pakistan and others1989 SCMR 561 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the dismissal of a government servant, an Assistant Controller of Imports and Exports, following a departmental inquiry into allegations of misconduct. While the Inquiry Officer found only one charge of negligence proven, the Service Tribunal members were equally divided in their opinion regarding the appeal. Consequently, the Chairman of the Service Tribunal remanded the case for fresh proceedings, citing procedural lapses, specifically the non-supply of the inquiry report and the absence of a show-cause notice regarding the penalty. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to determine whether the Chairman should have remanded the case rather than deciding it on merits, particularly when the appellant waived complaints regarding procedural irregularities. The Court held that since the appellant explicitly stated he had no grievance regarding the non-supply of the inquiry report and sought a final determination, the remand order was inappropriate. The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and remanded the matter to the Chairman with directions to decide the appeal on its merits in accordance with the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
Questions settled- Can a Service Tribunal Chairman remand a case for fresh proceedings when the appellant waives the procedural grounds relied upon for the remand?
- Is a Service Tribunal Chairman required to decide an appeal on merits when the members of the Tribunal are equally divided in their opinion?
- Does the non-supply of an inquiry report to a civil servant constitute a procedural defect that necessitates a remand if the servant waives the objection?
- Abdul Ghaffar Khan vs Syed Abdullah Shah and another1989 SCMR 399 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a long-standing property dispute pending since 1950, which previously reached the Supreme Court and was remanded to the Member, Board of Revenue for a decision on merits. Instead of deciding the case, the Member, Board of Revenue remanded it to the Deputy Commissioner for a fresh trial. This remand order was challenged via a constitutional petition before the High Court of Baluchistan, which set aside the remand order but erroneously restored the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and Additional Commissioner rather than directing a decision on merits. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's course of action in restoring subordinate revenue orders instead of ensuring the case was decided on merits by the Board of Revenue as originally directed. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contention requiring the matter to be decided on merits by the appropriate revenue forum warrants further consideration, and issued directions regarding security and preparation of the appeal record.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court, upon setting aside an illegal remand order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, should remand the matter back for a decision on merits rather than restoring subordinate revenue orders?
- Can a case remanded by the Supreme Court to a specific forum for a decision on merits be disposed of by way of a further remand?
- Abdul Ghaffar Hashmi vs Secretary, Government of Pakistan and others1989 SCMR 1413 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by Abdul Ghaffar Hashmi, a retired Assistant Accounts Officer, challenging the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 26-5-1984, which dismissed his appeal against the refusal to allow him to cross the efficiency bar. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal erred in law by considering annual confidential reports not part of the A.C.R. dossier on the relevant date and whether adverse remarks were a result of mala fide. The Supreme Court held that the crossing of efficiency bar is directly related to performance, for which annual confidential reports are the proper measure, and found no error in the Tribunal's view. The petition was dismissed as it lacked any substantial question of law of public importance, affirming that annual confidential reports form a valid basis for evaluating performance regarding the efficiency bar.
Questions settled- Whether the crossing of an efficiency bar is directly related to the performance evaluation through annual confidential reports?
- Does the consideration of annual confidential reports by the Service Tribunal in matters of efficiency bar raise a substantial question of law of public importance?
- Abdul Ghaffar and others vs Muhammad Ramzan and others1989 SCMR 70 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a service dispute concerning the fixation of seniority of appellants who had completed training as Tehsildars in 1973. Despite their temporary reversion to Naib-Tehsildars, their representations and review petitions ultimately succeeded, leading to the Board of Revenue restoring their original seniority from the completion of their training. On an appeal by affected respondents, the Service Tribunal set aside the seniority restoration. The Supreme Court considered whether the Service Tribunal could interfere with consequential seniority orders without cancelling the underlying executive orders, and whether proper compliance with applicable service rules was assessed. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal failed to consider the effect of the Governor's orders restoring seniority and whether there was material showing compliance with Rule 8 of the West Pakistan Tehsildari and Naib-Tehsildari Service Rules, 1962. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Service Tribunal's decision and remanded the cases for fresh adjudication in light of these considerations.
