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.
- Sikandar Hayat Cheema vs Inspector-General of Prisons, Punjab, Lahore And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 660 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-10-16Read full judgment →
- Sikandar Hayat and 3 others vs The State1987 MLD 1928 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-03Read full judgment →
- Sikandar Ali Soomro vs Messrs National Construction Ltd.1987 PLC 897 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
- Suleman And Another vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 572 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-19Read full judgment →
- Sik a ND a R Din vs Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi1987 CLC 2428 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-16Read full judgment →
- Siddique Gohar vs Fazal Rehman1987 PLD Peshawar 24 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-12-03Read full judgment →
- Shujauddin and others vs Amir and others1987 MLD 998 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-02Read full judgment →
- Shujaat Ali vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 601 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-02Read full judgment →
- Shri Mahant Manobhagir vs Evacuee Trust Property Board, Karachi1987 MLD 300 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
- Shoukat Ali and others vs Syed Israr Ahmed1987 CLC 574 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
- Sheru And 3 Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 318 · Lahore High Court · 1987-12-10Read full judgment →
- Shermuhammad vs Messrs H.Anwar H.Soomar Transport, Karachi1987 PLC 841 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad vs The StateK L.R. 1987 Shariat Cases 25 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-16Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1022 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-16Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad vs Muhammad IqbalK. L. R. 1987 Shariat Cases 11 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-23Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad vs Haji Sohbat Khan1987 MLD 543 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-28Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad Represented By His Legal Heirs And Others vs Samundarkhan Represented By His Legal Heirs And Other1987 SCMR 108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed the petitioners' second appeal against a pre-emption decree passed in favour of the respondents. The petitioners raised two primary contentions: first, that the impugned judgment violates the principle laid down in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1986 SC 360); and second, that the Punjab Pre-emption Act, insofar as it grants a right of pre-emption to collaterals, violates Article 23 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court held that the proceedings had already become past and closed prior to the target date of 31st July 1986 fixed in the Malik Said Kamal Shah case, rendering that judgment inapplicable. Furthermore, the Court held that the challenge under Article 23 was unfounded, as the constitutional right to property is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest, and the petitioners failed to establish that the pre-emption rights conferred on collaterals were unreasonable or against public interest during the relevant period. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can the benefit of the judgment in Malik Said Kamal Shah regarding pre-emption laws be extended to proceedings that became past and closed before the target date fixed by the Court?
- Does the provision in the Punjab Pre-emption Act conferring a right of pre-emption on a collateral violate Article 23 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Are the restrictions imposed on property rights by the Punjab law of pre-emption considered reasonable and in the public interest?
- Sher Muhammad Etc vs Malik Lal KhanK.L.R. 1987 Revenue Cases 48 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1985-11-27Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad And Another vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1023 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad And 2 Others vs The State -1987 PCr.LJ 1169 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-01Read full judgment →
- Sher Mu H a Mma D vs Inam Elahi1987 CLC 813 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
- Sher Khan vs Janib And 3 Other1987 SCMR 912 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Sind High Court whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charge of murder. The core legal question revolves around whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction and death sentence based on doubts in the ocular testimony, disbelieved motive, and unverified recoveries. The Supreme Court held that the finding of the High Court needs no interference as the presence of the eye-witnesses at the spot was highly doubtful, the testimony regarding the fourth assailant suffered from material contradictions, and the motive and weapon recoveries were rightly disbelieved by the lower appellate court. The key principle laid down is that where the ocular account, motive, and recoveries are found to be untrustworthy and plagued with reasonable doubts, the appellate court's judgment of acquittal will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court judgment of acquittal when the ocular version is fraught with doubts?
- Does the unreliability of eye-witnesses and disbelieved motive warrant the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal in a murder case?
- Can a conviction be sustained under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the presence of the alleged eye-witnesses at the crime scene is rendered doubtful?
- Sher Din vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 904 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-01Read full judgment →
- Sher Baz vs The State1987 MLD 1646 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-19Read full judgment →
- Sher Aslam And Other vs Ahmed Khan And Other1987 PLD Quetta 235 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-06-17Read full judgment →
- Sher Ali Baz vs The Secretary, Establishment Division, Rawalpindi And Other1987 SCMR 957 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from civil petitions seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of service appeals by the Service Tribunal regarding the fixation of inter se seniority of Army officers (Brigadiers) inducted into the civil service within the Secretariat Group as Joint Secretaries. The core legal question is whether military service rendered prior to civil induction can be counted for determining seniority in the civil Secretariat Group under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and applicable rules, or whether seniority must be reckoned strictly from the date of continuous regular officiation or induction into the civil service. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that army service has no direct relevance for counting seniority in the civil Secretariat Group in the absence of specific rules, and that general principles of seniority dictate that a person inducted into a service counts seniority from the date of such induction. The key principle laid down is that prior military service cannot automatically be tacked on for civil seniority unless expressly provided by statutory rules governing civil servants.
Questions settled- Whether military service rendered by an Army officer prior to induction into civil service can be counted for determining seniority in the civil Secretariat Group?
- How is the seniority of a Joint Secretary determined under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and applicable rules?
- Does an order of equivalence between military ranks and civil National Pay Scales confer a right to count prior military service for civil seniority?
- Sher Afzal vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 752 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-14Read full judgment →
- Sher Afzal And 2 Others vs Hayat Gul1987 SCMR 1293 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute over the ownership and possession of a shop in Tehsil Haripur. The appellants filed a suit for possession based on title, alleging the respondent was their tenant. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the appellants. However, on appeal, the District Judge reversed this, finding the appellants failed to prove ownership. A second appeal to the High Court was filed by the respondent and a co-defendant (the Nawab), but the appeal abated against the Nawab upon his death. The High Court ultimately dismissed the appellants' revision petition, affirming the findings of fact regarding the lack of ownership. The core legal question was whether the abatement of the appeal against the Nawab precluded the adjudication of the merits of the appellants' claim against the respondent. The Supreme Court held that since the appellants failed to establish their title, they could not succeed in their claim for possession, regardless of the abatement. The Court affirmed that findings of fact regarding ownership, when properly reached, are not subject to interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does the abatement of an appeal against one party in a suit for possession preclude the court from deciding the merits of the claim against another party?
- Can a plaintiff succeed in a suit for possession based on title without establishing their own ownership of the disputed property?
- Is a finding of fact regarding ownership subject to interference by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction?
- Sher Afghan vs Muhammad Shafiq And 2 Other1987 SCMR 508 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the courts below. The core legal question involved the appreciation of ocular evidence and whether the testimony of interested eye-witnesses regarding a murder charge required independent corroboration which was lacking. The Supreme Court held that the trial court and the High Court had made a fair appraisal of the evidence based on adequate reasons, finding the testimonies of the eye-witnesses to be unreliable and uncorroborated, particularly given the circumstances of the case and the medical and ballistic reports. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the acquittal. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding the appreciation of unreliable ocular testimony in a criminal trial will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court unless shown to be perverse or based on misreading of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether ocular testimony of related witnesses requires corroboration when found to be unreliable?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal based on appreciation of evidence?
- What is the evidentiary value of eye-witness testimony when ballistics and circumstances contradict the prosecution story?
- Sher Abbas Khan and 2 others vs The State1987 MLD 1164 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-04-20Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Rasheed Ahmad vs United Bank Limited And 3 Other1987 PLD Peshawar 144 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the suspension and subsequent dismissal of a bank manager by the United Bank Limited. The core legal question was whether the service rules governing the bank's employees were statutory in nature, thereby enabling the invocation of the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction to challenge dismissal orders, or whether the relationship remained governed by the principle of master and servant. The Court held that the service rules, framed by the Executive Board under the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Bank, were not statutory rules because the power to frame such rules under the Banks (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, vested in the Federal Government, not the Executive Board. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the relationship between the bank and its employee was governed by the rule of master and servant, rendering the constitutional petition non-maintainable for seeking reinstatement and back benefits. The principle laid down is that service rules framed by a bank's internal board, absent statutory backing from the Federal Government, do not attain statutory status, thus precluding writ jurisdiction for service-related grievances.
Questions settled- Are service rules framed by the Executive Board of a nationalized bank considered statutory rules?
- Does the High Court have constitutional jurisdiction to order reinstatement of a bank employee dismissed in violation of non-statutory service rules?
- Does the rule of master and servant apply to employees of nationalized banks where service rules lack statutory status?
- Sheikh Muhammad Yousaf vs District Judge, Ralwalpindi And 2 Other1987 SCMR 307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant on the ground of bona fide personal requirement of a rented shop for himself and his son under the relevant rent restriction laws. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment, which was initially reversed by the District Judge, leading to multiple rounds of litigation involving successive writ petitions and remands before the Lahore High Court and the appellate authority, culminating in the dismissal of the tenant's final writ petition. The core legal questions pertained to whether the landlord established sufficient proof of bona fide personal need, whether the receipt of Pugree or a change in the nature of business barred eviction, and whether concurrent findings of fact on personal requirement could be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that findings on bona fide personal need are questions of fact properly resolved by the lower forums and cannot be reviewed under constitutional jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that a landlord's change in financial position or business prospects with the assistance of a son constitutes a valid basis for a bona fide personal requirement, and questions of fact concurrently determined by lower tribunals are immune from interference in writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the question of bona fide personal requirement of a rented premises is a question of fact that cannot be reviewed in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does the receipt of Pugree at the time of letting out premises debar a landlord from subsequently seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide personal need?
- Whether a change in the nature of business intended to be carried on by the landlord and his son affects the validity of a bona fide personal requirement?
- Does a landlord who previously vacated a shop without sufficient cause get barred from seeking ejectment under section 13(3)(a)(ii)(c) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 if no explanation was elicited during cross-examination?
- Sheikh Muhammad Amin vs Chief Settlement Commissioner Pakistan1987 SCMR 56 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a non-claimant displaced person, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition and letters patent appeal by the High Court, which had upheld the cancellation of the transfer of a bungalow forming part of an improperly combined property unit. The core legal question was whether the High Court was bound to interfere in its writ jurisdiction against an allegedly illegal order of a Settlement Authority when such interference would result in perpetuating an unauthorized transfer and aiding an injustice. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly exercised its discretion in refusing to interfere with the settlement authority's order, even if it suffered from legal flaws, because granting relief would restore property in excess of what was lawfully applied for and perpetuate an illegality. The key principle laid down is that the High Court, in the exercise of its discretionary constitutional writ jurisdiction, will decline to interfere with an impugned order—regardless of its strict legality—if doing so would result in the perpetuation of an injustice or an illegal benefit.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is bound to interfere in its writ jurisdiction against an order of a Settlement Authority that is allegedly without legal authority?
- Can the High Court refuse discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction if granting such relief would perpetuate an illegality?
- Whether a non-claimant displaced person is entitled to the transfer of property in excess of what was originally applied for?
- Sheikh Mahmood Ahmad vs Dr. Ghaith Pharaon and 3 others1987 CLC 2131 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII, Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking a partial judgment and decree for Rs. 1,66,207 based on an alleged admission of liability by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in their separate application submitting a cross-cheque for that amount. The core legal question is whether an admission made outside the formal written statement, coupled with a condition of full and final settlement, can form the basis of a judgment on admission under Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Sindh High Court held that the admissions need not be restricted to pleadings alone, as the phrase 'or otherwise' in Rule 6 permits admissions made at any stage and in other documents, and that conditional or partial settlement offers do not negate clear acknowledgments of liability. The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to a partial judgment to the extent of the admitted amount without prejudice to pursuing the balance claim.
Questions settled- Can a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be passed on an admission made outside the pleadings?
- Whether an admission accompanied by a condition of full settlement can serve as a valid basis for a partial decree?
- Is a plaintiff entitled to obtain judgment on an admitted sum and still pursue the remaining balance of the claim?
- Sheikh Haneefur Rehman vs Muhammad Jalaluddin1987 MLD 1332 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-01Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Abdul Qadir vs J.D. Qureshi and another1987 MLD 3257 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-30Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Abdul Majid vs Tayab Ali1987 MLD 684 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-29Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Masih vs The State- Respondent1987 P Cr. L J 1661 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-11Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Manzur and Another vs The State1987 PLD Lahore 200 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-28Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Mahmood vs The State1987 MLD 1690(1) · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-01Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Hayat vs Government of Sind and another1987 MLD 2783 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-03Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs The State1987 MLD 1086 · Board of Revenue · 1985-07-09Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1455 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-12Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs Manzoor Hussain1987 CLC 560 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs Divisional Superintendent Railways1987 PLC 505 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-11-24Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali and anothers vs Sultan Ahmad1987 CLC 124 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
- Sharifan Bibi vs Muhammad Ilyas And Others1987P Cr. L J 2497 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-11Read full judgment →
- Sharif Khan vs Messrs Alkaram Textile Mills (Pvt) Ltd. And Others1987 PLC 572 · Labour Court · 1987-02-11Read full judgment →
- Sharif Ahmad Khan vs Secretary, Ministry of Defence1987 PLC (C.S.) 73 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-07-03Read full judgment →
- Sharafat Hussain vs Aminuddin1987 MLD 2043 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-07Read full judgment →
- Sharafat Ali vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 180 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-18Read full judgment →
- Sharaf Khan vs The State1987 SCMR 123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Sharaf Khan against the dismissal of his appeal and the confirmation of his death sentence for murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question raised was whether the trial court's alleged failure to inform the military authorities about the trial of a member of the Defence Forces vitiated the entire trial. The Supreme Court held that this hyper-technical plea, never raised before the trial court or the High Court, could not be permitted for the first time at the leave to appeal stage, especially when there was no record showing the military authorities were unaware of the detention. The petition was consequently dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Whether a hyper-technical plea not raised before the trial court or the High Court can be permitted for the first time at the leave to appeal stage?
- Does the omission to inform military authorities about the trial of a member of the Defence Forces automatically vitiate the trial?
- Sharaf Din and 5 others vs Mst. Sarwar and 3 others1987 CLC 1672 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
- Shanisher Ali Khan vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal And 2 Others1987 PLC 23 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-07Read full judgment →
- Shan Muhammad And 3 Others vs Imtiaz Ahmad1987 SCMR 194 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent challenging a sale of agricultural land by his father to the petitioners. The petitioners resisted the suit claiming superior pre-emptive rights as existing tenants of the disputed land. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the Additional District Judge reversed this finding, decreeing the suit in favor of the respondent son. On second appeal, the High Court affirmed the decree, reasoning that one co-vendee (Shan Muhammad) was not listed as a tenant in the revenue record, and because the sale was indivisible, all petitioners lost the defense of tenancy. The Supreme Court examined whether the lower appellate courts ignored material evidence regarding tenancy status, noting that the Khasra Girdawari entry referenced 'Muhammad Abbas... etc.' and uncontradicted oral evidence supported all petitioners' tenancy. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the exclusion of material evidence regarding tenancy status required proper consideration on appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the inclusion of the term 'etc.' in a Khasra Girdawari entry combined with uncontradicted oral evidence is sufficient to establish tenancy status of co-vendees?
- Whether the High Court erred in ignoring material evidence regarding tenancy status when upholding a decree in a pre-emption suit?
- Shamsul Haq and another vs The State1987 MLD 1552 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-11Read full judgment →
- Shamsuddin vs The State1987 MLD 1480 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-22Read full judgment →
- Shamsuddin vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1234 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
- Shamsuddin Hussain Ajami vs Kaikhusro Merwan Mondi1987 PLD Karachi 23 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-04Read full judgment →
- Shamshad vs The State1987 MLD 1778 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
- Shams Din vs Aman Ullah and 3 Others1987 PLD Lahore 471 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-15Read full judgment →
- Shams Din vs Aman Ullah And 3 Other1987 PLD Lahore 471 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-15Read full judgment →
- Shamoon vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 592 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-26Read full judgment →
- Shamoon vs The State and 6 others1987 P Cr. L J 289(1) · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
- Shamim Akhtar another s vs Municipal Committee, Jaranwala and another1987 CLC 299 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-25Read full judgment →
- Shama And Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 693 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-03Read full judgment →
- Shakeel Ahmad vs The State1987 PLD Lahore 162 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-02Read full judgment →
- Shakarganj Sugar Mills Ltd., Jhang vs Cane Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and another1987 CLC 1647 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-29Read full judgment →
- Shakar vs The State1987 MLD 2049 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-22Read full judgment →
- Shakar Khan And Others vs Member, Board of Revenue, Baluchistan, Quetta And Other1987 SCMR 1797 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment suit filed against the petitioners under the Baluchistan Tenancy Ordinance 1978. An ex parte decree was passed against the petitioners, and their first appeal was subsequently dismissed as time-barred. The petitioners filed a second appeal before the Commissioner, who accepted it and remanded the case. However, the Member, Board of Revenue, reversed this decision on the ground that a second appeal was barred under Section 67(c) proviso (ii) of the Ordinance. The High Court dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition, holding that the Commissioner lacked the power to pass final orders under Section 71 of the Ordinance and could only refer the matter to the Board of Revenue. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed a conflict between subsections (3) and (4) of Section 71, noting that the plain language of subsection (4) appears to empower both the Board of Revenue and the Commissioner to pass final orders. The Court granted leave to appeal to authoritatively interpret Section 71 and to determine whether an incompetent appeal could be treated as a valid exercise of revisional power.
Questions settled- Whether there is an irreconcilable conflict between subsections (3) and (4) of Section 71 of the Baluchistan Tenancy Ordinance 1978 regarding the Commissioner's power to pass final orders?
- Does the Commissioner possess the jurisdiction to pass a final order when exercising revisional powers under Section 71 of the Baluchistan Tenancy Ordinance 1978?
- Can an order passed by an appellate authority in an incompetent appeal be sustained by referencing the authority's independent revisional powers under the relevant statute?
- Shakal and 3 others vs The State1987 MLD 1577 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-16Read full judgment →
- Shajar Ali Hoti vs Esmail Sob Ani1987 CLC 2307 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale concerns a dispute over a property transaction. The plaintiff alleged that a receipt dated 22-5-1978, acknowledging a payment of Rs. 25,000 as earnest money, constituted a binding agreement for the sale of a plot for Rs. 4,00,000. The defendant contended that no concluded agreement existed, arguing the payment was merely a deposit for future negotiations and that the parties had not reached consensus on the sale price, which he claimed was Rs. 8,00,000. The core legal question was whether the receipt, which omitted the sale consideration and other essential terms, created a binding contract. The Court held that the suit must be dismissed, finding that the parties were not ad idem regarding essential terms, particularly the sale consideration. The Court established that for a document to constitute a binding agreement of sale, it must contain all material terms, including the sale price. As the document in question lacked this essential term and the parties disputed the price, no enforceable contract was formed.
Questions settled- Does a receipt for earnest money constitute a binding agreement of sale if it omits the sale consideration?
- Is a document that contemplates the execution of a future agreement enforceable as a contract if it lacks essential terms?
- Can a court grant specific performance when the parties are not in agreement regarding the sale price?
- Shaikh Muslehuddin vs Inspector-General of Police, Sind And 3 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 593 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1986-12-31Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Mushtaq Ali, Advocate vs Shafqat Ali Khan and another1987 CLC 753 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-28Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Haneef-Ur-Rehman vs Muhammad Jalaluddin1987 MLD 3059 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-01Read full judgment →
- Shahzada Mian and 2 others vs The State1987 MLD 934 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-19Read full judgment →
- Shahru vs The State1987 MLD 1785(1) · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-18Read full judgment →
- Shahnaz Bibi vs Muhammad Zaheer Kamal1987 CLC 1389 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
- Shahnawaz vs Pakistan Steel Through1987 PLC 200 · Labour Court · 1986-07-30Read full judgment →
- Shahid Saleem vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education1987 MLD 3053 · Lahore High Court · 1987-11-21Read full judgment →
- Shahid Nawab vs The State1987 PLD Lahore 423 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-22Read full judgment →
- Shahid Nawab and others vs The State1987 PLD Lahore 429 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-23Read full judgment →
- Shahid Nawab And Other vs The State1987 PLD Lahore 429 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-23Read full judgment →
- Shahid Moid vs Mst.Kehkashan Mumtaz Warsi and another1987 MLD 492 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-12Read full judgment →
- Shahid Majeed and Another vs The State1987 PLD Lahore 107 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-23Read full judgment →
- Shahid Hussain vs Senior Superintendent of Police, District East, Karachi and other1987 MLD 1155 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-03Read full judgment →
- Shahid Aslam vs Messrs Allwin Engineering Industries Ltd.1987 PLC 924 · Labour Court · 1987-03-17Read full judgment →
- Shahid Ahmed Khan vs Inspector-General of Police, Sind And 2 Others1987 PLC (C. S.) 794 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-06-04Read full judgment →
- Shahbaz Khan vs The State And Other1987 SCMR 848 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's revision petition upholding the trial court's order. The core legal question was whether a prosecution witness, even if injured, can independently move the trial court to tender certain evidence that the Public Prosecutor has refused or declined to lead. The Supreme Court held that under Section 265-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the prosecution is conducted by the Public Prosecutor, and the decision regarding what evidence to adduce rests solely with him. A witness has no locus standi to bypass the Public Prosecutor by filing an application to introduce evidence not supported by the prosecution. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that individual witnesses cannot usurp the role of the Public Prosecutor in conducting criminal trials.
Questions settled- Whether a prosecution witness can apply to the trial court to tender evidence that the Public Prosecutor has not chosen to adduce?
- Does an injured witness have the legal status to bypass the Public Prosecutor in the conduct of a criminal trial?
- Is the decision regarding what evidence the prosecution should lead at trial exclusively within the domain of the Public Prosecutor?
- Shahbaz Khan vs Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad and another1987 CLC 929 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-23Read full judgment →
- Shahana (Deceased) Through Mst. Rashidan Bibi And 2 Others vs Khushi Muhammad And 2 Other1987 SCMR 1295 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had restored a trial court decree in favour of the plaintiff for possession of land. The core legal question concerned whether the defendants had established ownership of the suit land through adverse possession based on revenue entries. The Supreme Court held that mere entries in the revenue record are not sufficient in law to prove adverse possession, and upheld the High Court's decision setting aside the first appellate court's judgment. The key principle laid down is that unsubstantiated revenue entries do not suffice to establish a claim of adverse possession against the rightful owner.
Questions settled- Are mere entries in the revenue record sufficient to prove adverse possession?
- Whether the High Court can restore a trial court judgment when the first appellate court's findings are contrary to law?
- Shahadat Ali vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 566 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-23Read full judgment →
- Shah Zareen Khan vs Farooq Mazhar1987 MLD 121 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-12Read full judgment →
- Shah Zaman And Others vs Muhammad Azam And Other1987 SCMR 1046 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves civil appeals arising from a judgment of the High Court which permitted the withdrawal of writ petitions involving disputed questions of fact, granting the respondents the right to file civil suits. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether civil courts lack jurisdiction to entertain suits concerning the permanent entitlement of land transferred by settlement authorities, and whether the High Court's observations would bar raising the question of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court observed that the respondents chose not to appear and were proceeded against ex parte. The Court allowed the appeals by confirming that the appellants are fully at liberty to raise all legal pleas in their defence in the pending civil suits, specifically including the plea regarding the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suits. The principle laid down is that the withdrawal of a constitutional petition with permission to file a civil suit does not preclude the defendant from raising jurisdictional objections in the subsequent civil proceedings, and such courts must decide the question of jurisdiction in accordance with law unhindered by prior observations.
Questions settled- Whether civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain suits relating to the permanent entitlement of land transferred by settlement authorities?
- Does the withdrawal of a constitutional petition with permission to file a civil suit bar the defendant from raising the plea of jurisdiction in the subsequent civil suit?
- How should a civil court proceed when a plea regarding its jurisdiction is raised in a suit originating from a withdrawn constitutional petition?
- Shah Sawar and others vs The State1987 MLD 2638 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-25Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad vs Haji Abdul Haq And Other1987 SCMR 1757(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal which was filed with a delay of 176 days. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient grounds exist to condone the extensive delay in filing the petition. The court held that no valid ground for the condonation of the delay was made out, and consequently dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that in the absence of a valid and sufficient explanation for delay, a time-barred petition is liable to be dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a time-barred petition can be entertained without a valid ground for condonation of delay?
- What constitutes a sufficient ground for condoning a delay of 176 days in filing a petition?
- Shah Muhammad vs Federation of Pakistan and 2 Others1987 PLD Karachi 508 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-21Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad vs Federation of Pakistan And 2 Other1987 PLD Karachi 508 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-21Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad And Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1134 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-08Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad and others vs Muhammad Bibi and others1987 CLC 1035 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →