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.

• Union Bank of Middle East Ltd. vs Messrs Merino Carpets and others1987 MLD 2479 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-01Read full judgment →
• Umrao Ali vs The District Magistrate (South), Karachi and 3 others1987 P Cr. L J 2280 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-17Read full judgment →
• Umed Ali- vs The State1987 PLD Karachi 372 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-12Read full judgment →
• Umed Ali vs The State1987 PLD Karachi 372 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-12Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat vs The State1987 MLD 1238 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat vs Station House Officer, Police Station Factory Area, Faisalabad and 2 others1987 P Cr. L J 147 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-28Read full judgment →
• Umar Draz And Another vs The State And Another1987 SCMR 375 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-11
  criminal appealacquittaljudicial pronouncementvalidity of judgmentHigh Court Rulesrehearingnullity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against an acquittal judgment delivered by a High Court Division Bench. The core legal question was whether a judgment, signed by a Division Bench but announced after one of the constituent judges had ceased to hold office, constitutes a valid judicial pronouncement. The Supreme Court held that the purported judgment was a nullity in the eye of the law. Relying on Rule 6 of Chapter 4-F, Part II (Civil) of the Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court, the Court determined that because one judge had ceased to be attached to the Court before the judgment was delivered, and it was not delivered by another judge of the same bench, the document was merely "minutes" rather than a valid judgment. The Court established that a judgment authored by a bench must be delivered while the constituent judges remain in office, or otherwise comply with specific procedural rules regarding the delivery of opinions by judges who have ceased to be attached to the court. Consequently, the appeal was remanded for a fresh hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Does a judgment signed by a Division Bench but announced after one of the judges has ceased to hold office constitute a valid judgment?
  • What is the legal status of a written opinion by a judge who has ceased to be attached to the court before the delivery of the judgment?
  • Under what circumstances can a court invoke Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon additional evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Din vs Muhammad Hussain and another1987 CLC 1130 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-07Read full judgment →
• Umar Din vs Managing Director, Associated Cement Rohri Cement1987 PLC 893 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-18Read full judgment →
• Umar Din vs Faiz Ahmad And Other1987 SCMR 1892 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-18
  leave to appealappreciation of evidencecriminal appealocular testimonymedical evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a High Court judgment that acquitted two respondents, Faiz Ahmad and Nasir Mahmood, who had been convicted by the trial court for the murder of Abdul Sattar. The prosecution's case rested on ocular testimony, motive, and medical evidence. The High Court overturned the conviction, primarily reasoning that the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account regarding the nature of the hatchet injury, the direction of the blow, and the timing of the body's arrival at the hospital. Furthermore, the High Court questioned the presence of the eye-witnesses at the scene. The petitioner challenged these findings, arguing that the High Court misappreciated the evidence, particularly regarding the mechanics of the injury, the sleep patterns of the deceased, and the explanation for the witnesses' presence at the crime scene. The Supreme Court, finding that the contentions raised regarding the appreciation of evidence warranted further scrutiny, granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court adhered to established principles of criminal evidence appreciation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the medical evidence regarding the nature of a weapon injury necessarily contradict ocular testimony in a murder case?
  • Can the appellate court's rejection of eye-witness testimony based on the location of their land be challenged if they held the land on lease?
  • Is the timing of a dead body's arrival at a hospital, as recorded in a register, conclusive evidence of the time of death or the occurrence of the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Din vs Additional District Judge and others1987 MLD 368 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-13Read full judgment →
• Umar Badshah And Others vs The State1987 SCMR 1586 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-08-19Read full judgment →
• Udhavdas And Others vs Yusuf Khan And Other1987 SCMR 1611 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-05
  leave to appealrecord of rightsmutationrevenue jurisdictioncivil court jurisdictionrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning agricultural land originally purchased via a registered sale deed in 1970 and subsequent disputes regarding revenue mutations and Record of Rights entries. The core legal questions involve the jurisdiction of revenue officers regarding mutation cancellations, the limits of interference by the High Court in concurrent findings of lower courts on the revisional side, and the bar on civil court jurisdiction under revenue statutes. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the contentions raised regarding the unwarranted interference with concurrent findings and the applicability of statutory bars to civil jurisdiction merit consideration. Accordingly, the Court granted leave to appeal, directing that the appeal be heard on the present record with liberty to file additional documents. The key principle laid down is that revisional interference with concurrent factual and legal findings of lower courts, particularly concerning revenue entries and jurisdictional boundaries under land revenue laws, warrants a full hearing by the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of the lower courts on the revisional side in matters relating to revenue mutations?
  • Whether the jurisdiction of civil courts in respect of matters decided by Revenue Officers is barred under the Sind Revenue Jurisdiction Act and the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act?
