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. 232594 judgments in total.

• Rana JAVAID AHMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1236 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
• Rana FARYAD AHMAD KHAN vs KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION and 31987 CLC 2126 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-30Read full judgment →
• Rana BASHARAT ALI vs SULTAN and others-'s1987 P Cr. L J 652 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-03Read full judgment →
• Rana ASHGAR ALI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1544 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-12Read full judgment →
• Rana ABDUL WAHEED vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND And 21987 PLC (C.S.) 629 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
• Rana ABDUL WAHEED vs CHIEF SECRETARY And Others1987 PLC (C.S.). 434 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-11-23Read full judgment →
• RAMZ ALI SANGI vs KAMAL AHMED NOMANI1987 CLC 563 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
• RALLI BROTHERS & CONEY LTD. vs MUHAMMAD AMIN MUHAMMAD BASHIR Ltd.1987 CLC 83 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-06
  foreign awardenforcement of foreign awardstamp dutyarbitration agreementLiverpool Cotton Associationreciprocal arrangementsappointment of arbitrator
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs filed suits to enforce three foreign arbitral awards rendered in England under the bye-laws of the Liverpool Cotton Association Ltd. arising from contracts for the sale of cotton. The defendants filed objections, asserting inter alia that there was no concluded written contract containing an arbitration agreement signed by them, that the foreign award was invalid for lack of proper stamp duty under the Stamp Act 1899, that the appointment of an arbitrator on their behalf by an ex-President of the Association was improper, and that the award was not a valid foreign award due to a lack of reciprocal arrangements between Pakistan and the United Kingdom under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937.

  The High Court of Sindh rejected all objections. It held that a foreign award is not chargeable with stamp duty as it is not listed in the schedule to the Stamp Act 1899. It affirmed that an arbitration agreement need not be signed by both parties, provided it is in writing and consensus is established, and that incorporation of associate membership in an association whose articles mandate arbitration creates a binding arbitration agreement. The Court further ruled that appointment procedures under association rules are valid contractual terms and that the award constitutes an enforceable foreign award in Pakistan under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937 as amended by Ordinance LIII of 1962.

  Questions settled

  • Is a foreign arbitral award chargeable with stamp duty under the Stamp Act 1899 when brought into Pakistan for enforcement?
  • Is it mandatory for an arbitration agreement to be signed by all parties to be legally valid and enforceable?
  • Does membership in a trade association whose rules provide for compulsory arbitration create a binding arbitration agreement between members?
  • Is an arbitral award rendered in the United Kingdom enforceable in Pakistan as a foreign award under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937?
  Read full judgment →
• RAJWALI (Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs And 4 Others vs ALLAH DAD1987 SCMR 75 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-10
  leave to appealinheritance disputelimited estatesuccessioncollateral successionnecessary parties
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a Regular Second Appeal and upheld the concurrent judgments of the lower courts in a declaratory suit concerning inheritance. The original suit was filed by the respondents seeking their share in the estate of Shahwali, who died in 1921 leaving a limited estate to his widow Gulab Khatoon, who passed away in 1962. The trial court divided the estate among the widow's heirs, the sisters of the deceased, and collaterals. A contention was raised by the petitioners that upon the death of one collateral, Ghulam Muhammad, in 1939, his share should have devolved solely upon Rajwali, the only surviving collateral at that time, rather than being distributed among predeceased collaterals. The Supreme Court noted that this question, along with the effect of failing to implead necessary parties in the first appeal, requires examination. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal subject to furnishing security.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the share of a collateral who dies after the opening of inheritance should devolve solely upon the surviving collateral at the time of his death?
  • What is the legal effect of the failure to implead necessary parties in the first appeal arising from a declaratory decree?
  Read full judgment →
• RAJKUMAR and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 855 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-04Read full judgment →
• RAJAB ALI And 3 Others vs DAIRUS B. KANDAWALLA And Another1987 SCMR 1487 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-01
  leave to appealevictionbona fide personal requirementrented premisesinterim staylandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal challenging the decision of the High Court regarding eviction proceedings. The core legal question presented was whether the High Court erred in applying the provisions of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance to the case and whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the respondents' bona fide personal requirement for the premises were legally sustainable. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the submissions regarding the erroneous application of the law and the flawed factual approach of the lower courts warranted further consideration. Consequently, the Court allowed the petitions, set the security amount at Rs. 1,000 per case, and directed that the appeals be heard on the existing record, while permitting the parties to file additional documents. Furthermore, the Court issued an interim order restraining the eviction of the petitioners pending the final decision of the appeals, subject to the continued deposit of rent as previously ordered, and directed that the appeals be heard within one year by consent.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance apply to all eviction proceedings regardless of the specific facts of the case?
  • Can a finding of bona fide personal requirement for premises be challenged if the lower court's approach to the facts is alleged to be erroneous?
  • Under what conditions can the Supreme Court grant a stay of eviction pending the final disposal of an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs PRINCIPAL,COMPREHENSIVE HIGH SCHOOL, DHOK1987 PLC (C.S.) 894 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Raja MUHAMMAD NIAZ KHAN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF JAMMU1987 PLC (C.S.) 354 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• Raja MUHAMMAD NAZIR vs CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS And 3 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 917 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-10-13Read full judgment →
• Raja MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 838 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1987-08-13Read full judgment →
• Raja MUHAMMAD AKHTAR vs ADDITIONAL SECRETARY (A), MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS And 5 Others1987 PLC (C .S.) 581 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1987-04-15Read full judgment →
• Raja LAL KHAN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3095 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-14Read full judgment →
• Raja JAVED AHMAD And Others vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUJRANWALA And Another1987 SCMR 700 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-01
  service tribunalpolice servicedismissal from servicedispensing with inquirysecurity of pakistanleave to appealquantum of punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeal against their dismissal from police service. The petitioners, members of the Police Reserve, were accused of participating in and leading a serious strike following grievances against a superior officer. The core legal questions involve whether the invocation of proviso (b) in Rule 9 of the Punjab Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975, dispensing with a regular inquiry on the ground of the security of Pakistan, was justified, and whether the quantum of punishment of dismissal was appropriate given the findings that the superior officer was also at fault. The Supreme Court held that the questions raised required closer examination, particularly regarding the applicability of the security proviso and the appropriateness of the penalty. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine these service matters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the security of Pakistan proviso for dispensing with a regular inquiry applies to a localized police strike?
  • Does a service tribunal have the duty to examine the proportionality and appropriateness of the penalty of dismissal when the superior officer is also found to be at fault?
  Read full judgment →
• RAJ ALI And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1817 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-18Read full judgment →
• RAHMAT ULLAH vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER and others1987 P Cr. L J 2197(2) · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
• RAHMAT KHAN vs UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE1987 SCMR 1150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-19
  compulsory retirementservice lawquantum of punishmentwrit petitionUniversity employee
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court order dismissing his writ petition challenging his compulsory retirement from service as a senior clerk at the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. The core legal question concerned whether the penalty of compulsory retirement, imposed after a regular inquiry finding him guilty of unauthorized absence and falsely implicating two senior teachers in a criminal case, was open to judicial interference. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the quantum of punishment falls entirely within the determination of the competent University authorities and that the penalty imposed was not excessive given the gravity of the misconduct. The key principle laid down is that superior courts exercising constitutional jurisdiction will not interfere with the quantum of administrative punishment determined by competent authorities following a regular and unblemished inquiry, unless the penalty is shown to be wholly disproportionate or unjustified.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the quantum of punishment awarded by a University authority in a disciplinary matter is open to interference in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does a regular departmental inquiry resulting in a finding of guilt for absence and falsely implicating teachers warrant compulsory retirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahm Din vs Collector of Central Excise & Land Customs and two others.PTCL 1987 CL. 36 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-06-02Read full judgment →
• RAHIMULLAH vs Messrs ALAMGIR WEAVING FACTORY And Others1987 PLC 554 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-19Read full judgment →
• RAHIM KHAN vs ARSHAD KHAN And Other1987 SCMR 1885 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-19
  leave to appealmurderocular testimonyinterested witnessindependent corroborationacquittalenmity
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court acquitting the respondents of charges under sections 302, 307, 324, 323, and 148 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The trial court had previously convicted the respondents for murder, assault, and rioting, while acquitting four co-accused. The High Court set aside the convictions, holding that the eye-witnesses were interested due to longstanding enmity, there was delayed reporting, and over-implication of accused persons, requiring independent corroboration which was lacking. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in rejecting the testimony of a purported independent witness and overturning the convictions. The Supreme Court held that the witness in question was not disinterested, as he had previous criminal litigation involving a relative of the respondents, thereby justifying the High Court's refusal to treat him as independent. The petition was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an eye-witness who has prior criminal litigation with a party can be considered an independent and disinterested witness?
  • Is independent corroboration required for ocular testimony when witnesses are partisan and there is a history of serious enmity?
  • Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside convictions based on delayed F.I.R. and over-implication of accused persons?
  Read full judgment →
• RAHIM Bakhshand Another vs JAN MUHAMMAD And Other1987 SCMR 841 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-09
  settlement lawproperty transferunit classificationspecial leave to appealsettlement commissioner
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns a dispute over the classification of property transferred to the petitioners under settlement laws. The core legal question addressed was whether the property in question constituted a single unit or comprised two distinct units for the purpose of transfer. The Settlement Commissioner had previously determined that the property consisted of two units, resulting in the transfer of one unit to the respondents. The petitioners challenged this determination before the High Court, which declined to interfere with the Settlement Commissioner's findings. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no legal infirmity or error in the reasoning applied by the Settlement Commissioner or the High Court's subsequent refusal to intervene. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the lower authorities' findings, affirming that the property was correctly identified as two separate units. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, thereby maintaining the established transfer of the property units to the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a property transferred under settlement laws constitutes a single unit or two distinct units?
  • Can the High Court interfere with a factual determination made by a Settlement Commissioner regarding property units?
  Read full judgment →
• RAHIM BAKHSH And Another vs MUNAWAR AHMAD And Another1987 SCMR 169 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-11
  pre-emptionrepugnancy to Injunctions of Islamleave to appealsuperior right of pre-emptionPunjab Pre-emption Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a second appeal regarding a pre-emption suit. The respondents had originally filed a suit for pre-emption based on their relationship with the vendor and their status as landowners in the estate, alleging that the sale price had been inflated to defeat their pre-emption rights. While the trial court dismissed the suit, the appellate court reversed this decision and decreed the suit. The petitioners challenged this in the High Court, which upheld the decree. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the suit should fail based on the principle established in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1986 SC 360), which declared certain provisions of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, regarding the right of pre-emption of a successor of a vendor, repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. Finding that leave had been granted in similar cases, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and directed the matter to be heard alongside other similar appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Are the provisions of Section 15(a) and (b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, regarding the right of pre-emption of a successor of a vendor, repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
  • Should a petition for leave to appeal be granted when the legal point raised is pending consideration in other similar appeals before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• RAHIM BAKHSH and 3 others vs ABDUL RASHID1987 CLC 673 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-03Read full judgment →
• RAHIM BAKHSH and 2 others vs AHMAD BAKHSH and 2 others1987 CLC 259 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-06Read full judgment →
• RAFIULLAH KHAN vs IQBAL HUSSAIN1987 PLD Karachi 608 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-02Read full judgment →
• RAFIUD DIN vs Mst.YASMEEN BEGUM and 9 others1987 MLD 682 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-04Read full judgment →
• RAFIQ Alias BHALLA vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1937 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-20Read full judgment →
• RAFIQ AHMED vs Messrs JOINT VENTURE, BASRAH INTERNATIONAL AIR PORT1987 PLD Karachi 552 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-04Read full judgment →
• RAFIQ AHMAD vs Mst. KALSUM BEGUM and another (Legal Representations)1987 MLD 1262 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-29Read full judgment →
• RAFIQ AHMAD KHAN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, FOOD1987 PLC 171 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• RABNAWAZ And 10 Others vs SAADULLAH KHAN and 3 others1987 P Cr. L J 770 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
• RAB NAWAZ vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND 2 OTHERS1987 PLD Karachi 175 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• RAB NAWAZ And Another vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1623 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-17
  private defencemurder trialleave to appealmedical evidencecriminal liabilityappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a murder conviction where the petitioners, Rab Nawaz and Ghulam Muhammad, were found guilty of murdering Muzaffar Khan and causing injuries to prosecution witnesses. The trial court convicted the petitioners under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentences which the High Court subsequently upheld while modifying the death penalty to life imprisonment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court concerns whether the petitioners acted in the exercise of their right of private defence. The petitioners argued that the prosecution's version was inconsistent with the medical evidence, specifically highlighting that the accused sustained numerous injuries, predominantly on their heads, suggesting they were attacked at close quarters by the complainant party. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the nature and location of the injuries sustained by the accused, found that the matter required deeper examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether, given the circumstances and the injuries sustained, the right of private defence had accrued to the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the nature and location of injuries on an accused can establish a plea of private defence?
  • Does the presence of multiple head injuries on an accused support the contention that they acted in self-defence?
  • Can a conviction be maintained when the medical evidence suggests the possibility of a defence version being true?
  Read full judgment →
• RAB NAWAZ And Another vs MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH And Other1987 SCMR 1626 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-14
  constitutional jurisdictionwrit petitionpending civil litigationorder of remandleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal of their writ petition challenging an order of remand passed by the District Judge in a civil matter. The core legal question was whether the High Court should interfere in pending civil litigation under its constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in pending civil proceedings, particularly when the trial court has been specifically directed to decide all issues, including objections raised under the relevant statute. The Court dismissed the petition, affirming that lower courts are bound to follow the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court and address all framed issues accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Should the High Court interfere in pending civil litigation under its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Are the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court binding upon all courts in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• R.K. MALIK and 2 others vs LAHORE DIOCESAN TRUST ASSOCIATION, LAHORE1987 CLC 222 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-04Read full judgment →
• R.B. KIDAR NATH & SONS BANK LTD- vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF1987 PLD Lahore 295 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-09Read full judgment →
• QURBAN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2248 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-19Read full judgment →
• QUDRATULLAH vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM And Another1987 P Cr. L J 1952 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-15Read full judgment →
• QUDRATULLAH Alias QUDRAT ALI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 168 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-22Read full judgment →
• Qazi SAEED AHMAD vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1640 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-07-07Read full judgment →
• Qazi MUHAMMAD NAEEM And Others vs Qazi FAZLUR RAHMAN And Other1987 SCMR 618 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-26
  special leave to appealprivate partitionfraud and misrepresentationcivil procedurepreliminary and final decreesconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a constitutional petition against the dismissal of an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question involves whether preliminary and final decrees obtained by concealing a prior private partition and misrepresenting property ownership can be challenged under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 as being obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the concealment of the private partition and inclusion of the petitioners' share in the partition decrees required consideration. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and issued a status-quo order in the meantime, laying down that deliberate concealment of material facts and prior partitions to obtain decrees affecting third-party rights warrants deeper judicial scrutiny under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Can a decree be set aside under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of concealment of a prior private partition?
  • Whether third parties whose property is included in a partition suit without their joinder can invoke Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the intentional misrepresentation that an entire property belongs to a deceased person amount to fraud for the purposes of setting aside a judgment under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi MUGHAL BAZ vs THE N.W.F.P. through the Provincial Government1987 CLC 50 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-09-09Read full judgment →
• Qazi FAIZUL HAQ vs GOVERNMENT OF N. W.F.P. Through CHIEF SECRETARY, PESHAWAR1987 SCMR 110 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-02
  service appealcompulsory retirementlimitationtime-barredreview petitionSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal against compulsory retirement on the ground of limitation. The core legal question concerns whether the service appeal was barred by time, specifically regarding the computation of limitation periods following the filing of a departmental review petition and the communication of its rejection order. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's finding that the rejection order of the review was duly communicated to the petitioner constituted a conclusive finding of fact based on the record and the petitioner's own admissions before the Tribunal. Consequently, no question of law of public importance arose to warrant interference, and the petition was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact by a service tribunal regarding the communication of departmental orders and limitation will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court when supported by the record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal filed before the Service Tribunal is time-barred when the departmental review rejection order has been duly communicated?
  • Does a finding of fact by the Service Tribunal regarding the communication of a review order conclude the matter before the Supreme Court?
  • Is leave to appeal granted when no question of law of public importance arises from the Tribunal's dismissal of a time-barred service appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi ABDUL HAYEE vs AZAD KASHMIR GOVERNMENT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.1987 CLC 1266 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1987-03-07Read full judgment →
• QASIM SHAH vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1516 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-31Read full judgment →
• QASIM KHAN vs JALAL and OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 398 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-18Read full judgment →
• QASIM KHAN vs JALAL And Other1987 PLD Lahore 398 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-18Read full judgment →
• QARYAM vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE And Other1987 SCMR 721 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-14
  consolidation schemelimitationcondonation of delaydiscretionary orderjudicial reviewBoard of Revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a challenge to the consolidation scheme in Mauza Wafardarpur, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh, which was confirmed on March 27, 1980. Respondents filed an appeal against this scheme over two years later, which was accepted on merits by the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector on December 3, 1984. Subsequent appeals and revisions by the petitioner were dismissed by the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, respectively. The petitioner contended that the lower authorities failed to properly address the issue of limitation in the initial appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the initial appellate authority had explicitly noted the limitation issue and proceeded to decide the matter on merits. Furthermore, the Board of Revenue had affirmed that the Collector was justified in condoning the delay. The Court held that since the authorities possessed the jurisdiction to condone the delay and had exercised their discretion to do so, there was no ground for judicial interference. The petition was consequently dismissed for lack of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate authority have the jurisdiction to condone a delay in filing an appeal against a consolidation scheme?
  • Can a court interfere with a discretionary order of a revenue authority that has condoned a delay in filing an appeal?
  • Is an order disposing of an appeal on merits valid if the issue of limitation was noted but the delay was condoned?
  Read full judgment →
• Qari YAR MUHAMMAD vs ANJUMAN E ISLAMIA1987 SCMR 1776 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-13
  Master and Servantwrongful dismissalspecific performanceprivate institutionservice contractstatutory rulesmaintainability of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former employee of a private school run by a registered society, challenged his dismissal by filing a suit for declaration and reinstatement. The trial and appellate courts decreed the suit in his favor, citing the applicability of the Baluchistan Education Code. However, the High Court set aside these decrees, ruling the suit non-maintainable under the principle of Master and Servant. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the Baluchistan Education Code possessed statutory force to govern the service conditions of private school employees. The Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any statutory authority for the Code, and that receiving government aid does not transform a private institution into a public body subject to statutory service rules. The Court affirmed that employees of private institutions are governed by the general law of Master and Servant, where specific performance of a service contract is barred by law, and the only remedy for wrongful dismissal is a suit for damages. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the receipt of government aid by a private educational institution convert it into a public body subject to statutory service rules?
  • Is a suit for declaration and reinstatement maintainable for an employee of a private institution governed by the law of Master and Servant?
  • Can a contract for personal service be specifically enforced under the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Does the Baluchistan Education Code have statutory force to govern the service conditions of employees in private schools?
  Read full judgment →
• QAMBAR ALI BALOCH and 8 others vs PRINCIPAL, DAWOOD COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY and another1987 CLC 371 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-04Read full judgment →
• QAMARUNNISA vs NOOR ELAHI and another1987 CLC 1210 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-21Read full judgment →
• QAMAR-UZ-ZAMAN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, HOME1987 PLC (C. S.) 886 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-11-06Read full judgment →
• QAMAR UD DIN vs S.H.O., POLICE STATION, SADDAR KASUR1987 SCMR 2102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-26
  criminal procedureregistration of criminal casenikahfamily courtzinahabeas corpussupreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed by the father of a major woman, Mst. Anwar Bibi, seeking a direction to the local police to register a criminal case under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979 against Sohrab Khan, alleging that his daughter's subsequent nikah with Sohrab Khan was void due to a prior marriage to one Muhammad Rashid, and that she was living in adultery. The core legal question is whether the High Court should direct police registration of a criminal case regarding an allegedly void nikah and adultery when the validity of the prior marriage is disputed by the adult woman herself. The Supreme Court held that unless the prior marriage is established in a competent Family Court, it is inappropriate to direct the police to register a criminal case. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that disputed questions of marital status must be resolved by a Family Court before criminal proceedings for Zina are initiated.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the police can be directed to register a case under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979 when the existence of a prior marriage is disputed by the adult female?
  • Must a prior marriage be established in a Family Court before initiating criminal proceedings alleging an invalid subsequent nikah and adultery?
  • Does the rule in Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal apply when a party alleges a subsisting prior marriage against the statement of the adult corpus?
  Read full judgment →
• QAMAR UD DIN Represented By Legal Heirs vs MANSOOR AHMAD MALIK, Additional Settlement Commissioner And Other1987 SCMR 1928 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-20
  evacuee propertySettlement Scheme No. VIIItransfer of propertyavailable propertyleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the transfer of an evacuee property located in Gowalmandi, Lahore. The petitioners, who were local occupants of a portion of a three-storeyed house, sought the transfer of their portion under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. Their application was rejected by the Settlement authorities on the basis that the entire property had already been transferred to other occupants—who were either claimants or non-claimants—via an order dated 28-9-1966. Consequently, the authorities determined that no portion of the house remained "available" for transfer, a condition deemed a prerequisite under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The High Court subsequently upheld this decision, dismissing the petitioners' writ petition. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the reasoning of the Settlement authorities and the High Court to be legally sound. The Court held that where an entire property has been validly transferred to other parties, no part of it remains available for further transfer under the scheme. Finding no grounds for interference, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a portion of an evacuee house be transferred under Settlement Scheme No. VIII if the entire property has already been transferred to other parties?
  • Is the availability of a property a prerequisite for its transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
  Read full judgment →
• QAMAR UD DIN And Others vs AHMAD MUMTAZ And Other1987 SCMR 1513 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-13
  leave to appealejectmentpersonal bona fide needlandlord and tenantgrandson as child
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court upholding the ejectment of the tenants. The original landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant from the disputed shop on the ground of personal requirement for his sons. However, evidence revealed the requirement was for a grandson whose father had predeceased the landlord. The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application, but the Additional District Judge accepted the landlord's appeal and ordered ejectment, a decision subsequently affirmed by the High Court in a writ petition. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court relate to whether ejectment can be ordered for a ground not put to trial, and whether a grandson falls within the definition of a child of the landlord under the relevant rent restriction law. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised require detailed examination, and ordered that status quo regarding possession be maintained pending the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of ejectment can be granted on the basis of a personal need of a grandson when the original application pleaded the need of sons?
  • Whether a grandson can be regarded as a child of the landlord within the meaning of section 13(3)(ii)(a) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• QAMAR NIAZ vs RIZWAN GHANI and others1987 MLD 2976 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
• QALANDER KHAN vs BIND LABOUR COURT And Another1987 PLC 457 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-19Read full judgment →
• QAISER KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND1987 MLD 743 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-30Read full judgment →
• QAISAR HUSSAIN vs KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION1987 PLC 906 · Labour Court · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
• QAIM ALI KHAN vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE1987 SCMR 733 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-09
  pre-emption suitdismissal for defaultdate of hearingreplicationrestoration of suitnon-appearancefailure to file documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit that was dismissed for default under Order IX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the plaintiff failed to appear on a date fixed solely for filing a replication. The trial court and appellate court refused to restore the suit, but the Lahore High Court allowed the revision petition, holding that a date fixed for filing a replication is not a 'date of hearing' of the suit, and thus the suit could not be dismissed in default for non-appearance on such a date. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed this legal principle, holding that a plaintiff cannot be penalized for absence on a date not fixed for the actual hearing of the suit. Furthermore, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court's order because the petitioner failed to file all requisite documents, including the relevant remand order, as required by established procedural rules. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a date fixed solely for the filing of a replication constitutes a 'date of hearing' for the purposes of dismissing a suit for default under Order IX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a plaintiff's suit be dismissed for non-appearance on a date fixed merely for an interlocutory matter or filing of pleadings rather than the actual hearing of the suit?
  • What is the effect of a petitioner's failure to file all requisite and material documents, such as a prior remand order, when seeking leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• QADIR BUKHSH vs DISTRICT JUDGE and 3 others1987 CLC 92 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
• QADIR BAKHSH vs THE STATEK.L.R 1987 Shariat Cases 30 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-01-08Read full judgment →
• QADIR BAKHSH vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 542 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-01-19Read full judgment →
• QADIR BAKHSH And Others vs AHMAD BAKHSH And Other1987 SCMR 1925 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-18
  inheritancecustomary lawpartition suitMuslim personal lawleave to appealpresumption of law
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a property dispute between the children of the deceased Mst. Hayat Begum (petitioners) and her brother (respondent No. 1) regarding the inheritance of property left by their mother, Mst. Fateh Bibi. The trial court initially decreed the petitioners' suit for partition. However, the Additional District Judge reversed this decision, dismissing the suit on the assumption that because Mst. Fateh Bibi died before Independence, the parties were governed by customary law, which excluded sisters from inheritance. The High Court upheld this judgment in second appeal. The core legal question is whether the courts below erred in law by raising a presumption that Muslims residing in urban areas were governed by customary law, despite the absence of such a plea by the respondent. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the contention regarding the erroneous application of customary law requires detailed consideration. The Court held that the presumption of customary law application without a factual basis or pleading constitutes a potential legal error warranting further examination by the appellate court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court presume that parties are governed by customary law in the absence of such a plea?
  • Is there a legal presumption that Muslims living in urban areas are governed by customary law regarding inheritance?
  Read full judgment →
• QADIR BAKHSH And Another vs SANWAL KHAN And 6 Other1987 SCMR 1820 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-13
  land allotmentland reformsmesne profitsleave to appealcivil suitdeclaration and injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute over land allotment under land reform laws. The petitioners were initially allotted survey No. 232 in Deh Baro, District Naseerabad, under Martial Law Regulation No. 117. This allotment was subsequently cancelled by the Board of Revenue, and the land was granted to the respondents. The respondents filed a civil suit for declaration, injunction, possession, and mesne profits, which was decreed in their favor by the District Judge. On appeal, the High Court maintained the decree regarding the declaration, possession, and injunction but set aside the award for mesne profits, finding the claim untenable. The petitioners sought leave to appeal against this High Court judgment. The Supreme Court held that the allotment of land to the respondents had been finalized through the proper hierarchy of the Land Reforms Regulation and was legally sound. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision to deny mesne profits. Finding no substantial question of law requiring further consideration, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order of land allotment made under the hierarchy of Martial Law Regulation No. 117 subject to judicial interference if the process was finalized?
  • Are respondents entitled to mesne profits in a suit for declaration and possession where the underlying claim for such profits is found to be legally untenable?
  Read full judgment →
• QADEER AHMAD vs RASHIDAN BIBI and others1987 MLD 326 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-07Read full judgment →
• QADAR GUL And Another vs ALI REHMAN And Other1987 SCMR 1250 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-29
  constitutional petitionrevenue courtenhancement of rentejectment of tenantcontractual tenancycompensation for improvementslawful authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court examines whether the High Court erred in dismissing a constitutional petition against revenue court orders regarding rent enhancement and tenant ejectment without deeply inquiring into the lawful authority of those orders. The respondent landlord had instituted a revenue suit for rent recovery, rent enhancement, and tenant ejectment after the expiry of a lease. The revenue authorities concurrently denied ejectment but enhanced the rent and addressed improvements, culminating in a dismissal of the tenants' revision by the Member Board of Revenue, which the High Court upheld in limine. The Supreme Court held that the lower authorities and courts failed to anchor their decisions in the applicable statutory provisions of the tenancy legislation, neglecting to specify the legal basis for refusing ejectment after a fixed term, for enhancing rent, or for reconciling enhancements with tenant improvements. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, declared the impugned orders without lawful authority, and remanded the matter to the Member Board of Revenue to decide the revision petitions afresh by direct reference to the applicable provisions of the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950.

  Questions settled

  • Can revenue courts enhance rent for a contractual tenancy for a fixed period without citing explicit statutory authority?
  • Does a tenant have protection against rent enhancement and ejectment until receiving compensation for improvements under the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950?
  • