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.
- Tariq Hussain And Others vs The State1987 SCMR 1812 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Tariq Hussain and his father Fazal Hussain were tried for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court acquitted Fazal Hussain but convicted Tariq Hussain under Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The High Court dismissed both the convict's appeal and the complainant's revision petition for enhancement and acquittal challenges. Both parties sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The prosecution alleged the murder arose from a dispute over an affair between Tariq Hussain and the deceased's niece, leading to a fatal knife blow. The courts below rejected the ocular testimony and weapon recovery but convicted Tariq Hussain based on his confessional statement while rejecting his plea of private defence. The core legal questions involve whether an accused's exculpatory statement must be accepted in its entirety when relied upon for conviction, and the appreciation of prompt First Information Reports and ocular testimony. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to both parties for detailed examination.
Questions settled- Must an accused person's statement admitting a fatal act be accepted in its entirety when relied upon by the court for a conviction?
- Whether the rejection of ocular testimony and recovery evidence warrants leave to appeal against an acquittal and conviction?
- Does a prompt First Information Report sufficiently exclude the possibility of fabrication in eyewitness accounts?
- Tanveer Sultan, Assistant Director vs Shaheenairport Services1987 PLC 593 · Labour Court · 1986-12-21Read full judgment →
- Tanveer Jamshed And Another vs Raja Ghulam Haider1987 SCMR 2006 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal arising from rent proceedings. The judgment addresses several important legal questions concerning the competency and limitation period for an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 filed by a non-party alleging fraud, the effect of the pendency of a parallel civil suit, and whether Section 22 of the Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 bars third parties from filing objections in execution proceedings or obstructing them when not claiming through the judgment debtor. Finding that the points raised deserve consideration, the Supreme Court grants leave to appeal, allows the petition upon furnishing security, and directs that the appeal be heard on the present record with liberty to file additional documents. The Court establishes that applications under Section 12(2) involving allegations of fraud by non-parties and third-party obstruction rights under rent execution laws require authoritative examination.
Questions settled- Was the application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 competent by a petitioner in the trial Court inasmuch as he was not a party to the rent proceedings?
- Was the application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 within time and what Article of the Limitation Act was applicable in view of allegations of fraud?
- What was the effect of the pendency of Suit No. 4141 of 1980 in the Court of the Civil Judge Karachi?
- Whether the provision of Section 22 of the Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 debarred third parties from filing objections in execution proceedings and whether such third persons could obstruct execution?
- Tanveer Hassan vs Shahzada Gulzar1987 MLD 929 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
- Tanveer Ahmad vs The State1987 MLD 1633 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
- Talib Hussain vs The State1987 MLD 2682 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-13Read full judgment →
- Talib Hussain vs Talib Qureshi And Other1987 SCMR 802 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court partly allowing criminal appeals and revisions in a murder case. The core legal question concerned the culpability of the accused persons and the propriety of their convictions under lesser offences rather than murder, given that both sides sustained injuries in a sudden clash. The Supreme Court held that where both parties withhold the truth and a clash flares up suddenly without premeditation, Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code is attracted, making each accused responsible for their own individual act. The petition for leave to appeal against acquittal was accordingly dismissed as substantial justice had been done.
Questions settled- Whether Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code applies when a clash between two parties flares up suddenly without premeditation?
- Is each accused responsible only for his own individual act when both parties are found to have withheld the truth in a mutual fight?
- Does a sudden exchange of abuses and beating following a traffic dispute attract the rule of grave and sudden provocation?
- Talib Hussain vs Muhammad Tufail And Another1987 P Cr. L J 176 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-19Read full judgment →
- Talib Hussain vs Banu Muhammad Shafi and 12 Others1987 PLD Lahore 4 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-08Read full judgment →
- Talib Hussain vs Babu Muhammad Sham and 12 Other1987 PLD Lahore 4 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-08Read full judgment →
- Talib Hussain And Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1319 · Lahore High Court · 1987-12-15Read full judgment →
- Talib Hussain And 3 Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1254 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
- Taj Muhammad vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 2201 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-10Read full judgment →
- Taj Muhammad vs Abdul Hassan And Other1987 SCMR 856 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside an order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 24-4-1975 concerning evacuee land in Tehsil Lodhran. The core legal question involved the validity of a subsequent allotment and a purported compromise regarding land previously allotted and confirmed in favor of another claimant. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate any prior valid allotment or legal right to the disputed land, whereas the original allottee's confirmation dated back to 1955 and the heirs had already transferred the property prior to the alleged compromise. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a subsequent claimant cannot displace a prior confirmed allotment without establishing a valid, legally recognized prior right, and heirs who have alienated their interest in property cannot subsequently surrender rights in favor of a third party.
Questions settled- Whether a subsequent claimant can challenge a prior confirmed land allotment without establishing a valid prior right?
- Are heirs competent to surrender rights in disputed land after having already sold the property to a third party?
- Does an unverified Parchi Khatoni Taqseem bearing no signatures of a competent authority suffice to prove a valid land allotment?
- Taj Muhammad And Others vs Ali Hassan Manghi And Other1987 SCMR 565 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment upholding the dismissal of objection petitions filed by sub-lessees against an ejectment order. The core legal question was whether sub-lessees, inducted without the landlord's consent, possess an independent right to remain in possession of demised premises after an ejectment order has been passed against the primary tenant, and whether they can invoke objection proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that sub-lessees inducted without the landlord's consent have no independent right to occupy the premises upon the ejectment of the tenant and are bound by the ejectment order passed against the tenant. Furthermore, the Court determined that the petitioners failed to satisfy the requirements of the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding objection petitions. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, affirming the lower courts' findings that the sub-lessees were bound by the ejectment order and their objection petitions were misconceived.
Questions settled- Are sub-lessees inducted without the landlord's consent bound by an ejectment order passed against the primary tenant?
- Can a sub-lessee maintain an objection petition under Order XXI, Rules 99, 100, and 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if they lack an independent right to the property?
- Does an ejectment order against a tenant effectively terminate the occupation rights of unauthorized sub-lessees?
- Taj Muhammad And Another vs Sub Divisional Magistrate And 4 Other1987 PLD Peshawar 158 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-07-21Read full judgment →
- Taj Muhammad And 2 Others vs Ahmad Mian And Another1987 P Cr. L J 2195(2) · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-01Read full judgment →
- Taj Muhammad Abbassi vs Mst. Anwar Banday1987 PLD Karachi 366 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-19Read full judgment →
- Taj Din vs Manak And Another1987 SCMR 805 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a second appeal filed in the High Court against the appellate judgment of the Additional District Judge, which had decreed the respondents' suit for a declaration regarding a thoroughfare after the trial Court had initially dismissed it. The petitioner contested the second appeal on the grounds that the First Appellate Court had misread the evidence of a witness and had failed to discuss findings on all issues framed in the suit. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the First Appellate Court's disposal of the appeal by confining its discussion to the contested issue. The Supreme Court held that since the contest between the parties before the First Appellate Court remained confined to a single issue, the failure to discuss findings on the other unexceptionable issues did not render the disposal improper. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the decision of the High Court.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court is bound to discuss all issues when the contest before it is confined to a single issue?
- Does the failure to discuss unexceptionable findings on collateral issues vitiate an appellate judgment?
- Taj Din And Another vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 2256 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-19Read full judgment →
- Taj Din and another vs Hayat Muhammad and 3 others1987 MLD 2724 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-22Read full judgment →
- Taj Bareen vs Sind Labour Appellant Tribunal And Another1987 PLC 279 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-27Read full judgment →
- Taiyab A. Khambaty vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 755 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-24Read full judgment →
- Tahloo Alias Hussain Bux And Another vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 76 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-21Read full judgment →
- Tahir Alias Tahri And Another vs The State And Another1987 SCMR 1074 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment concerning the conviction of Tahir alias Tahri for murder and the acquittal of his brother, Zahid alias Billu. The trial court had convicted both for the murder of Abdul Sattar, sentencing Tahir to death and Zahid to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld Tahir's conviction but acquitted Zahid, citing his age and lack of knowledge regarding the weapon. The core legal questions concern the reliability of ocular testimony from chance witnesses, the implications of the failure to recover blood-stained earth from the crime scene, and the propriety of the High Court's acquittal of a co-accused who allegedly held the deceased during the attack. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions, determining that the contentions raised regarding the credibility of witnesses, the absence of forensic evidence at the scene, and the assessment of the co-accused's culpability required further examination. The Court ordered the issuance of bailable warrants against the acquitted respondent, Zahid, to ensure his presence for the appellate proceedings.
Questions settled- Can leave to appeal be granted to examine the reliability of ocular testimony provided by chance witnesses?
- Does the failure of the investigating officer to recover blood-stained earth from the crime scene necessarily invalidate the prosecution's version of the occurrence?
- Is the acquittal of a co-accused based on age and lack of knowledge of the principal offender's weapon subject to appellate review?
- Tahir Ali. and 2 Others vs Messrs SH. Miran Bux Karam Bux1987 PLD Karachi 130 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-30Read full judgment →
- Tahir Ali vs Federation of Pakistan and Others1987 PLD Karachi 290 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-29Read full judgment →
- Tahir Ali vs Federation of Pakistan and Other1987 PLD Karachi 290 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-29Read full judgment →
- Tahir Ali and 2 Other vs Messrs SH. Miran Bux Karam Bux1987 PLD Karachi 130 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-30Read full judgment →
- T. Motandas through His Legal Heirs vs Anis Ahmad1987 PLD Karachi 159 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-03Read full judgment →
- T. Motandas through His Legal Heir vs Anis Ahmad1987 PLD Karachi 159 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-03Read full judgment →
- T He State vs Muhammad Aslam1987 MLD 2697 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-07Read full judgment →
- S:A. Samee Shah vs Mst. Bibi Gul Haneef1987 MLD 2985 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-21Read full judgment →
- Syeed Ahmed And Another vs Medical Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Karachi And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 809 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-06-21Read full judgment →
- Syed. Shabbir Hussain Shah vs The State1987 MLD 3085 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-19Read full judgment →
- Syed Zulfiqar Shah vs Syed Nazar Hussain1987 MLD 2876 · Board of Revenue · 1987-03-11Read full judgment →
- Syed Zulfiqar Ali Shah vs The Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Islamabad1987 CLC 2092 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-19Read full judgment →
- Syed Zam1n Hussain Abidi vs Mst.Mubarak Bano and others1987 MLD 2992 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-09Read full judgment →
- Syed Zahoor Haider vs Messrs Allwin Engineering Industries Ltd.1987 PLC 587 · Labour Court · 1987-01-05Read full judgment →
- Syed Zahir Hussain vs The Secretary, Communication and Works1987 MLD 118 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Syed Zahid Hussain Tirmizy vs Muhammad Anwar1987 CLC 1402 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-05Read full judgment →
- Syed Zafar Ali Askari (Z.A. Askari) vs Secretary to Government of Sind, Karachi And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 854 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
- Syed Willayat Shah vs Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Dera Ghazi Khan and another1987 MLD 2536 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-14Read full judgment →
- Syed Wilayat Hussain Shah And 9 Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 37 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
- Syed Wazarat Hussain Zaidi vs Sind Labour, Appellate Tribunal And Another1987 PLC 17 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-03Read full judgment →
- Syed Usman Haider vs Abdul KARIMOpponent1987 CLC 769 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-06Read full judgment →
- Syed Usman Haider vs Abdul Karim Qureshi and others1987 MLD 2415 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-30Read full judgment →
- Syed Turab Shah vs Warad Shah And 19 Other1987 PLD Peshawar 132 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-06-17Read full judgment →
- Syed Tasleem Hussain vs Muhammad Ishaq And 2 Other1987 SCMR 209 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the division of property by Settlement Authorities. The petitioner, a claimant displaced person, contested the Settlement Authorities' decision to divide Property No. P/1529, Rawalpindi, and transfer portions to the respondents, arguing that the authorities lacked jurisdiction to carve out portions to accommodate late claimants and that an associate of a transferee loses rights if the primary transfer is quashed. The Supreme Court examined the contentions and held that the division of property by a notified officer is a matter within the Settlement Authority's discretion and cannot be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction unless the division is shown to be arbitrary or fanciful. Finding that the parties had been in peaceful possession of their respective portions and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any illegality or impropriety in the division, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the High Court correctly declined to interfere in the Settlement Authority's settled decision.
Questions settled- Can the division of property by a notified Settlement Authority be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does an associate of a transferee automatically lose rights to property if the transfer in favor of the primary transferee is set aside?
- Under what circumstances will the High Court interfere with the division of property made by Settlement Authorities?
- Syed Tahir Ali vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 58 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
- Syed Suleman Nadvi Educational Society and another vs Administrator, Karachi Municipal Corporation and 6 others1987 MLD 2945 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-19Read full judgment →
- Syed Siraj Hussain, D.S.P. vs Sher Khan and 7 others1987 MLD 2181 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-10Read full judgment →
- Syed Sher Jan Shah vs Union Council, Sanjavi1987 PLD Quetta 30 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
- Syed Shaukat Hussain Zaidi vs Chief Engineer, Public Health1987 SCMR 311 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Superintending Engineer who had suffered an attack of hemiplegia, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dismissing his appeal regarding the refusal of departmental authorities to expunge adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1983. The core legal question was whether medical fitness certificates issued by Medical Boards rendered the adverse remarks concerning his mental and physical performance invalid. The Supreme Court held that the petition for leave to appeal must be dismissed, reasoning that medical boards are only concerned with fitness to resume duty and cannot comment on job performance, whereas departmental authorities are exclusively competent to assess work quality. The key principle laid down is that medical fitness to resume duties does not invalidate or negate departmental assessments regarding the professional performance and capabilities of a civil servant.
Questions settled- Whether medical fitness certificates issued by Medical Boards are relevant in adjudging the quality of work and performance of a civil servant?
- Are departmental authorities competent to assess the performance of an employee despite a medical board declaring them fit to resume duty?
- Does the recording of adverse remarks regarding mental and physical capacity by a reporting officer warrant interference when based on actual performance?
- Syed Shaukat Hussain Rizvi vs The Islamic Republic of Pakistan1987 SCMR 1911 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil suit challenging the compulsory retirement of a government servant. The petitioner, an Executive Engineer in the Military Engineering Service, was compulsorily retired following a screening committee process initiated under Martial Law regulations in 1958. The core legal question was whether the period of limitation for filing a suit challenging an order of compulsory retirement commences from the date of the Gazette notification announcing the retirement or from the date the employee was physically relieved of their duties. The Supreme Court held that the suit was barred by limitation. The Court reasoned that the Gazette notification constituted the operative order of retirement, thereby establishing the cause of action. Consequently, the limitation period began to run from the date of the notification, not the subsequent date of relinquishment of charge, which was merely a consequential act. The principle laid down is that in service matters involving an order of retirement, the limitation period for challenging such an order accrues from the date of the official notification, rather than the date of actual relief from service.
Questions settled- Does the limitation period for challenging a compulsory retirement order commence from the date of the Gazette notification or the date of actual relief from service?
- Is the act of relinquishing a post following a retirement order a fresh cause of action for the purposes of limitation?
- Syed Sharafat Ali Nadeem vs Federal Service Tribunal And Other1987 SCMR 1774 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave was directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 12-5-1983, which had affirmed the appellant's removal from service following departmental proceedings. The appellant had been served with a charge-sheet without the mandatory statement of allegations and was not provided a copy of the inquiry report or the inquiry officer's recommendations. The core legal question was whether the departmental enquiry was vitiated due to non-compliance with the procedural safeguards prescribed under Rule 6 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside both the Tribunal's judgment and the dismissal order, holding that the mandatory procedural requirements, as interpreted in Mir Mohammad v. Government of N.-W.F.P. (PLD 1981 SC 176), were violated. The Court reaffirmed that failure to supply the statement of allegations, show-cause notice, and inquiry report prejudices the employee and invalidates the removal order, leaving it open to the authorities to restart proceedings from the stage of the procedural defect.
Questions settled- Does the failure to serve a statement of allegations alongside a charge-sheet as required under Rule 6 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 vitiate departmental proceedings?
- Whether the non-supply of an inquiry report and the inquiry officer's recommendations to a public servant prejudices the defense and invalidates an order of removal from service?
- Syed Shamshad Razi vs The State1987 MLD 1003 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
- Syed Shamshad Hussain vs The Controller of Post Offices, Karachi and 2 Other1987 PLD Supreme Court 256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the appellant civil servant's service appeal as time-barred. The appellant was dismissed from service as an Assistant Post Master and initially filed a departmental appeal within time, but to the wrong authority. Pursuant to the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977, the appeal was withheld and the appellant was informed, whereupon he resubmitted it to the proper authority within the permitted one-month period. Having received no decision after ninety days, he appealed to the Service Tribunal, which erroneously computed limitation from the date of the original defective appeal rather than the proper resubmission. The core legal question was how limitation and the ninety-day statutory waiting period are computed when a departmental appeal is initially addressed to an incorrect authority and subsequently resubmitted under rule 7 of the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977. The Supreme Court held that the waiting period under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, runs from the date of resubmission of the appeal to the proper authority under rule 7. The impugned order of the Service Tribunal was set aside and the case remanded for decision on merits.
Questions settled- How is the ninety-day statutory waiting period under section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 computed when a departmental appeal is initially addressed to the wrong authority and resubmitted under rule 7 of the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977?
- Does an appeal addressed to an incompetent departmental authority stand dismissed ipso facto or is it required to be withheld under the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977?
- What is the limitation period for resubmitting a departmental appeal that has been withheld because it was addressed to an authority to which no appeal lies?
- Syed Saadat Ali vs Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere Research1987 CLC 301 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-25Read full judgment →
- Syed Riaz Hussain Shah vs I.-G. of Police, Punjab, Lahore And 6 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 781 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-03-03Read full judgment →
- Syed Rahat Hussain Zaidi vs Settlement Commissioner and others1987 CLC 2495 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-08Read full judgment →
- Syed Obaidullah Quadri vs Messrs Independent Newspapers1987 PLC 252 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-03-05Read full judgment →
- Syed Nasir Ahmad Kazmi vs Syed Muhammad Zulfiqar Ali and Others1987 PLD Karachi 261 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-06Read full judgment →
- Syed Nasir Ahmad Kazmi vs Syed Muhammad Zulfiqar Ali And Other1987 PLD Karachi 261 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-06Read full judgment →
- Syed Mustafa Hassan Jafri vs Muhammad Saeed and another1987 MLD 2811 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-25Read full judgment →
- Syed Murtaza Shah vs Chairman, WAPDA And Another1987 PLC (C. S.) 294 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-01-29Read full judgment →
- Syed Munir Hussain Shah vs Mst. Syeda Mahfooz Begum and others1987 CLC 1241 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-23Read full judgment →
- Syed Muhammad Hassan Shah And Another vs Mst. Noor Jahan And Another1987 SCMR 650 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute over the ownership of a shop, originally auctioned to Mst. Batool Bibi under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The respondents challenged the auction in revision proceedings, but failed to implead the auction purchaser, Mst. Batool Bibi, instead serving her husband. The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner subsequently cancelled the auction sale. The core legal question was whether this order, passed without notice to the affected purchaser, was legally valid. The Supreme Court held that the order was a nullity. The Court affirmed that under Section 20(5) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard is a mandatory statutory requirement reflecting natural justice. Because Mst. Batool Bibi was not impleaded or heard, the order cancelling her purchase was non est in law. Consequently, the auction sale remained valid, and the subsequent transfer of the property to the appellants was upheld, setting aside the High Court's contrary decision.
Questions settled- Does an order passed by a Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner without impleading the affected auction purchaser violate the principles of natural justice?
- Is service of notice on a husband sufficient to satisfy the requirement of providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to his wife, the auction purchaser, under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Does the failure to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard as required by Section 20(5) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 render an administrative order non est in law?
- Syed Muhammad Haseenuddin And 2 Others vs The State and 2 others1987 P Cr. L J 2096 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings pending against the applicants under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 before the City Magistrate, Dadu. The core legal question revolved around whether the dispute was of a civil nature, whether the High Court could directly entertain a quashment petition without the applicant first moving the trial court under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether proceedings could be quashed for co-accused not explicitly joined in the petition. The court held that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A are co-extensive with the trial court's powers under Section 249-A, meaning a party may approach the High Court directly without first moving the trial court. The court further held that the dispute was essentially of a civil nature arising from property transactions, lacked criminal intent at inception, and exhibited mala fides. Consequently, the court quashed the criminal proceedings against both the applicants and the non-joining co-accused whose case was inseparable, establishing that High Court quashment powers are not strictly barred by failure to first invoke Section 249-A.
Questions settled- Whether an application for quashment under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is maintainable directly in the High Court without first approaching the trial court under Section 249-A?
- Can criminal proceedings be quashed when the underlying dispute is essentially of a civil nature and lacks initial criminal intent?
- Whether the High Court can quash proceedings against a co-accused who has not formally joined or been impleaded in the quashment petition?
- Does an inordinate, unexplained delay in filing a direct criminal complaint strongly indicate mala fides justifying quashment?
- Syed Muhammad Anwar Iqbal vs Bangladesh Shipping Corporation1987 CLC 1745 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-09Read full judgment →
- Syed Muhammad Amin Shah vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 324 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1985-03-07Read full judgment →
- Syed Muhammad Alimullah vs Mst. Seema Begum1987 PLD Karachi 526 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-15Read full judgment →
- Syed Mubarak Shah and 5 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Home, Minorities and Religious Affairs and 3 others1987 MLD 267 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Syed Mown vs Rashid Textile Mills Ltd. And 3 Others1987 PLC 852 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arose from the dismissal of a complaint filed under section 60 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by a permanent workman and union office-bearer whose services were terminated due to the closure of a department. The core legal question was whether terminating a workman or a union officer during a pending industrial dispute without prior permission of the Labour Court violates section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, thus constituting an offence under section 60, even when the termination results from redundancy rather than punishment. The Sindh High Court held that the restrictions under section 47 of the Ordinance apply only to discharges, dismissals, or punishments meted out as a measure of disciplinary action, and do not prohibit terminations resulting from genuine operational exigencies such as surplus staff. The court established that simple discharge or retrenchment not amounting to punishment does not attract the prior-permission mandate of section 47, thereby upholding the acquittal of the respondents under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
Questions settled- Whether section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 prohibits the termination of a workman or a union officer during a pending industrial dispute irrespective of whether the termination is punitive or non-punitive?
- Does the leasing out of a mill department to a contractor amount to an alteration of conditions of service under section 47(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Whether an employer is required to obtain prior permission from the Labour Court under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before discharging surplus staff due to business losses?
- Syed Mohammad Imran Jaffari vs Messrs Pakistan Machine Tool1987 PLC 902 · Labour Court · 1987-04-05Read full judgment →
- Syed Mehmood Shah vs The State1987 MLD 1540 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-08Read full judgment →
- Syed Mazhar Hussain vs Muhammad Ahmad Sharif1987 MLD 3295 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-09Read full judgment →
- Syed Mazhar Hussain Shah vs The Deputy Director Food, Multan1987 PLC (C.S.) 17 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed Manzar Abbas vs Glaxo Laboratories(Pakistan) Ltd.1987 PLC 470 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-06-13Read full judgment →
- Syed Manzar Abbas vs Glaxo Laboratories (Pakistan1987 PLC 474 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-09-30Read full judgment →
- Syed Khalid Bashir And Other vs Province of the Punjab And Others.1987 PLC (C.S.) 669 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-03Read full judgment →
- Syed Kazim Ali Shah vs Chaudhry Ejaz Ahmad1987 MLD 2729 · Election Commission of Pakistan · 1987-08-27Read full judgment →
- Syed Izhar Ahmad Gilani and anothers vs Malik Muhammad Akram and another1987 CLC 1223 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-21Read full judgment →
- Syed Irshad Ahmad vs Government of Sind and another1987 PLD Karachi 337 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-27Read full judgment →
- Syed Irfan Ali and Another vs Ali Ahmad1987 PLD Karachi 51 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
- Syed Irfan Ali and Another vs Ali Ahmad Opponent1987 PLD Karachi 51 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
- Syed Intiz Ar Hussain Mehdi vs Returning Officer and others1987 MLD 3058 · Lahore High Court · 1987-12-06Read full judgment →
- Syed Inayat Ali vs Messrs Madina Textile Mills Ltd., Dhaboji1987 PLC 287 · Labour Court · 1986-03-31Read full judgment →
- Syed Ijaz Qutab And 2 Other vs Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 150 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed Hussain vs Messrs Hashmi Can Company Ltd.K.L.R. 1987 Labour and Services Cases 99 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-22Read full judgment →
- Syed Hussain vs Messrs Hashmi Can Company Limited1987 PLC 314 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-09-22Read full judgment →
- Syed Hilal Akhtar Kalim vs Government of Sind through the Home1987 MLD 1519 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-29Read full judgment →
- Syed Hassan Shah vs Malook Shah and anotherOpponents1987 CLC 2281 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application challenges the judgment of the first appellate court, which dismissed the applicant's appeal and affirmed the trial court's decree. The core legal question was whether the first appellate court erred by failing to address all issues of law and fact framed by the trial court, instead focusing solely on one issue (Issue No. 9). The applicant argued that this omission violated the procedural requirements for appellate judgments. The High Court held that under the relevant procedural rules, an appellate court is obligated to state the points for determination and provide a decision on them. By failing to address the multiple issues decided by the trial court, the appellate court's judgment was deficient. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate judgment and remanded the case, directing the first appellate court to rehear the appeal and decide the matter issue-wise. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court must comprehensively address the points for determination, which typically requires deciding the issues originally framed and adjudicated by the trial court.
Questions settled- Does an appellate court satisfy the requirements of Order XLI Rule 31, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if it decides only one issue while ignoring others framed by the trial court?
- Is an appellate court required to decide the issues originally framed by the trial court as points of determination in the appeal?
- What is the consequence of an appellate court failing to discuss all issues of law and fact in its judgment?
- Syed Hashim Raza vs The State- Respondent1987 P Cr. L J 1609 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-22Read full judgment →
- Syed Ghulam Rasool vs Bilquees Siddique1987 CLC 2211 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
- Syed Ghazanfar Abbas vs Latif and 3 Others1987 PLD Lahore 284 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-14Read full judgment →
- Syed Waris Imam vs Kanwar Masood Ali Khan1987 MLD 877 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-22Read full judgment →
- Syed Ghazanfar Abbas vs Latif and 3 Other1987 PLD Lahore 284 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-14Read full judgment →
- Syed Fida Hussain Shah vs Mst. Sharam Khatoon And Another1987 SCMR 1152 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a petition for special leave to appeal challenging concurrent findings of fact regarding the religious persuasion of the deceased, Gaman Shah. The core legal question was whether the deceased was a Sunni Muslim or a Shia Muslim at the time of his death, a determination critical to the inheritance or succession dispute between the parties. The trial Court, after examining the evidence, concluded that the deceased was of Sunni persuasion. This finding was affirmed by the Additional District Judge on appeal. Subsequently, the High Court declined to interfere with these concurrent findings while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no justification to disturb the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition both for non-prosecution, as no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner, and on the merits, upholding the established factual determination regarding the deceased's religious affiliation.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a person's religious persuasion?
- Is a petition for special leave to appeal liable to be dismissed if the petitioner fails to appear?
- Syed Deedar Ali vs The State1987 MLD 1509 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-23Read full judgment →