  • Does an order by a revenue officer cancelling mutation entries amount to the cancellation of an allotment made by settlement authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Uchechukwu Venatius vs The State-1987 P C r. L J 2492 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-03-17Read full judgment →
• Tyrex Pakistan Limited Lone Tyre & Rubber Co. vs Deputy Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs and others. Deputy Collector of Central Excise and Land CustomsPTCL1987 CL.552 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tufail Ahmad Memon And 4 Other vs Government of Sind And 6 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 166 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1986-08-05Read full judgment →
• Trustees of the Port of Karachi vs Muhammad Karim And Another1987 PLC 846 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-31
  industrial relationsgrievance applicationworkmanjurisdictionLabour Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from constitutional petitions filed by the Trustees of the Port of Karachi challenging orders of the Labour Court, which assumed jurisdiction under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, over grievance applications filed by terminated workmen. The core legal question was whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain grievance applications of employees governed by statutory rules of service and the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886, and whether a terminated employee ceases to be a workman under the Ordinance. The court held that the Labour Court maintained jurisdiction to hear the grievance petitions under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and dismissed the petitions. The key principle laid down is that terminated workmen retain the right to seek redress of their grievances before the Labour Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Labour Court have jurisdiction under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to entertain a grievance application from a terminated employee?
  • Whether an employee whose services have been terminated ceases to be a worker or workman under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Trustees of the Port of Karachi vs Messrs Hyesons Commercial and Industrial Corporation Ltd1987 CLC 601 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-05Read full judgment →
• Trustees of the Port of Karachi vs Messrs Hyesons Commercial &1987 CLC 1932 · Sindh High Court
  recovery of rentuse and occupation chargesexpired leasestatutory tenantOrder II Rule 2 CPCjurisdictioncounter claim
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a suit filed by the Trustees of the Port of Karachi against Messrs Hyesons Commercial for the recovery of charges for the use and occupation of a plot following the expiry of a registered lease deed. The core legal questions pertained to the jurisdiction of the High Court vis-a-vis the Rent Controller, whether the defendants became statutory tenants upon the expiry of the lease, the validity of unilaterally enhanced charges, and whether a portion of the claim was barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The court held that it had jurisdiction, that the defendants did not become statutory tenants but were in unauthorized occupation, that the plaintiffs were entitled to demand charges for use and occupation at the enhanced rate, and that claims omitted in prior suits were barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The key principle laid down is that upon the expiry of a lease without renewal, the lessee occupies the property unauthorizedly, and subsequent suits for recovery of periodic charges are subject to the bar of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if earlier claims were omitted at the time of filing prior suits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of enhanced rent or if the Rent Controller has exclusive jurisdiction under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Whether a lessee becomes a statutory tenant upon the expiry of a registered lease deed when terms for renewal are not mutually agreed upon?
  • Does the omission to claim charges for a subsequent period during the pendency of an earlier suit attract the bar under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a plaintiff entitled to demand unilaterally enhanced charges for the use and occupation of land after the lease has expired?
  Read full judgment →
• Trustees of Port Trust of Karachi vs Syed Sharif Hussain Shah1987 PLC 41 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-08-12Read full judgment →
• Town Committee, Sillanwali District Sargodha Through Its Chairman1987 SCMR 1151 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-21
  service terminationspecial leave to appealappointment validityage relaxationnew pleaadministrative competence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had declared the termination of the respondent's service to be of no legal effect. The petitioner, a Town Committee, sought to overturn this decision on two grounds: first, that the Selection Committee responsible for the respondent's appointment was improperly constituted; and second, that the respondent was over-age at the time of his appointment. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the argument regarding the improper constitution of the Selection Committee could not be entertained as it was not raised before the High Court. Regarding the age issue, the Court observed that the Commissioner had validly relaxed the age limit for the respondent, and the petitioner did not dispute the Commissioner's competence to grant such relaxation. Consequently, the appointment could not be challenged on that basis. The Court affirmed that new pleas cannot be introduced for the first time in appellate proceedings and that valid administrative relaxations of service rules are binding on the appointing authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise a plea regarding the improper constitution of a selection committee for the first time before the Supreme Court if it was not raised in the High Court?
  • Does an appointment remain valid if the age limit was relaxed by a competent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Tokyo Shibaura Electric Company Ltd. vs Abdul Ra Zzak and another1987 MLD 218 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-12Read full judgment →
• The Water and Power Development Authority Through Its Chairman vs Ghulam Farid, Ex Meter Reader1987 SCMR 1515 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-18
  removal from serviceservice tribunal jurisdictionleave to appealdepartmental guidelinessuspension of order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the removal from service of the respondent, a Meter Reader, who was removed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 following his arrest on corruption charges. The core legal questions involve the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction in appeals concerning removal under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 and whether non-compliance with departmental guidelines issued via office memorandum justifies the Tribunal's interference. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions and suspended the operation of the Tribunal's order in the interim. The key principle relates to the examination of the limited nature of the Tribunal's jurisdiction in reviewing administrative removal actions taken under summary statutory powers.

  Questions settled

  • What is the nature and extent of the jurisdiction enjoyed by the Service Tribunal in appeals preferred by former employees removed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958?
  • Does non-compliance with the guidelines provided in an office memorandum justify interference by the Service Tribunal with an order of removal?
  • Does the pendency of a criminal case against an employee by itself justify removal from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958?
  Read full judgment →
• The Telephone. Employees' Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. vs Aish Muhammad1987 CLC 207 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-28Read full judgment →
• The State vs Usher Cooperative Farming Society and 38 others1987 CLC 36 · Federal Land Commission · 1985-11-17Read full judgment →
• The State vs Tatheer Hussain Sherazi-1987 P Cr. L J 1928 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-04Read full judgment →
• The State vs Tariq Hussain Shah and another1987 P Cr. L J 1264 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-14Read full judgment →
• The State vs Tahira Begum and 24 others1987 CLC 39 · Federal Land Commission · 1985-10-08Read full judgment →
• The State vs Shaukat Saeed1987 MLD 2209 · Special Court · 1987-07-25Read full judgment →
• The State vs Sardar Mehboob Elahi and another1987 CLC 34 · Federal Land Commission · 1986-03-13Read full judgment →
• The State vs Noor Muhammad1987 MLD 1016 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-27Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mumtaz Hussain Bazmi, Advocate And 31 Others1987 P Cr. L J 452 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-03Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mumtaz And 2 Others1987 P Cr. L J 1796 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-05-09Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Jamil And Others1987 P Cr. L J 1837 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-20Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Irfan And Another1987 P Cr. L J 325 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-08Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Ibrahim through his Legal Heirs1987 CLC 531 · Federal Land Commission · 1986-11-27Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Azam1987 MLD 3337 · Special Court For Speedy Trials · 1987-11-01Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Ashraf Rana1987 MLD 1535 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-12Read full judgment →
• The State vs Manzoor Hussain and 5 others1987 MLD 2928 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-13Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mahmood Ashraf Khan And Another1987 P Cr. L J 2144 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• The State vs Khan Zaman1987 MLD 1525 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-16Read full judgment →
• The State vs Karam Ali And 2 Others1987 P Cr. L J 516 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-28Read full judgment →
• The State vs Hamid Mukhtar Gondal And Another1987 P Cr. L J 205 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-12Read full judgment →
• The State vs Draz And 2 Other1987 SCMR 1814 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-19
  leave to appealgrave and sudden provocationappreciation of evidencecriminal appealmurderculpable homicidemedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the State against a Lahore High Court judgment that acquitted two respondents and altered the conviction of a third from murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the High Court correctly appraised the evidence in accepting the defense's plea of grave and sudden provocation, given the prosecution's assertion that the murders were premeditated and the defense version was contradicted by medical evidence and ocular testimony. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that it must examine whether the evidence was appraised in accordance with the well-established principles of safe administration of criminal justice. The key principle highlighted is that appellate courts must rigorously scrutinize defense versions of grave and sudden provocation against objective medical findings and the totality of the prosecution's evidence to ensure that such pleas are not merely fabricated to mitigate culpability for heinous crimes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court erred in accepting the defense plea of grave and sudden provocation despite conflicting medical evidence?
  • Does the presence of multiple injuries on the deceased support or negate a plea of sudden provocation?
  • What are the principles for the safe administration of criminal justice regarding the appraisal of ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Dr. Muhammad Tausif Ramzan1987 MLD 1949 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-28Read full judgment →
• The State vs Bahadur And Another1987 P Cr. L J 1689 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
• The State vs Azeem Khan1987 PLD Karachi 583 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-09Read full judgment →
• The State vs Aftab Ali Khan and others1987 MLD 1810 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-27Read full judgment →
• The State vs Aftab Ahmad Shah and 6 others1987 MLD 1437 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-06Read full judgment →
• The State Through Advocate General, Sind vs Hazar Khan1987 P Cr. L J 586 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-01Read full judgment →
• The State of Pakistan vs Abdul Razzak and another1987 MLD 1534 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-03Read full judgment →
• The Punjab Provincial Co-Operative Bank Ltd. vs The Punjab Labour1987 PLC 645 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-13Read full judgment →
• The Province of the Punjab And Another vs Riaz Ur Rehman And 5 Other1987 SCMR 1432 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-18
  special leave to appealevacuee propertycompensation poolallotment cancellationpublic purposeundue influence
  Summary & questions settled

  These four petitions for special leave to appeal filed by the Provincial Government challenge the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had declared the Settlement Commissioner's order cancelling the respondents' land allotments to be without lawful authority. The core legal question concerns whether the disputed land formed part of the compensation pool under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, given that prior central approval for its acquisition by the Provincial Government for a public institution had been granted under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1957. The Supreme Court observed that the contentions regarding the identity of the land, the fulfillment of sanction conditions, the pendency of proceedings upon the repeal of evacuee laws, and the alleged bias of the Settlement Commissioner required deeper examination. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to review the legality of the transfers and the competence of the authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether land sanctioned for acquisition by the Provincial Government under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1957 forms part of the compensation pool under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
  • Whether failure to satisfy conditions regarding compensation and alternate land invalidates a central sanction for property acquisition?
  • Whether proceedings for cancellation of land transfers were validly pending at the time of the repeal of the evacuee laws?
  • Whether a Settlement Commissioner who previously recommended cancellation of a transfer is disqualified from deciding the matter due to bias?
  Read full judgment →
• The Province of Punjab Etc. vs Faiz Muhammad Khan Etc.KLR i987 Revenue Case 51 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-10Read full judgment →
• The Province of Punjab and others vs Faiz Muhammad Khan and others1987 MLD 389 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-10Read full judgment →
• The Project Manager, Doaba Rice Mills Ltd. vs Khalid Mahmood Hassan1987 PLC 705 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1987-05-07Read full judgment →
• The Prince Glass Works Ltd. vs National Beverages Ltd. and Another1987 PLD Karachi 49 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-18
  Wafaqi Mohtasibbar of jurisdictionsub judicetemporary injunctionrecovery of pricemaladministration
  Summary & questions settled

  This application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 sought to restrain the plaintiff from proceeding with its claim before the Wafaqi Mohtasib, arising out of a suit for the recovery of unpaid goods. The core legal questions were whether the Wafaqi Mohtasib lacked jurisdiction due to the matter being sub judice, and whether the High Court had jurisdiction to grant an injunction staying proceedings before the Mohtasib. The court held that since the complaint was lodged with the Wafaqi Mohtasib prior to the filing of the suit in the High Court, the matter was not sub judice before a court at the time of the complaint, thereby attracting no bar under section 9 of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983. Furthermore, section 29 of the said Order expressly bars courts from granting injunctions or stays in relation to proceedings before the Mohtasib. The application was accordingly dismissed. The key principles laid down are that jurisdiction of the Mohtasib is only ousted under proviso (a) to section 9 if the matter is sub judice on the date of receipt of the complaint by the Mohtasib, and that courts lack jurisdiction to grant interim orders against Mohtasib proceedings under section 29.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Wafaqi Mohtasib lack jurisdiction to investigate a matter that is sub judice before a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Does a civil court have the jurisdiction to grant an injunction or stay in relation to proceedings pending before the Wafaqi Mohtasib?
  • What is the determinative date for establishing whether a matter is sub judice so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Wafaqi Mohtasib?
  Read full judgment →
• The Orangi Pilot Project vs Madarasa Arabia Jamia Ziaul Aloom Trust1987 MLD 541 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-17Read full judgment →
• The Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Republic Industrial1987 MLD 2794 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-26Read full judgment →
• The Lahore Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Lahore vs Messrs Haji Allah1987 CLC 1435 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-16Read full judgment →
• The Institute of Bankers in Pakistan and another vs Zainul Abedin1987 MLD 549 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-16Read full judgment →
• The General Manager, Pakistan Railways Headquarters Office, Lahore1987 PLC 561 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-20Read full judgment →
• The Federation of Pakistan And Others vs Muhammad Yaqoob Khan1987 SCMR 1914 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-08
  service tribunalpay scaleslimitationdepartmental representationrailways departmentspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from eight petitions for special leave to appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had allowed the respondents' appeals regarding pay scales. The respondents, employed as Return Distributors in the Railways Department, were aggrieved by being placed in a lower pay scale in 1962 compared to record-lifters and record-suppliers, despite previously sharing the same scale. The core legal questions involved whether the communication rejecting the respondents' departmental representation constituted an appealable order and whether their appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that the rejection letter constituted a final appealable order and that the limitation period properly ran from that date, making the Tribunal appeals timely. Furthermore, the Court held that a direction given by the Tribunal against the Federation applied to the Ministry of Finance which was a party to the proceedings. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the communication of the rejection of a departmental representation constitute an appealable order?
  • Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal is barred by limitation when filed within time from the final rejection of a representation?
  • Whether a direction by the Service Tribunal against the Federation of Pakistan applies to the Ministry of Finance when it was a party to the appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• The Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company Ltd. vs State Life1987 CLC 1408 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-09
  nationalization of insuranceshareholders' dividendcorporate legal entitylocus standirecovery of surplusstatutory obligationremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a suit filed by an insurance company against the State Life Corporation for the recovery of a surplus amount allocated to the shareholders' account following the nationalization of life insurance business. The trial court dismissed the suit, reasoning that the amount remained an asset of the nationalized entity and was not a recoverable debt until a dividend was formally declared. Upon appeal, the High Court held that the trial court erred in its characterization of the suit. The Court clarified that the suit was brought by the company itself, not by individual shareholders, and thus the requirement for a declared dividend was not the sole determinant of maintainability. The Court emphasized that a company remains a distinct legal entity from its shareholders. Consequently, the High Court set aside the decree and remanded the matter for a determination on whether a binding agreement existed between the parties or if the respondent was under a statutory obligation to pay the amount under the relevant nationalization order and insurance legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Does a company have locus standi to sue for the recovery of surplus funds allocated to shareholders before a dividend is formally declared?
  • Does the nationalization of life insurance business vest all assets and liabilities, including surplus funds, in the state-run corporation?
  • Is a suit for the recovery of funds maintainable by a company against a state corporation based on an alleged agreement or statutory obligation, despite the absence of a declared dividend?
  Read full judgment →
• The Divisional Superintendent, Railways vs Shaukat Ali1987 PLC 797 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-12Read full judgment →
• The District Manager, Karachi Transport Corporation vs Muhammad1987 PLC 102 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-07-23Read full judgment →
• The Director of Education, Lahore Division, Lahore And Others vs Mrs.1987 SCMR 804 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-10
  service tribunaldate of superannuationdate of birthpetition for leave to appeallegal precedentservice record
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Punjab Services Tribunal concerning the determination of the date of superannuation of a government employee in the Education Department. The core legal question involved the conflict between the date of birth recorded in the service record versus the entry in the Matriculation certificate, compounded by an affidavit sworn by the respondent affirming her Matriculation certificate birth date, which her counsel claimed was signed under duress. The Supreme Court disposed of the petition as not pressed by the petitioners, with the observation and holding that the impugned judgment of the Services Tribunal shall not be treated as a legal precedent for other cases, given the specific circumstances that the respondent had already retired and the Tribunal had recorded no finding regarding the alleged duress. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court may, upon request in appropriate circumstances, order that a Tribunal judgment not be cited as a legal precedent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the date of birth in a service record should prevail over the entry in a Matriculation certificate for determining superannuation?
  • Can the Supreme Court order that an impugned judgment of a Services Tribunal shall not be treated as a legal precedent when a petition is not pressed?
  • Does an affidavit regarding the correctness of a birth date require a formal finding of duress by the Tribunal if challenged?
  Read full judgment →
• The Controller, Pakistan Telephone and Telegraph Department, Karachi vs Muhammad Alam1987 PLC 46 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-08-10Read full judgment →
• The Collector Central Excise and Land Customs And Others vs Rahm1987 SCMR 1840 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-11
  customs confiscationshow-cause noticeforeign currency seizuresmugglingnatural justiceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Collector Central Excise and Land Customs against a judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, which had accepted a constitutional petition and declared the confiscation of Iranian currency seized from the respondent to be without lawful authority. The core legal question concerned the legality of the currency seizure and subsequent confiscation order based on allegations of smuggling and failure to declare foreign currency. The Supreme Court held that the petition was not a fit case for grant of leave and dismissed it, reasoning that the adjudication order of confiscation was vitiated because it was ultimately based on a ground—namely, bringing goods through an unauthorized route—that was not mentioned in the original show-cause notice. The key principle laid down is that an order of confiscation passed by departmental authorities is illegal and void if it is based on grounds or facts that were never communicated to the affected person in the show-cause notice, thereby violating mandatory statutory requirements and principles of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can an order of confiscation be sustained when it is based on a ground not mentioned in the show-cause notice?
  • Does bringing goods that are otherwise importable without prohibition through an unauthorized route constitute smuggling under Section 2(s) of the Customs Act 1969?
  • What are the mandatory requirements for issuing a valid confiscation order under Section 180 of the Customs Act 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• The Christian Educational Endowment Trust, Lahore vs The Deputy1987 SCMR 1189 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-13
  Martial Law Regulation No. 118audi alteram partemadministrative lawnatural justiceproperty rightswrit jurisdictiontrust property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition against the transfer of property owned by the Christian Educational Endowment Trust to the Government F.C. College, Lahore, under Martial Law Regulation No. 118. The core legal question was whether the authorities could summarily transfer the property, claiming it was 'attached' to the college, without affording the Trust an opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the administrative action was unlawful. The Court reaffirmed the fundamental principle of natural justice, audi alteram partem, establishing that any administrative action affecting a person's property or rights requires providing the affected party a reasonable opportunity to show cause. The Court determined that the authorities could not unilaterally declare the Trust's title invalid or transfer the property without following this mandatory procedural requirement. Consequently, the administrative order was set aside, emphasizing that the right to a fair hearing is essential in all proceedings, whether judicial or administrative, that impact legal rights.

  Questions settled

  • Can administrative authorities unilaterally transfer property as 'attached' to a college under Martial Law Regulation No. 118 of 1972 without hearing the owner?
  • Does the principle of audi alteram partem apply to administrative proceedings that affect property rights?
  • Is an administrative order affecting property rights invalid if passed without providing the affected party a reasonable opportunity to show cause?
  Read full judgment →
• The Chiefsettlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner vs Syed Iqbal Hussain Kirmani And Other1987 SCMR 1056 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-17
  evacuee propertytransfer by negotiationcompensation bookssettlement authoritiesauction cancellationrehabilitation law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal addresses whether the law of contract or the law of rehabilitation prevails between claimants and settlement authorities regarding the transfer of evacuee properties. The factual matrix involves an evacuee industrial concern initially put to auction, which later saw the respondent apply for its transfer on a negotiation basis. The offer was accepted on the express condition that the price be paid in cash within a stipulated period, which the respondents failed to do, instead seeking to pay partly in cash and partly through compensation books. Consequently, the Chief Settlement Commissioner cancelled the transfer, leading to protracted litigation wherein the High Court ruled in favor of the respondents. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court examined the relevant statutory framework, specifically paragraph 15-A of the Schedule and the government memorandum, establishing that the authorities possessed the competence to stipulate payment conditions. The court held that the settlement authorities acted within their lawful authority in cancelling the transfer upon failure to meet the cash payment condition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the law of contract or the law of rehabilitation prevails between claimants and settlement authorities in the transfer of evacuee properties?
  • Can the Chief Settlement Commissioner require a transferee to pay the transfer price in cash when transferring property by negotiation?
  • Does the Central Government have the power to specify the manner of disposal of industrial concerns under paragraph 15-A of the Schedule?
  Read full judgment →
• The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab And Others vs Muhammad1987 SCMR 2034 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-29
  settlement departmentbuilding sitesmemorandumwrit petitionleave to appealtransfer deeds
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab against the judgment of the High Court which had accepted the respondents' writ petition and declared a memorandum dated 30-11-1971 to be of no legal effect. The core legal question concerned the validity of the subsequent memorandum withdrawing an earlier reduction in property prices for building sites in Model Town, Faisalabad, and whether the original reduction memorandum dated 26-9-1967 was issued without the approval of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that the assertion regarding lack of approval could not be accepted, noting that the memorandum contained a specific recital incorporating an order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the department waited over four years before disowning it, and the relevant file was not produced. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, laying down the principle that an official memorandum containing a recital of proper authority and acted upon for a prolonged period cannot be easily disowned by the department without substantive proof to the contrary.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department disown an official memorandum issued years earlier without producing the relevant file?
  • Whether a memorandum containing a specific recital of an order by the Chief Settlement Commissioner can be challenged on the ground of lack of approval after a prolonged period?
  Read full judgment →
• The Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab, Lahore And Others vs Najamuddin And 10 Other1987 SCMR 96 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-03
  service tribunalpay scalesecretariat statusattached departmentboard of revenuecivil servantsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The respondents, recruited as Junior Clerks and later promoted as Assistants by the Board of Revenue, were subjected to a reduction in their pay scales in August 1970 following the enforcement of the West Pakistan (Non-Gazetted) Civil Services (Pay Revision) Rules, 1963, which distinguished between Secretariat and Attached Department pay scales. After challenging this reduction, the Punjab Service Tribunal accepted their appeal on May 8, 1978, holding that they were entitled to Secretariat pay scales. The appellants sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that the dispute was confined to a limited class of eleven respondents and a specific period from September 1, 1970, to July 1, 1972, after which the Board of Revenue regained Secretariat status. Holding that the case did not involve a substantial question of law of public importance and that the matter was practically a dead issue, the Supreme Court withdrew the leave previously granted and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of the Board of Revenue are entitled to Secretariat pay scales for the period prior to the Board being granted Secretariat status?
  • Whether a petition involving a limited class of persons and a past, time-bound pay dispute constitutes a substantial question of law of public importance warranting interference by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• The Chairman, WAPDA and 2 others vs Advisory Board, Punjab Lahore1987 CLC 1503 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-21
  Electricity Actdetection billelectric inspectoradvisory boardjurisdictiondishonest abstraction of energyconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the vires of an appellate order passed by the Advisory Board, Punjab, which upheld the findings of an Electric Inspector regarding a disputed detection bill issued by WAPDA for alleged illegal consumption of electricity. The core legal question revolves around whether the introduction of section 26-A into the Electricity Act, 1910 in 1979 ousted the jurisdiction of the Electric Inspector and the Advisory Board under sections 24(2) and 26(6) of the said Act in cases involving dishonest abstraction or consumption of energy. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that section 26-A, containing a non-obstante clause referring only to section 23, does not exclude the operation of sections 24(2) and 26(6). The Court laid down the principle that WAPDA's assessment powers under section 26-A remain subservient to the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Electric Inspector and the Advisory Board, ensuring an independent forum to prevent arbitrariness and protect consumers from unchecked departmental power.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the introduction of section 26-A in the Electricity Act, 1910 ousted the jurisdiction of the Electric Inspector and the Advisory Board under sections 24(2) and 26(6)?
  • Does section 26-A of the Electricity Act, 1910 make WAPDA's assessment of energy theft immune from the adjudicatory powers of the Electric Inspector?
  • Whether an independent forum exists under the Electricity Act, 1910 to resolve billing disputes and differences between consumers and licensees regarding detection bills?
  Read full judgment →
• The Beco Agencies Limited vs The Karachi Municipal Corporation1987 SCMR 1642 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-04
  octroi assessmentscrap ironcustoms tariffalternate remedywrit jurisdictionstatutory interpretationresiduary clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the dismissal of writ petitions by the High Court on the grounds of non-exhaustion of alternate remedies and the existence of disputed questions of fact regarding the classification of imported goods for octroi assessment. The core legal question was whether imported "re-rollable" and "re-meltable" scrap iron should be classified as "scrap iron" under Class VIII, item 1(b) of the West Pakistan Municipal Committees Octroi Rules, 1964, or under the residuary item 1(l) for unspecified iron and steel articles. The Supreme Court held that "scrap iron" in trade usage and dictionary definitions encompasses both re-rollable and re-meltable scrap, which require reprocessing before use. The Court ruled that because "scrap iron" was specifically listed in the schedule, the residuary clause "not specified elsewhere" was inapplicable. Consequently, the goods were liable to octroi at the lower rate for scrap iron rather than the higher rate for unspecified articles, and the absence of physical verification by the authorities precluded any factual dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'scrap iron' in an octroi schedule include both re-rollable and re-meltable scrap iron when not otherwise qualified?
  • Can a residuary tariff classification for articles 'not specified elsewhere' be applied to goods that fall under a specifically listed category?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable without exhausting alternate statutory remedies when there is no factual controversy left to be resolved?
  Read full judgment →
• The Administrator, Lahore Municipal Corporation, Lahore vs Abdul1987 CLC 1261 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-09
  mesne profitscivil procedureclosing of evidencefair compensationjurisdiction of civil courtland usedamages
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a suit for the recovery of damages and mesne profits for the unauthorized use and occupation of land by the Lahore Municipal Corporation for dumping garbage. The core legal questions were whether the trial court correctly closed the appellant's evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908; whether the civil court had jurisdiction; and the appropriate method for calculating fair compensation. The Court held that the trial court was justified in closing the evidence due to the appellant's persistent negligence and failure to produce evidence despite multiple opportunities. It affirmed that the civil court had jurisdiction as the land was not agricultural and no landlord-tenant relationship existed. Regarding compensation, the Court rejected the trial court's excessive award, which yielded nearly 100% annual return on investment. Instead, it established the principle that in the absence of a contractual rate, fair compensation should be determined equitably, adopting the 8-10% annual return on initial cost formula analogous to the Requisitioning of Immovable Property Act 1956, modifying the decree accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court close a party's evidence under Order XVII Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 even if it erroneously cited Order XVII Rule 3?
  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim for mesne profits regarding land used for dumping garbage?
  • What is the equitable method for calculating compensation for unauthorized use of land when no contractual rate exists?
  • Is a plaintiff entitled to future mesne profits up to the date of the decree if specifically prayed for in the plaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Tehzeeb. vs Wajid Mahmood Alias Abdul Majid And Another1987 PLD Peshawar 112 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-04-11Read full judgment →
• Tehzeeb vs Wajid Maiimood alias Abdul Majid and another1987 PLD Peshawar 112 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-04-11Read full judgment →
• Tehmas vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 802 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-09-02Read full judgment →
• Tayab alias. Tayabdin and 2 otherss vs The State-1987 MLD 1489 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-10Read full judgment →
• Tawab Gul And Another vs The State1987 SCMR 1223 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-14
  murder convictionocular testimonyself-defencetransportation for lifeabsconsionLaw Reforms Ordinancecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the reversal of an acquittal by the Peshawar High Court. The appellants challenged their conviction for murder, arguing self-defence and contesting the sentencing regime applied. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony in the absence of weapon recoveries, the validity of the self-defence plea, and whether the sentence of imprisonment for life was legally permissible for an offense committed prior to the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular testimony consistent, corroborated by medical evidence, and supported by the appellants' long absconsion. Regarding the sentence, the Court held that since the offense occurred in 1966, before the 1972 legislative changes, the appropriate sentence was transportation for life rather than imprisonment for life. The Court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence accordingly, directing that the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be applied during sentence computation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on ocular testimony when no recovery of weapons is made?
  • Does the plea of self-defence hold when the accused sustains no injuries during the occurrence?
  • Is the sentence of imprisonment for life applicable to an offense committed before the promulgation of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972?
  • Should the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be granted to a convict sentenced to transportation for life?
  Read full judgment →
• Tausif vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 2006 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-29Read full judgment →
• Taufique Ahmad vs S.H.O., Police Station, Civil Lines, Sialkot and 21987 P Cr. L J 2384 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-07Read full judgment →
• Tassawar Iqbal vs The State1987 SCMR 368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-13
  petition for special leave to appealright of self-defencemurdermurderous assaultconflicting versionscriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal filed by Tassawar Iqbal, who was convicted under section 302 read with section 34 and section 324 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing the death of his cousin and injuries to another, resulting in life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment respectively, as maintained by the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient attention was given by the trial and appellate courts to the plea of the right of self-defence raised by the petitioner, considering the presence of injuries on the petitioner and the existence of two conflicting versions of the occurrence. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised in support of the petition regarding the plea of self-defence give rise to a substantial question requiring examination, and accordingly granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the plea of self-defence and the presence of injuries on the accused must be thoroughly evaluated against conflicting versions in criminal trials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the plea of the right of self-defence was properly considered by the trial and appellate courts?
  • Does the presence of injuries on the accused in a conflicting version case warrant a re-examination of guilt?
  • Can a conviction under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained when the defence raises a plausible plea of self-defence?
  Read full judgment →
• Zamin Shah vs The State1987 SCMR 1852 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-18
  murderdeath sentencemitigating circumstancesleave to appealapprehension at spotfirearm injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court, which upheld the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with convictions under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murderous assault. The core legal question revolved around the challenge to the conviction and whether mitigating circumstances existed to warrant a reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life, given that the motive stemmed from a domestic dispute regarding the exchange marriage and the refusal of the deceased's family to return the petitioner's wife. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's convictions were well-founded based on the consistent testimony of injured and natural eye-witnesses and his apprehension at the spot with the crime weapon, and further held that the refusal to return the wife until the petitioner's sister was also returned did not constitute a mitigating circumstance for murder. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the refusal of a spouse's family to return her without a reciprocal return constitutes a mitigating circumstance for reducing the death sentence for murder?
  • Does the testimony of injured eye-witnesses present at the scene provide sufficient basis for sustaining a conviction under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether apprehension of the accused at the spot immediately after the firing with the crime weapon establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Tassadaq Hussain Naqvi vs Seth Muhammad Ismail and others1987 MLD 2616 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-15Read full judgment →
• Tasleem Begum and 6 Others vs The State and Another1987 PLD Lahore 212 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-17Read full judgment →
• Tasleem Begum and 6 Other vs The State and AnotherP.L.D.1987 Lahore 212 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-17Read full judgment →
• Taskeen Ahmad vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 38 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-06Read full judgment →
• Tariq vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 972 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
• Tariq Saleem vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 62 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-19Read full judgment →
• Tariq Pervaiz And Another vs The State And Other1987 SCMR 967 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-03
  double murderdeath sentencemitigating circumstancesacquittalcorroborationalibiappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  Leave to appeal was granted to examine the conviction and death sentence of Tariq Pervaiz for double murder, as well as the acquittal of his co-accused brother, Tahirul Islam. The prosecution alleged that the accused attacked two brothers following an altercation regarding positions taken outside a carpet weaving factory. The trial court convicted Tariq Pervaiz on two counts under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced him to death, while acquitting Tahirul Islam. The Lahore High Court dismissed the convict's appeal and confirmed the death sentence, upholding the acquittal of the co-accused. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court examined the evidence, the credibility of eye-witnesses, the plea of alibi, and mitigating circumstances regarding the age and suddenness of the occurrence. The Court maintained the conviction and the approach taken by the lower courts regarding the evaluation of evidence and corroboration, ensuring the safe administration of criminal justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in confirming the death sentence of the appellant for double murder?
  • Whether the acquittal of the co-accused based on the requirement of corroboration was sustainable?
  • Whether the age of the accused and the suddenness of the altercation constitute mitigating circumstances for reducing a sentence of death?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Nisar vs The State1987 SCMR 727 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-02
  murderleave to appealreduction of sentencedeath sentencegrave and sudden provocationfamily honour
  Summary & questions settled

  These are two cross-petitions for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had reduced the death sentence of the accused, Tariq Nisar, to imprisonment for life for the murder of Zakir Sibtain, while dismissing the complainant's prayer for enhancement. The prosecution case was that the accused, angered by his sister's marriage to the deceased, attacked the deceased with a razor in a shop, causing a fatal neck injury, and was apprehended at the spot with the weapon by eyewitnesses. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of evidence, the credibility of eyewitnesses, and the propriety of reducing the death sentence to life imprisonment on the grounds of family anguish. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly granted the maximum benefit of reducing the sentence based on the circumstances of family rancour arising from the marriage, and that the defence version was flimsy. Consequently, both petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence of death to imprisonment for life on the ground of family rancour?
  • Whether the testimony of related eyewitnesses supported by medical evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Whether the defence plea of acting in self-defense after being detained under the Railway Act is credible when the accused is apprehended at the spot with the weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood vs The State1987 MLD 2327 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-10Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood vs The Pakistan Television Corporation Ltd. And Others1987 PLC 671 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-24Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood vs Pakistan Television Corporation And Other1987 SCMR 768 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-02
  retrospective appointmentCorporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinanceapprenticeshipservice lawleave to appealPakistan Television Corporation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the termination or adverse action taken against an employee of the Pakistan Television Corporation. The petitioner challenges the application of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978, specifically questioning whether an appointment order given retrospective effect can trigger the provisions of said Ordinance. Furthermore, the petition raises the issue of whether the Ordinance was lawfully applied to the petitioner's specific circumstances and whether evidence pertaining to the petitioner's initial apprenticeship could legitimately be used to justify an order affecting a subsequent permanent appointment made two years later. The Supreme Court, noting that similar legal points were already under consideration in another pending Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal (C.P.L.A. No. 1036 of 1986), granted leave to appeal in the instant case. The Court directed that this petition be heard alongside the aforementioned C.P.L.A., allowing the parties to rely on the existing record while granting liberty to file additional documents as necessary.

  Questions settled

  • Can an order of appointment made to operate retrospectively be deemed to have been made from a previous date for the purposes of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance 1978?
  • Is the application of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance 1978 lawful in cases involving the transition from apprenticeship to permanent employment?
  • Can evidence regarding an apprenticeship be used to sustain an order affecting a permanent appointment made years later?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood And Others vs Muhammad Zaman1987 SCMR 98 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-03
  pre-emption suitjoint Khattatenant rightsadmission in pleadingsleave to appealrecord of rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court in a pre-emption suit. The dispute arose from the sale of 80 Kanals of land by a vendor, Mst. Nasim Akhtar, from a joint un-partitioned Khatta. The respondent, claiming to be a tenant on 72 Kanals of the sold land, filed a suit for pre-emption. The trial court limited the respondent's pre-emption rights to 6 Kanals, reasoning that he was a tenant of all co-sharers, not just the vendor. The High Court, however, allowed the respondent's appeal based on an admission made by the petitioners during the trial that the respondent was cultivating the land under the vendor, thereby entitling him to pre-empt the entire area. The petitioners challenged this, arguing that the admission was made by a layman, contradicted the record of rights, and that the vendor could not legally sell specific pieces of land from a joint Khatta without prior partition. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding these legal questions required further examination.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vendor sell a specific piece of land from a joint un-partitioned Khatta without first seeking partition?
  • Does an admission made by a layman during trial that contradicts the record of rights bind the parties?
  • Is a tenant of a co-sharer entitled to pre-empt the entire land sold by that co-sharer from a joint holding?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Khan vs The State1987 MLD 1735 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-30Read full judgment →
• Tariq Hussain vs The State1987 MLD 1447 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-28Read full judgment →
• Tariq Hussain Shah and others vs Muhammad Siddique and others1987 MLD 428 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-23Read full judgment →