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. 232594 judgments in total.
- S.M. NAEEM vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE And Other1987 SCMR 1318 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the dismissal of a writ petition concerning the auction of a residential flat transferred to a claimant displaced person. The appellant had been granted a Permanent Transfer Order (P.T.O.) but faced resumption of the property due to alleged non-payment. Subsequently, the Chief Settlement Commissioner issued an order granting the appellant ninety days to pay the outstanding balance, contingent upon the finalization of his pending claim case. Despite this, the property was auctioned. The core legal question was whether the auction was valid given the pending claim case and the prior order granting time for payment. The Supreme Court held that the auction was void ab initio because the claim case had not been finalized, meaning the property was not legally available for disposal. The Court emphasized that administrative authorities must adhere to their own orders; since the condition precedent for auction—the finalization of the claim—had not occurred, the subsequent auction lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders of the Settlement Commissioner and the High Court, restoring the appellant's rights.
Questions settled- Can a property be auctioned by settlement authorities if the condition precedent for such auction, specifically the finalization of a claim case, has not been met?
- Is an auction of property void ab initio if it is conducted in violation of a prior administrative order granting the transferee time to pay the transfer price?
- Does the failure of settlement authorities to communicate or implement an order granting time for payment render a subsequent auction of the subject property legally invalid?
- S.M. HUSNAIN And Another vs NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, KARACHI1987 PLC 78 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-11-03Read full judgment →
- S.E. MANOHA vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 459 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-28Read full judgment →
- S. WARIS ALI vs Sh. GHULAM MUSTAFA and others1987 P Cr. L J 1840 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-02Read full judgment →
- S. SARWAT HAIDER And Another vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE,And Other1987 SCMR 899 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute regarding the seniority of Appraisers in the Customs House, Karachi. The Federal Service Tribunal had accepted the appeals of respondents 3 and 4, granting them seniority, without impleading the appellants whose seniority was adversely affected. The appellants successfully applied to the Tribunal to recall this order, but the Tribunal subsequently reversed itself, holding that it possessed no statutory power of review. The Supreme Court considered whether the Tribunal could recall its own order in the absence of an express review power. The Court held that neither the Service Tribunals Act nor the rules made thereunder invest the Service Tribunal with the power to review its own orders under any circumstance. Consequently, the Tribunal's review order was without jurisdiction. However, the Court declared that because the appellants were necessary parties and were not impleaded, they were not bound by the original order and remained free to challenge their seniority before the departmental authority.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Service Tribunal possess the statutory power to review or recall its own orders?
- What is the legal effect of an order passed by the Service Tribunal on the seniority of civil servants who were necessary parties but were not impleaded in the proceedings?
- Can a civil servant whose seniority is adversely affected by an order passed in their absence challenge that seniority before the departmental authority?
- S. MUHAMMAD DIN & SONS vs Sh. NABI BAKHSH & SONS (Regd.) and others1987 CLC 759 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-14Read full judgment →
- S. MOHSIN IMAM vs KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION1987 PLC (C.S.) 427 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-24Read full judgment →
- S. MAHMOOD ALAM SHAH vs THE STATEPLD 1987. Supreme Court 250 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, a public servant, for forgery under sections 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding the alleged alteration of a cheque amount. The core legal questions concern the sufficiency of evidence to prove forgery and whether the Special Judge possessed jurisdiction to try the appellant for acts committed in a private capacity. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the forgery, noting that the physical evidence of the cheque showed no signs of alteration, and the handwriting expert's testimony was unreliable. Furthermore, the Court established that the Special Judge’s jurisdiction under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 is exclusive only when the offence is committed by a public servant 'as such.' Because the appellant acted in his private capacity as an agent for his wife, the act lacked the necessary nexus to his official duties. Consequently, the trial was vitiated by lack of jurisdiction, and the appellant was acquitted on both merits and legal grounds.
Questions settled- Does the jurisdiction of a Special Judge under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 extend to offences committed by a public servant in their private capacity?
- Is a court bound to accept the opinion of a handwriting expert in criminal proceedings?
- What constitutes an act done by a public servant 'as such' for the purpose of establishing the jurisdiction of a Special Judge?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the essential elements of forgery on the face of the disputed document?
- S. IRSHAD HUSSAIN And Another vs AZIZULLAH KHAN And Another1987 SCMR 150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the interpretation of Section 24-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the requirement to notify ex parte defendants of the transfer of a civil suit. The plaintiffs-appellants challenged a High Court judgment that set aside an ex parte decree on the grounds that the transferee court failed to issue fresh notices to defendants who had previously been proceeded against ex parte. The core legal question was whether Section 24-A(2) imposes an obligation on the court to issue fresh notices to ex parte defendants upon the transfer of a case, or if the burden lies on the parties to appear before the court where the case was originally pending. The Supreme Court held that Section 24-A was enacted to streamline proceedings and place the obligation on parties to ascertain the status of their case upon transfer. The Court ruled that an ex parte defendant is not entitled to fresh notice of transfer, as the law requires parties to attend the original court to be informed of the transfer. Consequently, the High Court's decision was set aside, and the trial court's dismissal of the application to set aside the ex parte decree was restored.
Questions settled- Does Section 24-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 require a court to issue fresh notices to ex parte defendants upon the transfer of a suit?
- Is an ex parte defendant entitled to be informed of the transfer of a case to a new court?
- Does the failure of a court to notify an ex parte defendant of a case transfer render subsequent proceedings invalid?
- S. HIFAZAT HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 363 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
- S. GHAYOOR HASSAN vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND And 21987 PLC (C.S.) 178 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-08-03Read full judgment →
- S. FIAZ HUSSAIN NAQVI vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD And 2 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 710 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1987-05-23Read full judgment →
- S. EKHTIAR AHMAD vs THE PAKISTAN STEEL FABRICATING CO. Ltd., KARACHI1987 PLC 68 (2) · Labour Court · 1986-09-22Read full judgment →
- S. DILDAR ALI vs UNITED BANK Ltd.1987 PLC 764 · Labour Court · 1987-03-31Read full judgment →
- S T A TEP etitioner vs Mst. HIDAYAT FATIMA and 17 others1987 CLC 45 · Federal Land Commission · 1986-08-24Read full judgment →
- S AY EED UDDIN vs UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI and another1987 CLC 381 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-09Read full judgment →
- S AM U N D A R- vs LAL MUHAMMAD And 9 Other1987 PLD Quetta 209 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
- RUSTAM And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2242(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-01Read full judgment →
- RUSTAM ALI vs Chaudhry MUKHTAR AHMAD ANWAR1987 MLD 394 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the dismissal of an application for a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property. The appellant sought to restrain the respondent from alienating the disputed property pending the suit's outcome. The trial court had refused the injunction, reasoning that the doctrine of lis pendens sufficiently protected the appellant's interests. The High Court, however, held that the respondent's admission of receiving a significant advance payment established a prima facie case for the appellant. The Court clarified that while the principle of lis pendens protects a plaintiff against third-party claims, it does not negate the necessity of a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which aims to prevent the alienation of property and avoid the multiplicity of proceedings. The Court emphasized that breaches of contracts involving immovable property cannot be adequately remedied by monetary compensation alone. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the trial court's order and granted the temporary injunction, directing the trial court to expedite the suit's disposal.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of lis pendens preclude the grant of a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance?
- Is a temporary injunction appropriate when the defendant admits receipt of advance payment for the sale of immovable property?
- Can a court grant a temporary injunction to prevent the alienation of property during the pendency of a suit for specific performance?
- ROZI KHAN- vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 603 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-08Read full judgment →
- ROZI KHAN vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 603 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-08Read full judgment →
- ROUNAQ ALI And Another vs Messrs FAUJI SUGAR MILLS1987 PLC 162 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-07Read full judgment →
- ROSHAN SHAH And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 709 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-16Read full judgment →
- ROLEX MONTRES vs KHYBER TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED and another1987 MLD 2433 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-20Read full judgment →
- ROHTAS KHAN and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3121 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-21Read full judgment →
- ROBINA NIGHAT AHMAD vs FAYYAZ-UL-HASSAN SHAIKH1987 MLD 77 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-17Read full judgment →
- RIZWAN ZAFAR vs The STATE1987 SCMR 2041 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the order of the High Court refusing to suspend the petitioner's sentence during the pendency of his appeal. The petitioner was tried under sections 302, 307, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but was ultimately convicted by the Sessions Judge under section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment for firing at and grievously hurting a prosecution witness. The core legal question is whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in declining to suspend the petitioner's sentence while suspending the sentence of a co-convict. The Supreme Court held that no case for interfering with the High Court's discretion was made out, distinguishing the petitioner's case from that of the co-convict due to the substantially different sentence lengths. The key principle laid down is that the suspension of sentence during appeal is a matter of judicial discretion, and differential treatment of co-convicts is justified where their respective sentences and cases are distinguishable.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's discretion in refusing to suspend a sentence during the pendency of an appeal?
- Is the suspension of a co-convict's sentence a binding precedent for granting similar relief to another convict with a substantially different sentence?
- RICE EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs MUHAMMAD RASIB AND ANOTHERS1987 PLD Karachi 153 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
- RICE EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs MUHAMMAD RASIB AND Another1987 PLD Karachi 153 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
- RIAZUL HAQ vs Seth KHUSHI MUHAMMAD And Another1987 SCMR 2048 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court regarding an election dispute for a seat in the Municipal Committee Okara. The core legal question was whether, upon finding an equality of votes between contesting candidates during an election petition, the Election Tribunal itself is mandated to draw lots under Rule 16(1) of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petition) Rules, 1979, or if it can remand the matter to the Returning Officer under the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979. The Supreme Court held that once an election petition is before the Tribunal, Rule 16(1) of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petition) Rules, 1979 makes it mandatory for the Tribunal itself to draw lots in the event of an equality of votes, rendering any remand to the Returning Officer for that purpose illegal and without lawful authority. The Court laid down the principle that the procedure for drawing lots by a Returning Officer applies during the initial election stage, whereas the Election Tribunal possesses exclusive, mandatory jurisdiction to draw lots when deciding an election petition under the specific election petition rules.
Questions settled- Whether the Election Tribunal can remand a case to the Returning Officer to draw lots in case of an equality of votes during an election petition?
- Is it mandatory for the Election Tribunal to itself draw lots under Rule 16(1) of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petition) Rules, 1979 upon finding an equality of votes?
- Does participation in the drawing of lots before a Returning Officer confer jurisdiction on the Returning Officer when the matter is already before the Election Tribunal?
- RIAZ vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 550 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-21Read full judgment →
- RIAZ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1984 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-01Read full judgment →
- RIAZ HUSSAIN SHAH vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONY), WEST PAKISTAN AND 2 Other1987 PLD Supreme Court 292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a High Court writ petition that set aside concurrent orders of Revenue authorities. A shop site governed by the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 was allotted to the respondent in 1948. The respondent later applied for proprietary rights, but the appellant objected, asserting he had been in possession and running the shop as a sub-tenant for years. The Collector, Additional Commissioner, and Member, Board of Revenue, resumed the shop site from the respondent and allotted it to the appellant. The High Court quashed these orders. The Supreme Court examined whether the resumption and re-allotment were valid. The Court held that the shop site was a scheduled tenancy under Section 4 of the Act. Subletting without written consent was void under Section 19, making the transferee's possession unauthorized and subject to ejectment. Furthermore, Section 27 excluded the application of Section 24 penalty and resumption provisions to scheduled tenancies. Consequently, the Revenue authorities' orders allotting the site to the sub-tenant were legally erroneous, and the High Court's setting aside of those orders was upheld.
Questions settled- Does Section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 apply to scheduled tenancies?
- What is the effect of subletting a scheduled tenancy without the written consent of Revenue authorities under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912?
- Can Revenue authorities allot a resumed scheduled tenancy to an unauthorized sub-tenant in possession?
- RIAZ HUSSAIN And Another vs DISTRICT COUNCIL, MUZAFFARGARH Through Chairman And Another1987 SCMR 759 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These are two petitions for special leave to appeal arising out of identical facts concerning a dispute over property that forms part of a Waqf created by Sardar Kaura Khan. The property was taken over by the Auqaf Department by notification in 1973 and subsequently leased out to the petitioners in 1981 for two years. Upon a later notification releasing the property, the petitioners filed suits challenging the release and seeking temporary injunctions. The trial court dismissed the interim relief applications, and the additional district judge not only dismissed the appeals but also rejected the plaints. Civil revisions before the High Court were similarly unsuccessful, leading to the present petitions. The core legal question involved the competence of the lower appellate court to reject the plaints and the entitlement of the petitioners to interim relief. The Supreme Court held that the petitions are not fit for the grant of leave because the leases granted to the petitioners have since expired, leaving them without any locus standi in the matter. The key principle laid down is that the expiration of a lease extinguishes the lessee's locus standi to challenge subsequent dealings or releases of the property.
Questions settled- Does a lessee retain locus standi to challenge property proceedings after the expiration of their lease?
- Is leave to appeal to the Supreme Court warranted when the underlying lease of the petitioners has expired?
- RIAZ and 2 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3119 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-22Read full judgment →
- RIAZ ALI SHAH vs Messrs UNITED COMMERCIAL FINANCE Ltd. and another1987 CLC 1876 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-22Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2962 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-13Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 381 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-17Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AHMAD vs THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAHIWAL and others1987 P Cr. L J 821 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-13Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AHMAD vs TALIB HUSSAIN and others1987 P Cr. L J 957 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AHMAD vs FAROOQ AHMAD And Another1987 SCMR 126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Criminal petitions for special leave to appeal were filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by both the complainant (seeking enhancement of sentence and challenging the alteration of charge) and the convict (challenging his conviction and altered sentence). The convict, Muhammad Farooq, was initially convicted by the trial court under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death, along with a fine. On appeal, the High Court altered his conviction to Section 304 Part II (referred to in the text as Section 302-II) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing his sentence to five years' rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the fine, based on a finding that a reasonable possibility existed that the defence version might be true. The Supreme Court dismissed the convict's petition as not pressed. Regarding the complainant's petition challenging the appreciation of the defence plea, the Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's assessment of the evidence and reasoning, finding no merit in the challenge and accordingly dismissing the petition.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court's alteration of a conviction from murder to a lesser offence based on the reasonable possibility of the defence plea being true warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
- Whether leave to appeal against reduction of sentence should be granted when the appellate court's appreciation of the defence plea is supported by the evidence on record?
- RIAZ AHMAD ANSARI vs THE STATE-1987 PCr.LJ 1219 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-19Read full judgment →
- RIASAT ALI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1579(2) · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
- RIASAT ALI vs MUHAMMAD JAFFAR KHAN And Other1987 SCMR 761 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court declining to interfere in revisional jurisdiction with the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, which had dismissed the petitioner's suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The core legal question concerns whether the appellate court and revisional court properly evaluated the documentary evidence regarding the alleged agreement to sell and whether documents could be accepted during arguments in revision. The Supreme Court held that the contentions regarding the rejection of documents by the High Court and the visual inspection of tampered documents by the Additional District Judge required further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, directed the deposit of security, and ordered that the status quo regarding the disputed property be maintained subject to furnishing security for mesne profits.
Questions settled- Whether documents not filed along with the grounds of revision can be permitted to be placed on the record at the time of arguments?
- Whether an appellate court is justified in holding a document to be forged or tampered with solely upon visual inspection without summoning the trial court's record?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against concurrent findings on a question of fact in a specific performance suit?
- RIASAT ALI vs ASAD RAFI AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Lahore 257 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-04Read full judgment →
- RIASAT ALI and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 782 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-09Read full judgment →
- Reliance Jute and Indus-tries Limited. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, West BengalPTCL 1987 FC. 423 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- REHNEMANNIAN CANCER RELIEF SOCIETY PAKISTAN and 2 others vs NATIONAL1987 CLC 740 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-18Read full judgment →
- REHMATULLAH vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1409 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-01Read full judgment →
- REHMATULLAH vs Mrs. ALIA And Other1987 SCMR 579 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment dispute concerning a residential flat in Karachi. The landlord sought the tenant's eviction based on default in rent payment for a specific period. The tenant contended that the parties had established a practice of paying rent in lump sums, and that the landlord had intentionally failed to collect the rent to manufacture a ground for eviction. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the ejectment application, accepting the tenant's plea of established practice. However, the High Court reversed this decision on appeal, finding that the evidence demonstrated the tenant had consistently paid rent in advance, rather than in arrears, and that the tenant had failed to pay rent for the disputed period. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, including rent receipts and cheque payments, and upheld the High Court's finding. The Court affirmed that the tenant failed to establish a practice of lump-sum payments that would excuse the admitted default, thereby dismissing the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a tenant avoid eviction for non-payment of rent by alleging an established practice of lump-sum payments if the evidence contradicts such a claim?
- Does the failure to pay rent for a specific period constitute default under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Is a finding of fact regarding rent payment practices by the High Court subject to interference by the Supreme Court if supported by evidence?
- REHMATULLAH KHAN vs DILAWAR KHAN and another1987 MLD 1395(2) · Election Tribunal · 1987-07-01Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ULLAH vs TUFAIL HUSSAIN and others1987 CLC 792 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Regular Second Appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts partly dismissing the appellant's suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land dated 30-10-1966. The core legal question concerned whether time was the essence of the contract and whether the suit was within limitation based on subsequent conduct enlarging the time, as well as the admissibility of evidence led through affidavits without court direction under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that although the defendant's subsequent conduct may have extended the limitation period, the appellant failed to prove payment of the balance price or readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. Furthermore, evidence via affidavits was rightly discarded as there was no order of the trial court permitting proof by affidavit pursuant to Order XIX Rule 1, and the witnesses were not produced for cross-examination. The key principle laid down is that affidavits cannot be read in evidence without a specific court order under Order XIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, especially when opposing parties are deprived of the opportunity of cross-examination.
Questions settled- Whether time stipulated in an agreement to sell is the essence of the contract when subsequent conduct enlarges the time for performance?
- Can evidence led through affidavits be considered by the court without an order pursuant to Order XIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a plaintiff entitled to specific performance of a contract without proving payment of the balance price and readiness to perform?
- REHMAT ULLAH and another vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN1987 MLD 425 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ELLAHI vs Messrs HOYU KABUSHIKI KAISHA1987 MLD 577 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-31Read full judgment →
- REHMAT And 3 Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the petitioners' conviction and sentences under sections 302, 307, and 365 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder, murderous assault, and abduction. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence, specifically the reliability of a dying declaration, ocular testimony of an injured witness, and medical evidence. The Supreme Court held that the evidence had been properly appreciated by the courts below and that no substantial question of law warranted interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the convictions and sentences.
Questions settled- Whether a dying declaration along with the testimony of an injured witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
- Does an alleged contradiction in medical evidence automatically entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the appreciation of evidence?
- REHMAT ALI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1018 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-23Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ALI vs GHULAM NABI1987 CLC 1024 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ALI And Others vs NAEEM AHMAD And Other1987 SCMR 842 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a pre-emption suit regarding agricultural land. The pre-emptor claimed a superior right of pre-emption on the basis of being a co-sharer in the relevant joint khata. The trial court initially dismissed the suit as time-barred and held that the pre-emptor failed to establish a superior right. However, the District Judge reversed these findings on appeal and decreed the suit, a decision which was subsequently upheld by the High Court in a revision petition. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether a co-sharer in a joint khata loses his status as a co-owner of agricultural land merely by constructing a house on a portion of the purchased land. The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the High Court and District Judge, holding that since the land largely remained agricultural and used for crops, constructing a structure on part of the joint land did not divest the pre-emptor of his status as a co-owner. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does constructing a structure on a portion of land in a joint khata deprive a person of their status as a co-owner of agricultural land for pre-emption purposes?
- Whether agricultural land retains its character when part of it is used for residential construction while the rest is cultivated?
- REHMANI GUL vs RENT CONTROLLER And Other1987 SCMR 866 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an eviction proceeding initiated by a landlord against a tenant in Swat, within the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas. The core legal question was whether the enactment of Regulation No. II of 1975 (as amended by Regulation No. IV of 1976), which mandated that cases of a civil nature be referred to a Jirga, impliedly repealed the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, thereby divesting the Rent Controller of jurisdiction to hear eviction applications. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller retained jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the Rent Ordinance constitutes a special law, while the subsequent Regulation is a general law. Applying the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant, the Court affirmed that a general later law does not impliedly repeal an earlier special law unless such an intention is clearly manifested. The Court concluded that the legislature intended for special laws, like the Rent Ordinance, to continue operating alongside the general Jirga system, thus dismissing the tenant's appeal.
Questions settled- Does a subsequent general law impliedly repeal an earlier special law?
- Did the enactment of Regulation No. II of 1975 divest the Rent Controller of jurisdiction to hear eviction cases in the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas?
- Can a Rent Controller exercise jurisdiction under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, in the absence of a specific notification under section 4 of Regulation No. I of 1973?
- REHMAN vs HUSSAIN BUX1987 CLC 1257 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-24Read full judgment →
- REHMAN SHAH And Another vs The STATE1987 SCMR 254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Peshawar High Court which maintained the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The appellants, two brothers, were accused of murdering their brother-in-law by firing at him after he beat their sister. The core legal questions involved whether the findings of guilt were based on safe criminal justice principles, and whether the intention of the appellants—manifested by shooting at the legs—was merely to punish the deceased rather than commit murder, thereby attracting a lesser offence such as Section 304 or Section 326 instead of Section 302. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the concerted firing of lethal weapons (rifles) by both appellants at the victim, resulting in fatal hemorrhage, sufficiently established a common intention to murder, and that a lesser penalty of life imprisonment had already adequately accounted for mitigating circumstances. The key principle laid down is that the use of lethal firearms targeting limbs, when resulting in death, does not automatically negate a common intention to murder where the nature and manner of the attack are inherently dangerous to human life.
Questions settled- Whether the firing of firearms at the legs of a victim by multiple accused indicates an absence of common intention to murder?
- Can a dying declaration be relied upon even if it omits the name of one of the ocular witnesses present at the scene?
- Whether the use of rifles resulting in fatal hemorrhage from leg injuries constitutes murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Does the younger age of an co-accused acting under the influence of an elder brother warrant an acquittal or further reduction in sentence when life imprisonment has already been awarded?
- REHM DIN vs RIZWAN HUSSAIN1987 SCMR 1517 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a finding by the High Court that the District Judge and the trial Court misread the receipt Exh.A-1 regarding the date of deposit of zar-i-punjam, determining it to be 13-7-1967 instead of 12-7-1967. The core legal question concerns whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the misreading of evidence by the lower courts suffered from any legal infirmity justifying interference. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any infirmity in the High Court's finding, and accordingly dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless a material misreading or infirmity is successfully established.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the misreading of evidence?
- Does a finding on the date of deposit based on a receipt constitute a question of fact open to interference if properly evaluated?
- Is a petition for special leave to appeal maintainable when the petitioner fails to show any infirmity in the impugned High Court judgment?
- REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN vs HASSAN AKBAR1987 P Cr. L J 1321 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
- REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, HYDERABAD REGION, HYDERABAD vs DADA1987 PLC 54 · Labour Court · 1986-07-15Read full judgment →
- RAZIA RANA and 7 others vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER1987 MLD 2285 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-30Read full judgment →
- RAZIA NAUSHIN vs NIKAH REGISTRAR and others1987 MLD 2276 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
- RAZIA HASNI vs KISHWAR SULTANA and others1987 MLD 2265 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-03Read full judgment →
- RAZIA BIBI And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 537 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-16Read full judgment →
- RAZI KHAN vs THE STATE1987 PLD Peshawar 104 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
- RAZI KHAN vs THE STATE,1987 PLD Peshawar 104 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
- RAZI ABBAS BOKHARI vs LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE Through Registrar And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 62 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-01-13Read full judgment →
- RAZA AHMAD KHAN vs AHMAD RAZA1987 CLC 1183 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-09Read full judgment →
- RAZA A. KHAN, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, PESHAWAR vs REGHZI GUL-1987 P Cr. L J 1789 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
- RAUNAQ ALI vs MANAGER, MODERN TEXTILE MILLS, TANDOJAM1987 PLC 963 · Labour Court · 1987-04-13Read full judgment →
- RASUL KAUSAR vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1543 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
- RASOOL ZADA vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2251 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-24Read full judgment →
- RASHIDA BIBI and others vs AKBAR ALL and others1987 MLD 777 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-29Read full judgment →
- RASHIDA BEGUM etc. vs ABDUL REHMAN etc.1987 MLD 2597 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-28Read full judgment →
- RASHID TEXTILE MILLS Ltd. vs ABDUL WADOOD1987 PLC 16 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-01-26Read full judgment →
- RASHID MUSLIM and 8 others vs Syed HURR RIHAI GARDEZI and 7 others1987 MLD 771 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-13Read full judgment →
- RASHID MUHAMMAD KHAN and another vs Mst. NIAZ BIBI1987 MLD 1326 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-23Read full judgment →
- RASHID Alias SHIDA vs The STATE1987 SCMR 876 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner, Rashid alias Shida, for the murder of Farooq Azam. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner fatally stabbed the deceased with a knife following a prior dispute over pigeons. While the petitioner initially claimed the act was committed in self-defense against a sexual assault, this plea was abandoned during the appeal proceedings. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the petitioner is entitled to a lesser sentence than death, given that the prosecution evidence failed to establish the immediate genesis of the attack or the events preceding the fatal assault. The Court granted leave to appeal specifically to examine whether the absence of evidence regarding the incident's origin warrants the commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment, consistent with established precedents regarding sentencing in cases where the motive or immediate provocation remains unproven.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to establish the genesis of a murder incident entitle the accused to a lesser sentence than death?
- Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment when the events immediately preceding the fatal attack remain unknown?
- RASHID Alias SHIDA vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1847 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-04Read full judgment →
- RASHID Alias SHEEDA And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2229 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-18Read full judgment →
- RASHID AHMAD and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 951 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-06Read full judgment →
- RASHID AHMAD and others vs Mst. ZAINAB and others1987 MLD 65 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-21Read full judgment →
- RASHEEDUDDIN vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI1987 MLD 676 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-16Read full judgment →
- RASHEED ALAM vs EWAZ YAR KHAN1987 MLD 888 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-03Read full judgment →
- RASHEED A. RAZVI, Advocate, Karachi vs THE PROVINCE OF SIND1987 MLD 1072 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-23Read full judgment →
- RASHAD IQBAL vs Mst. MUNIZA BEGUM1987 PLD Lahore 331 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-29Read full judgment →
- RASHAD IQBAL vs Mst. MUNIZ A BEGUM1987 PLD Lahore 331 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-29Read full judgment →
- Rao MUHAMMAD SULEMAN vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. and 11 others1987 CLC 1338 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from execution proceedings where immovable property and machinery of the judgment-debtor, Hudaybia Textile Mills (Pvt) Limited, were auctioned following a bank recovery decree. After the auction was held, the judgment-debtor filed an application to prevent the confirmation of the sale on the ground that it had satisfied its share of the debt directly with the decree-holder. The executing court refused to confirm the sale, prompting the auction-purchaser to appeal. The core legal question is whether an execution sale of property can be set aside or refused confirmation simply on the basis of a private satisfaction of the decree, without complying with the mandatory deposit requirements under Order XXI, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Lahore High Court held that once a court auction has been duly conducted, it cannot be refused confirmation or set aside on the ground of out-of-court decree satisfaction unless the judgment-debtor strictly complies with the mandatory pre-conditions of depositing 5 percent of the purchase money and the specified decretal amount under Order XXI, Rule 89, C.P.C. The court established that inherent powers under Section 151 cannot be invoked to bypass specific statutory provisions governing execution sales.
Questions settled- Whether an execution sale can be refused confirmation on the ground that the judgment-debtor has satisfied the decree-holder out of court?
- Can an application to set aside an execution sale be entertained under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without complying with the deposit requirements of Order XXI, Rule 89?
- Is strict compliance with the deposit conditions mandatory for a judgment-debtor seeking relief under Order XXI, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- RANA vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, CHINIOT1987 PLD Lahore 171 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-07Read full judgment →
- Rana SAIFUL JABBAR vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 107 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-01-02Read full judgment →
- Rana RASHID AHMAD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1987 MLD 2089 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-12Read full judgment →
- Rana MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs DIRECTOR FOOD-PUNJAB And 2 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 924 · Punjab Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- Rana MUNAWAR HUSSAIN vs BASHIR and another1987 MLD 1760 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-23Read full judgment →
- Rana MUHAMMAD SALEEM And Another vs MUBARIK ALI Alias MAKHA And Others1987 P Cr. L J 189 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
- Rana MUHAMMAD AKHTAR KHAN and others vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KHANEWAL and another1987 CLC 1888 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-16Read full judgment →
- Rana M. YASIN vs MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN and others1987 MLD 70 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →