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.

• Syed Dawood Raza vs The State1987 MLD 1741 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Baha Ud Din And Another vs Kh. Muhammad Sharif And Other1987 SCMR 9 40 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  abatement of appeallegal representativesdissolution of partnershipnecessary partiessecond appealdeath of respondent
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court holding that a second appeal had abated due to the failure to bring on record the legal representatives of a deceased respondent. The core legal question concerned whether the second appeal abated in toto upon the death of a party whose legal representatives were allegedly not impleaded. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the impugned order of the High Court was unsustainable because the respondent in question had died before the filing of the second appeal, rendering her impleadment improper and the doctrine of abatement inapplicable to a dead person. The Court laid down the principle that where a party's death occurs prior to the institution of an appeal, the question of abatement of that appeal does not arise, and the matter must be examined instead on the principles of proper constitution of the appeal and necessary parties rather than post-filing abatement under the Code of Civil Procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal abate when a respondent dies before the filing of that appeal?
  • What is the effect on an appeal when a party passes away prior to its institution rather than during its pendency?
  • Whether the non-substitution of legal representatives of a person who died before the commencement of an appeal attracts the provisions of abatement under the Code of Civil Procedure.
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Azharul Hassan Naqvi vs Hamida Bibi alias Eshrat Jahan and 31987 CLC 1041 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Azeem Shah vs The State1987 PLD Quetta 96 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-02
  murderocular evidencejudicial confessionretracted confessionrecovery of weaponcriminal appealbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, Quetta, under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of Mian Masood Ahmed. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on ocular testimony, a judicial confession, and the recovery of the weapon. The High Court acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The court discarded the ocular evidence, noting that the witnesses were not mentioned in the FIR, their presence at the scene was not established, and their conduct was highly suspicious. Furthermore, the recovery of the alleged murder weapon was deemed unreliable as it relied on chance witnesses rather than independent local residents. The court also rejected the confession, citing an unexplained five-day delay in recording it before a magistrate, which raised significant doubts regarding its voluntariness. The court affirmed the principle that motive alone cannot sustain a conviction when the substantive evidence is weak, inconsistent, and insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in recording a confession before a magistrate render the confession unreliable?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of motive when the ocular evidence and recovery of the weapon are found to be doubtful?
  • Is the testimony of chance witnesses who were not mentioned in the FIR sufficient to prove a criminal charge?
  • Does the absence of blood traces at the alleged scene of occurrence cast doubt on the prosecution's version of events?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ashraf Ali Shah vs The Divisional Superintendentpakistan1987 PLC 629 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Ashraf Ali Shah vs THB Divisional Superintendent PakistanK.L.R. 1987 Labour and Service Cases 239 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Anwar Hussain Shah vs Nazir Ahmad1987 PLD Lahore 555 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Anis Ahmed Shah vs The State1987 MLD 1563 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Amjad Hussain Shah vs Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies), Punjab, Lahore and 4 others1987 CLC 1868 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Amjad Ali Shah vs Muhammad Afzal and 3 Others1987 PLD Lahore 280 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-30Read full judgment →
• Syed Amjad Ali Shah vs Muhammad Afzal and 3 Other1987 PLD Lahore 280 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-30Read full judgment →
• Syed Amir Shah vs Messrs Karim Cotton Mills Ltd., Kotri1987 PLC 533 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Allah Dost vs Haji Muhammad Alam and 12 Others1987 PLD Quetta 235 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-06-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Raza and 4 anothers vs Aurangzeb Khan and 5 others1987 CLC 1829 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-04-18
  evacuee propertyredemption of mortgagejurisdiction of civil courtdisplaced persons land settlementcross-objectionsrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises from a dispute over the redemption of evacuee land originally mortgaged prior to partition and later transferred to the petitioners subject to a mortgage charge. The petitioners sought redemption through various forums, eventually obtaining an order from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (A.C. Hangu) on 18-12-1976. The respondents subsequently filed a civil suit challenging this order, which the trial court dismissed in favor of the petitioners. On appeal, the Additional District Judge set aside the trial court's judgment and decreed in favor of the respondents, holding inter alia that certain issues could not be touched without a cross-appeal. The Peshawar High Court held that the order of the A.C. Hangu had attained finality under Section 22 of the Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act, and that the jurisdiction of civil courts was barred under Section 25 thereof. Furthermore, the High Court held that a respondent may support a trial court decree in their favor on any ground decided against them without filing an appeal or cross-objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted, the appellate decree was set aside, and the trial court's judgment was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred in matters relating to the Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act?
  • Can a respondent support a decree in their favor on grounds decided against them in the trial court without filing an appeal or cross-objections?
  • Does an order passed by a settlement authority regarding land settlement attain finality if left unchallenged?
  • Whether an appellate court can decline to review adverse findings against a successful party solely due to the absence of cross-objections?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Akhtar Ali vs Hoor Bai and others1987 MLD 2999 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Afzal Hussain Shah vs D.I.-G.of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore And 41987 PLC (C.S.) 45 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-05-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Afzaal Hussain Shah And 3 Other vs Secretary to Government of Punjab, Irrigation and Power Department And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 617 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-04-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Abid Saeed Kirmani vs Secretary of Government of the Punjab, Industries Department And Another1987 PLC (C. S.) 901 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-01-05Read full judgment →
• Syed Abid Hussain vs Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan1987 PLC 266 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Syed Abid Hussain Shamsi vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab1987 PLD Lahore 463 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Abid Hussain Shamsi vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab1587 PLD Lahore 463 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Abid Ali and others vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner and others1987 MLD 353 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdus Salam vs Chief Engineer, WAPDA, Quetta1987 PLC (C. S. ) 66 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-08-03Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdullah Shah vs The District Magistrate and others1987 P Cr. L J 2404 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-28Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdullah Shah And Others vs Abdul Ghaffar Khan And Other1987 SCMR 925 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-22
  bias of judgeremand orderframing of issueslimitationboard of revenuepre-emptioncivil procedure special provisions ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court examines the correctness of a High Court judgment declining to interfere with a remand order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, despite acknowledging that the said Member was disqualified from hearing the case due to his previous association as President of a trial tribunal. The core legal questions involved whether a judicial officer who previously recorded a dissenting opinion on a matter can subsequently sit in revision at the apex of the revenue hierarchy, and whether proceedings can be remanded on technical grounds such as non-framing of issues or limitation without proof of prejudice or proper pleading. The Supreme Court held that the Member, Board of Revenue was indeed disqualified from adjudicating the matter and that remanding the case on the unpleaded ground of limitation and non-framing of issues without showing prejudice was unjustified. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Board of Revenue.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a revenue officer who previously acted as a tribunal president and recorded a dissenting opinion is disqualified from hearing the same matter in revision at the apex level?
  • Can an appellate or revisional authority remand a case for non-framing of issues without establishing that actual prejudice was caused to the parties?
  • Is a revisional authority justified in remanding a case on the ground of limitation when the plea of limitation was neither raised in the pleadings nor in the revision petition?
  • What manner of recording evidence is contemplated under Section 8 of the Civil Procedure Code (Special Provisions Ordinance) 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Majid vs Choudhry Manzoor1987 CLC 617 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-06Read full judgment →
• Surraya Bibi and 2 others vs Assistant Commissioner/Additional1987 MLD 503 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-18Read full judgment →
• Superintending Engineer (H.Q.) Irrigation, Lahore Zone And Another vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal And Another1987 PLC 180 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-12
  sub-engineerworkmancivil servanttermination of serviceindustrial relationsstanding ordersstatutory rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition arises from a constitutional challenge to an order passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had reinstated a temporary Sub-Engineer of the Irrigation Department whose services were terminated. The core legal questions involved whether a Sub-Engineer employed by the provincial Irrigation Department qualifies as a workman entitled to invoke labor laws, whether the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 applies when statutory service rules exist, and whether a terminated employee who no longer holds active employment can maintain a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Lahore High Court held that while the respondent was a workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the existence of the statutory West Pakistan Irrigation Department Subordinate Engineering Service Rules, 1968 excluded the application of the Standing Orders Ordinance pursuant to its first proviso to section 1(4). Furthermore, the Court held that a terminated employee does not fall within the definition of worker under section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 unless the termination relates to an industrial dispute. Consequently, the Labour Appellate Tribunal's order was declared without lawful authority and set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Sub-Engineer employed in the provincial Irrigation Department is a civil servant or a workman under the relevant labor and civil service laws?
  • Does the existence of statutory service rules for an establishment exclude the application of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 under the first proviso to section 1(4)?
  • Can a dismissed or discharged employee maintain a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 if the termination is not connected with an industrial dispute?
  • Does an ordinary letter of appointment constitute a 'settlement' within the meaning of section 2(xxiv) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Superintendent of Police, Bahawalpur And Others vs Nazar Hussain1987 SCMR 1435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-28
  service lawpolice disciplinary proceedingsenhancement of punishmentservice tribunalpolice rulesjurisdiction of disciplinary authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which set aside the dismissal of the respondent from police service. The respondent, originally a member of the Bahawalpur State police, faced disciplinary action for negligence while guarding a railway bridge, resulting in a penalty of forfeited service and reduced pay by the Superintendent of Police. Subsequently, the Deputy Inspector General of Police enhanced this punishment to dismissal. The Tribunal held that the respondent remained governed by Bahawalpur State police rules, which lacked provisions for such enhancement, and restored the original penalty. The petitioners contend that the respondent had opted to be governed by the Punjab Police Rules, which empower the Deputy Inspector General to enhance punishments. The core legal question is whether the respondent was subject to the Bahawalpur rules or the Punjab Police Rules, and consequently, whether the enhancement of punishment was within the Deputy Inspector General's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding the contention regarding the applicability of the Punjab Police Rules worthy of examination.

  Questions settled

  • Does a police officer who transfers to a new province upon its creation automatically become subject to the police rules of that new province?
  • Does the Deputy Inspector General of Police have the authority to enhance a punishment imposed by a lower authority under the police rules of the former Bahawalpur State?
  • Can a police officer voluntarily opt to be governed by the police rules of a new province after the integration of states?
  Read full judgment →
• Supercon Limited vs Eastern Construction Limited and 2 others1987 CLC 1566 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-16
  ad interim injunctiontrespasserrestoration of possessionSpecific Relief Actequitable reliefencroachment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order granting an ad interim injunction in a suit filed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 for the restoration of possession of a strip of land. The core legal question was whether a trespasser is entitled to an interlocutory injunction against the rightful owner or allottee of the property. The respondents, having been ejected from the land by the Karachi Development Authority, sought to restrain the appellant from developing the site. The Court held that the respondents, being trespassers without title, failed to establish a prima facie case for equitable relief. The Court clarified that the concept of settled possession requires induction by the owner, which was absent in this case. Consequently, the Court ruled that a trespasser is not entitled to an interlocutory injunction to restrain an owner or allottee from utilizing their property. The Court set aside the injunction, emphasizing that the mere possibility of a suit becoming infructuous does not justify granting such relief to a trespasser.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trespasser entitled to an ad interim injunction against the owner or allottee of a property?
  • Does the mere fact that a suit might become infructuous justify the grant of an ad interim injunction to a trespasser?
  • What is the legal definition of settled possession in the context of ejectment?
  Read full judgment →
• Super Highway Bus Owners Association Ltd. and 2 others vs Government of Sind and 13 others1987 MLD 2759 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sunkist Growers Inc. vs Messrs Karachi Aerosol Co. Ltd. and Another1987 PLD Karachi 119 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sunkist Growers Inc. vs Messrs Karachi Aerosol Co. Ltd. and An07her1987 PLD Karachi 119 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-16Read full judgment →
• Sultan vs The State1987 MLD 978 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
• Sultan Safdar Ali vs Asghar Ali and 5 others1987 MLD 2516 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-16Read full judgment →
• Sultan Muhammad Salah-Ud-Din vs Ghulam Rasool and others1987 MLD 2511 · Election Tribunal · 1987-08-10Read full judgment →
• Sultan Muhammad Khan vs Mst. Jameelan and others1987 CLC 1184 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-04Read full judgment →
• Sultan Mahmood vs The State1987 SCMR 283 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-16
  leave to appealsentence mitigationdeath penaltyfamily honourmotivecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Sultan Mahmood, was convicted for the murder of Muhammad Noor and Muhammad Razzaq and sentenced to death, a conviction and sentence upheld by the High Court. The prosecution alleged the motive for the crime was a long-standing suspicion of illicit relations between the complainant, Muhammad Nawaz, and the petitioner's wife. In his statement at trial, the petitioner admitted to having a heated argument with the deceased, Muhammad Razzaq, regarding this alleged illicit relationship shortly before the occurrence, though he denied committing the murders. The petitioner sought leave to appeal, contending that the motive established by the prosecution and his own admission regarding the dispute over family honour warranted a reduction in sentence. The Supreme Court found that the matter required further consideration regarding the appropriateness of the death penalty in light of the motive presented. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, but strictly limited the scope of the appeal to the question of the sentence imposed on the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Can leave to appeal be granted limited solely to the question of sentence?
  • Does a motive based on family honour provide sufficient grounds for the mitigation of a death sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Mahmood vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1482 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-29Read full judgment →
• Sultan Khan vs The State1987 SCMR 1415 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-01
  criminal breach of trustmisappropriationanti-corruptionreduction of sentencepetition for special leave to appealfood inspector
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for special leave to appeal filed respectively by the convict and the State against a judgment of the Lahore High Court. The petitioner, a Food Inspector, was tried and convicted by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for the misappropriation of wheat and sugar from a government godown. On appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction but drastically reduced the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone and lowered the fine. The petitioner sought complete acquittal, while the State sought enhancement of the sentence. The Supreme Court granted leave in both petitions to consider whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction under the aforementioned provisions and whether the reasons recorded for reducing the sentence were proper and cogent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947?
  • Whether the reasons recorded by the High Court for reducing the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone were proper and cogent?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Khan And 3 Others vs The State And 2 Other1987 SCMR 237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-23
  acquittalretrialdelay in retrialright of private defenceexceeding right of private defencebenefit of doubtcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a double murder case where the appellants were initially acquitted by the trial court giving them the benefit of the doubt. The complainant subsequently filed a criminal revision petition in the High Court, which set aside the acquittal and ordered a de novo retrial. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether directing a retrial after a lapse of a considerable period was proper under the circumstances. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that although the appellants may have had a right of private defence, they arguably exceeded it given the disproportionate number of injuries inflicted. However, observing that over twenty-one years had elapsed since the original occurrence and acquittal, the Court held that ordering a retrial after such an inordinate delay would be a futile exercise. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order of retrial, and restored the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate or revisional court should order a retrial after the lapse of a considerable period following an acquittal?
  • Does the right of private defence extend to the infliction of more harm than is necessary for the purpose of defence?
  • Whether an order of retrial is justified when a long delay renders the availability of witnesses unlikely and the proceeding an exercise in futility?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Javed vs Messrs Gestetner Ltd. Karachi1987 PLC 285 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-07Read full judgment →
• Sultan Aziz vs Murad Ali1987 MLD 3064 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-10Read full judgment →
• Sultan And Others vs The State1987 SCMR 1177 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-10
  ballistic expert reportsection 510 crpcinterested witnessesrecovery of weaponsmitigating circumstancescommutation of death sentencedouble murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and death sentences of Sultan and Khan, along with life imprisonments for Ghulam Hussain and Khanoo, under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the double murder of Amir Hussain Shah and Ghulam Hussain Shah. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value and admissibility of a Fire-arm/Ballistic Expert's report under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without reasons or formal examination, the necessity of independent corroboration for interested witnesses regarding weapon recoveries, and whether prior blood feuds and prolonged delay in the execution of death sentences constitute mitigating circumstances for sentence reduction. The Supreme Court held that under Section 510 Cr.P.C., an expert's report is admissible without calling the expert as a witness unless the court or the accused deems it necessary in the interest of justice. The Court established that while recoveries involving interested witnesses must be scrutinized, the ocular and medical evidence sufficiently established guilt. However, considering the prior murder of the appellants' brother and the prolonged delay in the death cells, the Court dismissed the appeals against conviction but commuted the death sentences of Sultan and Khan to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Fire-arm Expert's report is admissible in evidence under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without examining the expert as a witness?
  • Is the prosecution legally bound to summon a Ballistic or Chemical Expert when the opposing party does not request it under the proviso to Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a prolonged delay in the execution of a death sentence constitute a mitigating circumstance for commuting the death penalty to life imprisonment?
  • Whether the testimony of partisan or interested eye-witnesses requires independent corroboration to sustain a conviction in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ali and another vs Mirza MOAllAM Baig1987 MLD 2583(1) · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-02Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmad vs The State1987 MLD 1036 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmad vs Ghulam Hussain And 2 Other1987 SCMR 1516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-10
  leave to appealrevisional jurisdictionconcurrent findings of factcanal authoritieswater entitlementprivate partition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the High Court, which had reversed the concurrent findings of fact of the lower courts regarding the entitlement to additional water sanctioned by canal authorities. The core legal question is whether the additional water sanctioned on the application of the petitioner was intended exclusively for his land or for both brothers, and whether the High Court could interfere with concurrent findings of fact in revisional jurisdiction based on the assumption of joint landholding. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the existence of a private partition based on the revenue record and the limits of revisional jurisdiction over concurrent findings of fact require detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to the petitioner, noting that the High Court's assumption regarding the joint nature of the land warranted a formal review of the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact of subordinate courts in revisional jurisdiction?
  • Does additional water sanctioned by canal authorities on an individual' accrue to jointly held land or solely to the applicant?
  • Whether a private partition established through revenue records affects the distribution of sanctioned canal water?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmad Awan vs Ghulam Muhammad Awan Advocate And Another1987 PLD Lahore 663 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-25Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmad Awan vs Ghulam Muhammad Awan Advocate and another (Copy)1987 PLD Lahore 663 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-25Read full judgment →
• Sukio vs The State1987 MLD 859 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-15Read full judgment →
• Sui Gas (Northern) And Other vs Muhammad Shafi1987 PLC 469 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-10-07Read full judgment →
• Suhail Malik vs Principal, Nishtar Medical College, Multan and others1987 MLD 2552 · Lahore High Court · 1973-08-03Read full judgment →
• Sufi Muhammad Ramzan, Contractor, Municipal Committee, Mianwali1987 PLD Lahore 262 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-17Read full judgment →
• Sufi alias Sultan Arshad vs Haji Ghulam Muhammad and another1987 CLC 1767 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-23Read full judgment →
• Subhan Khan vs Labour Court No.1 And Others1987 PLC 460(1) · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Subedar (Retd.) Noor Gul And 2 Others vs The State and another1987 P Cr. L J 1671 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
• Subah Sadique Khan vs District Judge, Mr. Lutaf Ali Khan, D.G. Khan And Other1987 SCMR 734 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-21
  pre-emptionZar-i-Panjumwrit jurisdictiondiscretionary reliefconduct of petitionerleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a pre-emption suit. The petitioner, a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit, repeatedly failed to deposit the required one-fifth price (Zar-i-Panjum) of the land in dispute by the court-ordered deadlines. Although the trial court granted extensions, the respondents successfully challenged these orders in a revision petition before the District Judge, leading to the dismissal of the petitioner's suit under the Punjab Pre-emption Act. The High Court subsequently declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction, citing the petitioner's conduct. The Supreme Court addressed whether it should interfere with the High Court's refusal to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. The Court held that since the High Court's decision was based on the exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction, and given the petitioner's conduct, there was no justification for interference. The petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that appellate courts will generally not interfere with the High Court's discretionary refusal to grant relief in writ jurisdiction when based on the conduct of the party.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's refusal to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction based on the conduct of the petitioner?
  • Does the failure to deposit the Zar-i-Panjum within the extended time period justify the dismissal of a pre-emption suit under the Punjab Pre-emption Act?
  Read full judgment →
• State vs Tufail Ahmad Shah1987 MLD 1136 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-30Read full judgment →
• State vs Tariq Mahmood-1987 P Cr. L J 2173 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-03-04Read full judgment →
• State vs Nusrat and 5 others1987 MLD 3325 · Special Court For Speedy Trials · 1987-11-10Read full judgment →
• State vs Munawar Ali1987 MLD 1678 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
• State vs Muhammad Javid1987 MLD 3318 · Special Court For Speedy Trials · 1987-11-04Read full judgment →
• State vs Muhammad Haroon and 5 others1987 MLD 3220 · Special Court · 1987-07-25Read full judgment →
• State vs Mu Hammad Hussain and 5 others1987 CLC 28 · Federal Land Commission · 1986-05-17Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate-General, Sind vs Abdullah Shamim and another1987 MLD 2160 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-14Read full judgment →
• State of Tamil Nadu. vs Kodaikanal Motor Union (Pvt.) Limited.PTCL 1987 FC. 375 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-05-01Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan- vs S.U. Durrani And Another1987 PLD Karachi 588 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-07Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs S.U. Durrani and anothers1987 PLD Karachi 588 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-07Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Muhammad Ilyas and others1987 CLC 1954 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-09Read full judgment →
• Star Trading Company and another vs The Pakistan Insurance1987 CLC 61 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-21
  war risks insurancegoods in transitcompulsory insuranceultra vires instructionsstatutory interpretationbeneficial legislationindemnity contract
  Summary & questions settled

  These three consolidated civil suits were filed against the Pakistan Insurance Corporation and another to recover claims under the War Risks Insurance Ordinance, 1971, following the destruction of goods and factory stocks in air raids by Indian warplanes during the 1971 war. The primary legal questions were whether administrative instructions issued under the War Risks (Goods in Transit) Insurance Scheme could override or narrow statutory coverage under Section 2(h)(ii) of the Ordinance, and whether general insurance principles—requiring the existence of subject-matter and payment of premium prior to loss—applied to a compulsory, special statutory war risk scheme. The High Court held that administrative instructions inconsistent with statutory provisions are ultra vires and invalid. Furthermore, as the War Risks Insurance Ordinance, 1971 is a special beneficial law establishing a compulsory risk fund rather than a standard indemnity contract, general insurance doctrines regarding prior loss do not defeat valid statutory coverage where goods were already insured against fire and premiums were accepted. Consequently, the suits were decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.

  Questions settled

  • Can administrative instructions or rules issued under a statute override or narrow the express provisions of the main statute?
  • Do general principles of insurance law requiring existence of subject-matter prior to policy issuance apply to compulsory statutory war risk schemes?
  • Whether repudiation of a claim under the War Risks Insurance Ordinance 1971 is lawful when administrative instructions conflict with Section 2(h)(ii) of the Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Star Textile-Mills Ltd.,Karachi vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others1987 MLD 1283 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-15Read full judgment →
• Star Textile Mills Ltd. vs K.E.S.C. And Another1987 SCMR 1675 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-08
  electricity supplysecurity depositcash securitytariff ratesdisconnection of electricitystatutory notificationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from consolidated appeals challenging a High Court judgment that dismissed constitutional petitions filed by various textile mills against demands by the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (K.E.S.C.) for enhanced security deposits in cash. The core legal questions concerned whether statutory amendments to the Electricity Act, 1910 by Ordinance No. LXII of 1979 restricted the licensee's power to demand or increase security and disconnect supply, and whether the demand for enhanced cash security was legally justified under the agreements and applicable statutory notifications. The Supreme Court held that the security in dispute was distinct from the initial installation security contemplated under Clause VI of the Schedule to the Electricity Act, 1910, rendering the 1979 amendments to Clause VI inapplicable. Instead, the enhancement was justified and legally mandated under statutory tariff notifications issued pursuant to the Karachi Electricity Control Act, 1952 and the Electricity Act, 1910, which authorized the recovery of security deposits not exceeding the average bill for two and a half months. The Court laid down that security deposits tied to actual consumption and governed by specific tariff notifications operate independently of Clause VI of the Schedule, and that licensees are legally authorized to demand such security in cash to reflect rising consumption and costs.

  Questions settled

  • Does the amendment effected in Clause VI of the Schedule to the Electricity Act, 1910 by Ordinance No. LXII of 1979 restrict a licensee's power to demand additional security for ongoing electricity consumption?
  • Whether a licensee is legally authorized to demand an enhanced security deposit based on the average bill of consumption under applicable statutory notifications?
  • Can a security deposit for electricity consumption be validly demanded in cash?
  • Does Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910 cover the power to disconnect electricity supply for failure to furnish sufficient security?
  Read full judgment →
• Standard Paint House vs Muhammad Amiruddin and another1987 CLC 2333 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-21Read full judgment →
• Standard Insurance Company Ltd. vs Roshan Ali Bhimji1987 MLD 650 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-15Read full judgment →
• Spin Gul and 2 others vs Ikramul Haq and another1987 MLD 2402 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-29
  fatal accidentsdamagesnegligencevicarious liabilityquantum of compensationroad accident
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a civil suit for the recovery of damages under the Fatal Accidents Act filed by the parents and widow of the deceased, who died after being hit by a minibus driven rashly and negligently by the second defendant and owned by the first defendant. The core legal questions involve determining whether the accident resulted from the driver's actionable negligence, whether the owner is vicariously liable as a master, and the appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded to the legal heirs. The court held that the defendants failed to substantiate their plea that the deceased suddenly emerged from behind parked trucks and collided with a slow-moving vehicle; rather, the evidence established that the minibus was driven rashly and negligently under obstructed visibility conditions, rendering the owner vicariously liable. The court laid down principles for assessing the quantum of damages in fatal accident claims involving casual labourers, factoring in the deceased's estimated earning capacity, personal expenses, life expectancy, and the dependency period of the beneficiaries.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the owner of a vehicle is liable to pay damages as a master for the actionable wrong of his driver?
  • How is the quantum of damages determined in a fatal accident suit involving a casual labourer with unproven actual income?
  • Does the mere presence of parked vehicles obstructing visibility impose a higher standard of care and cautious driving on a motorist?
  • What factors are to be considered when assessing the life expectancy and dependency period of beneficiaries in fatal accident claims?
  Read full judgment →
• Spencer & Co. (Pak.) Ltd. vs Abdul Razak1987 MLD 2033 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-30Read full judgment →
• Speciality Traders vs Firdous Textile Mills Ltd.1987 CLC 2109 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-15
  company liquidationofficial liquidatorsale of assetsinadequacy of considerationconfirmation of saleauction salesecured creditors
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a reference made by the Official Liquidator for the consideration and approval of offers received for the sale of movable and immovable assets of a company in liquidation. Secured creditors opposed the offers, arguing they were below market value, while the highest bidder contended that the Court could not reject an offer on the ground of inadequacy of consideration once the bid was submitted, drawing parallels to execution sales under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the High Court is bound to accept the highest offer received through an official liquidator's advertisement and whether such sales are governed by the rules applicable to execution auction sales under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that the invitation of offers by the Official Liquidator was subject to explicit conditions requiring High Court confirmation and did not constitute an auction under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court laid down that it is not bound to accept the highest offer and retains full competence to reject offers and invite fresh bids on grounds of inadequacy of consideration to protect the value of assets in liquidation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the sale of assets of a company in liquidation by an Official Liquidator is governed by the rules applicable to execution sales under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can the High Court refuse to confirm or accept the highest offer received for assets in liquidation on the sole ground of inadequacy of consideration?
  • Does a prospective purchaser acquire a vested right to automatic confirmation of an offer merely by submitting the highest bid in response to an Official Liquidator's sale notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Soomar vs The State1987 MLD 3185 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-24Read full judgment →
• Soofi Dilawar Hussain Chishti vs Muhammad Afzal1987 MLD 3050 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-08Read full judgment →
• Sohail Akhtar vs The State1987 MLD 3182 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-20Read full judgment →
• Sohail Akhtar And 3 Others vs The Land Acquisition Collector And Other1987 SCMR 1534 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-08
  land acquisitionevacuee propertyconstitutional jurisdictioncompensation claimexemption plotsallotment of landspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter involves petitions for special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order dismissing a claim for compensation and exemption plots regarding acquired land. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners, as allottees of evacuee property, were entitled to compensation from the Lahore Development Authority, given the disputed land's history and its potential exclusion from an earlier government acquisition. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the petitioners' contention—that the land was un-allotted evacuee property at the time of the initial acquisition and thus fell under the subsequent acquisition by the Lahore Development Authority—merited a thorough examination. The key principle established is that while constitutional jurisdiction is generally not the appropriate forum for resolving complex factual disputes requiring detailed inquiry, leave to appeal is warranted where the record suggests a potential error in the lower court's assessment of the acquisition status and the resulting entitlement to compensation, necessitating a deeper review of the factual and legal position.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court can dismiss a constitutional petition on the ground that it involves disputed questions of fact when the record suggests a potential error in the acquisition status of land?
  • Does the exclusion of specific land from a government acquisition notification imply that such land remains available for subsequent acquisition by another authority?
  • Are allottees of evacuee property entitled to compensation or exemption plots if their land is acquired by a development authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Soeni And Others vs The State1987 SCMR 793 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-09
  murderocular testimonyinjured witnessconcurrent findingsspecial leave to appealcriminal liabilityrioting
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for special leave to appeal filed by Soeni, Yara, Baqri, and Kharri against their convictions and sentences for murder and rioting. The petitioners were tried and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code, including murder and causing hurt, following an incident where the deceased was killed and four others injured. The High Court dismissed their appeals, upholding the convictions based on ocular testimony. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the guilt of the petitioners, based on the testimony of injured eyewitnesses, were sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the presence of the eyewitnesses was established by the injuries they sustained during the occurrence, and their testimony provided a substantially true account of the event. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, affirming that the lower courts were justified in their findings. The judgment reinforces the principle that the testimony of injured witnesses, whose presence at the scene is corroborated by their own injuries, carries significant evidentiary weight in criminal trials.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of injured eyewitnesses be relied upon to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Is the presence of eyewitnesses at the scene of a crime sufficiently established by the fact that they sustained injuries during the occurrence?
  • Does the existence of prior enmity between parties automatically invalidate the testimony of prosecution witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Smith Kline and French of Pakistan Ltd. vs A. Rashid Pai And Another1987 PLC 400 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-12Read full judgment →
• Sirdara vs Shera and 3 others1987 P C r. L J 968 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-16Read full judgment →
• Sirajud Din vs Noor Muhammad1987 PLD Quetta 165 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
• Siraj Ud Din And Others vs Muhammad Umar Khan And Other1987 SCMR 222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-30
  constitutional petitionjurisdictioncivil suitpossessionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging the judgments and orders of lower revenue and civil authorities regarding a suit for possession of land originally entrusted to caretakers during the rule of the Ruler of Dir. The core legal question concerned the jurisdictional competence of the Deputy Commissioner to decide the suit on the original side, and whether the provisions of Dastoorul Amal Dir were applicable. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court correctly identified patent illegality and irregularity going to the root of the case warranting interference in constitutional jurisdiction, and affirmed the decision directing the matter to be examined by the competent forum having jurisdiction for a decision afresh according to law. The key principle laid down is that matters tainted with patent jurisdictional defects and procedural irregularities by lower authorities warrant interference under constitutional jurisdiction for re-examination by the competent forum.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Deputy Commissioner have the power to decide a case on the original side where regulations empower him only on the appellate side?
  • Whether patent illegality and irregularity in lower court proceedings warrant interference in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Are provisions of Dastoorul Amal Dir relating to limitation applicable to suits instituted before its enforcement?
  Read full judgment →
• Siraj Din vs The State1987 MLD 1153 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-06-14Read full judgment →
• Siraj Din vs The State and 2 others1987 P Cr. L J 1043 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-17Read full judgment →
• Siraj Din vs Muhammad Khan And Another1987 SCMR 1237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-12
  pre-emptionabatement of appeallegal representativescondonation of delayimpleadmentcompetency of appealdeceased respondent
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a pre-emption suit involving a land transaction and a subsequent exchange. The appellant challenged the High Court's judgment, which had upheld the validity of the exchange. However, a preliminary objection was raised that the appeal was incompetent because the primary respondent, Muhammad Khan, had died years before the appeal was filed, and his legal representatives were not impleaded within the limitation period. The appellant sought to condone the delay, arguing he was unaware of the death and had relied on the High Court record. The Supreme Court rejected this, noting the appellant, a collateral residing in the same village, had attended the deceased's funeral and thus possessed actual knowledge of the death. The Court held that the appeal was not properly constituted due to the failure to implead the legal representatives in time. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the delay could not be condoned under the circumstances, thereby rendering the proceedings against the deceased respondent incompetent.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal be maintained if filed against a deceased respondent without impleading legal representatives?
  • Is an appellant's personal knowledge of a respondent's death a bar to condoning the delay in filing an application to implead legal representatives?
  • Does the failure to implead legal representatives of a deceased respondent render an appeal incompetent?
  Read full judgment →
• Sind High Court, Karachi vs Commissioner of Sales Tax.PTCL 1987 CL. 343 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
• Sind Employment Social Security Institution vs Consolidated Sugar1987 PLC 439 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-20Read full judgment →
• Sind Employees' Social Security Institution vs Prestige Fabrics Ltd.1987 PLD Karachi 124 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
• Sind Employees' Social Security Institute vs Messrs Pakistan Steel1987 PLC 623 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-23Read full judgment →
• Sind Employees' Social Security Institute vs Messrs Golden Industries1987 PLC 226 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-01Read full judgment →
• Sind Employees Social Security Institution vs Prestige Fabrics LimitedK.L.R. 1987 Labour and Service Cases 69 · Sindh High Court · 1987-10-23Read full judgment →
• Sind Beverages Ltd. vs Haji Ghulam Muhammad through his Legal Heirs1987 MLD 3279 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-03Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Shah And Others vs Sher Zaman And Other1987 SCMR 1125 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-14
  mortgage redemptionsubsisting mortgagemutationlimitation periodadditional chargenovation of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal concerns the subsistence of a mortgage originally created in 1892 and its subsequent redemption status. The core legal question was whether the mortgage remained a continuous, subsisting obligation despite 1916 mutations that recorded a redemption and the creation of two new, distinct mortgages. The Supreme Court held that the 1916 mutations represented an actual, factual redemption and the formation of new contracts rather than a mere 'notional' or supplementary continuation of the original mortgage. The Court observed that because the parties, shares, and mortgage amounts in the 1916 transactions differed from the original 1892 agreement, the original mortgage was extinguished. Consequently, the High Court erred in applying the principle that additional charges do not terminate an original mortgage. The principle laid down is that while the creation of an additional charge does not per se terminate an original mortgage, the conduct of parties—evidenced by distinct mutations—must be examined to determine if a new, independent contract was intended and executed, thereby breaking the continuity of the prior mortgage.

  Questions settled

  • Does the creation of an additional charge on a mortgage per se terminate the original mortgage?
  • When does a mutation recording redemption and new mortgage terms constitute a break in the continuity of an original mortgage?
  • Can a mutation be treated as a 'notional' redemption if the parties, shares, and mortgage amounts differ from the original transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Khan vs Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore1987 CLC 1624 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-22Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Hayat vs Zafar Ali And 2 Other1987 SCMR 724 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-01
  leave to appealmurderlife imprisonmentenhancement of sentenceocular testimonyweapon recoverymedical evidencecriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed an appeal against conviction and life imprisonment for murder, while also refusing an enhancement of sentence to death. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the ocular testimony of related witnesses was reliable, and whether corroborative evidence regarding motive and weapon recoveries was sufficient. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the guilt of the accused, the reliability of the eyewitnesses, and the weapon recoveries were well-founded given the broad-day occurrence and medical evidence corroborating the use of firearms. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal to both parties, dismissing the petitions while allowing the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that related eyewitness testimony, when consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and recoveries in a daylight occurrence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related eyewitnesses can be relied upon to sustain a murder conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Can leave to appeal be granted against the refusal of the High Court to enhance a sentence of life imprisonment to death?
  • Whether discrepancies in weapon recoveries and the non-production of certain witnesses vitiate a conviction based on concurrent findings of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Hayat Khan vs Messrs National Motors Ltd.1987 PLC 210 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-02-09Read full judgment →