Questions settled- Can the Service Tribunal interfere with consequential orders fixing seniority without cancelling the underlying executive orders restoring original status?
- Is consideration of compliance with Rule 8 of the West Pakistan Tehsildari and Naib-Tehsildari Service Rules 1962 essential before deciding seniority disputes among Tehsildars?
- Abdul Ghaffar and ancthers vs The State1989 PLD Peshawar 51 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Fattah And Others vs Ghulam Hussain1989 C L C1191 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-09Read full judgment →
- Abdul Baqi Mehar vs Inspectorgeneral of Registration and Commissioner and others1989 SCMR 570 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a judgment of the Sind Service Tribunal which upheld the dismissal of the appellant, a Sub-Registrar, from service. The core legal questions were whether the Inspector General of Registration possessed the requisite authority to dismiss the appellant on 4 November 1975, following the amendment of Rule 2(2) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973, and whether a Sub-Registrar is legally responsible for the validity of documents presented for registration. The Supreme Court held that upon the repeal and re-enactment of Rule 2(2) on 28 August 1975, the power of the 'Authority' vested in the Chief Minister, and the Inspector General lacked the legal competence to issue the dismissal order on the date it was passed. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under Rule 135 of the West Pakistan Registration Rules 1929, registering officers are not concerned with the validity of documents presented for registration. Consequently, the Court set aside the dismissal order and the Tribunal's judgment, establishing that disciplinary actions must strictly adhere to the prevailing statutory authority at the time of the order.
Questions settled- Does the repeal and re-enactment of Rule 2(2) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 divest previous authorities of their power to dismiss civil servants?
- Is a Sub-Registrar legally responsible for the validity or legality of a document presented for registration under the West Pakistan Registration Rules 1929?
- Can an authority exercise disciplinary powers after the statutory provision designating them as the 'Authority' has been repealed and re-enacted?
- Abdul Aziz. vs Ilyas Ahmed1989 MLD 550 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz vs Thestate1989 P Cr. L J 971 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz vs The State1989 SCMR 608 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's revision petition in limine, thereby upholding his conviction and sentence under the Electricity Act, 1910. The petitioner had been convicted by the Senior Special Magistrate, WAPDA, Lahore, for an offense under Section 39-A of the Electricity Act, 1910, and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to two years' rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts erred in their findings of fact or application of law regarding the conviction. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution had successfully proven its case through the testimony of independent witnesses and that the legal aspects of the conviction were sound. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interference, affirmed the conviction and sentence, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does the testimony of independent witnesses sufficiently establish a charge under Section 39-A of the Electricity Act, 1910?
- Can a High Court dismiss a criminal revision petition in limine if the conviction is well-founded?
- Abdul Aziz vs Muhammad Ishaq and 3 others1989 SCMR 839 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court in an urban settlement matter, whereby orders passed by Settlement Authorities in favour of the appellant were set aside in constitutional writ jurisdiction. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court was justified in holding that a plot transferred to the respondents exceeded six marlas despite express documentation to the contrary. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the Settlement Authorities' orders, noting that the disputed area was never transferred to the respondents, who thus lacked locus standi, and that discretionary relief could not properly be granted to them on technical grounds. The key principle laid down is that a writ petitioner seeking discretionary relief cannot rely on technicalities to claim property that was never part of their original transfer and where they lack locus standi.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the plot transferred to the respondent exceeded six marlas despite the express mention of that area in the transfer documents and sale-deed?
- Can a writ petitioner rely on technical and procedural aspects to claim property that does not form part of the area originally transferred to them?
- Do respondents have locus standi to challenge the transfer of excess land to another party when the disputed area was never transferred to the respondents themselves?
- Abdul Aziz vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue and others1989 SCMR 1124(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the orders of Revenue Authorities regarding the allotment of land (Ahatas). The core dispute concerned the transfer of Ahata No. 311 to the petitioner, while his wife had already been allotted Ahata No. 310. The Additional Commissioner, upon remand, transferred Ahata No. 311 to the respondents, finding that the two Ahatas were intended for storing manure and that the single Ahata already held by the petitioner's wife was sufficient for the needs of both spouses. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged this through administrative appeals and a revision before the Board of Revenue, followed by a writ petition in the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the determination regarding the sufficiency of the land for the petitioner's needs was a finding of fact. Consequently, the Court ruled that the High Court was justified in refusing to interfere with these concurrent findings of fact by the competent revenue authorities, and the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is a finding of fact by revenue authorities regarding land sufficiency subject to interference by the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Can a petitioner claim entitlement to a separate land allotment when a spouse has already been allotted land sufficient for their joint needs?
- Abdul Aziz vs Ghulam Shabbir and others1989 SCMR 1519 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Abdul Aziz against the acquittal of several respondents by the Lahore High Court, following their initial conviction by the trial court for murder and related offences. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the High Court committed any error, ignored material evidence, or violated settled principles regarding the interference with a judgment of acquittal when it set aside the convictions based on material improvements and contradictions in the evidence. The Supreme Court held that the petition was without force as the petitioner merely sought a reappraisal of evidence, which is not warranted against an acquittal when the High Court's findings are based on a proper evaluation and application of established legal principles regarding witness credibility. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court's judgment of acquittal founded on plausible reasoning and the rejection of untrustworthy evidence due to material improvements and contradictions will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a judgment of acquittal when the petitioner seeks a mere reappraisal of evidence?
- Does the rejection of evidence by the High Court due to material improvements and contradictions warrant interference in appeal?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable against an acquittal when the appellate court has properly evaluated the evidence?
- Abdul Aziz vs Fazal Karim and another1989 SCMR 1456 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's regular second appeal. The petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell agricultural land to the first respondent, receiving earnest money and part payment, with the sale to be completed after obtaining proprietary rights from the Thal Development Authority. The first respondent later transferred his rights under the agreement to the second respondent, and both jointly instituted a suit for specific performance after the petitioner refused to comply. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate court decreed specific performance, which the High Court upheld. The core legal question was whether the transfer of rights by the original vendee to a third party amounted to an abandonment of the claim and whether the third party lacked locus standi. The Supreme Court held that the transfer of rights did not imply abandonment, especially as the original vendee joined as a co-plaintiff in the suit. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the transfer of rights under an agreement to sell by a vendee to a third party amounts to an abandonment of the claim for specific performance?
- Does a third party to whom rights have been transferred have locus standi to file a suit for specific performance along with the original vendee?
- Can a suit for specific performance be maintained when the agreement is to be completed after the seller obtains proprietary rights from a development authority?
- Abdul Aziz vs Election Appellate Authority And Other1989 MLD 918 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz vs AhmadK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 148 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-22Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz Khan vs Raja Muhammad Khan1989 SCMR 503 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption suit initiated by the respondent, which was initially dismissed by the trial court on the finding that the respondent had waived his right of pre-emption. Upon appeal, the District Judge reversed this decision and decreed the suit, a judgment subsequently maintained by the High Court in second appeal. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, primarily arguing that the respondent had waived his right of pre-emption and that the disputed property, being commercial in nature, was not subject to pre-emption. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found the petitioner's plea of waiver unsubstantiated, noting the respondent's categorical denial of any offer or waiver. Furthermore, the Court held that the argument regarding the commercial nature of the property could not be entertained as it was not raised before the trial court and thus not put to trial. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that new legal pleas cannot be introduced for the first time at the appellate stage.
Questions settled- Can a plea regarding the nature of the property as commercial be raised for the first time in an appellate court?
- Is a finding of waiver of the right of pre-emption sustainable when the evidence supporting the waiver is found to be unsatisfactory and contradicted by the respondent?
- Does an appellate court have the authority to entertain a new legal argument that was not raised or put to trial in the court of first instance?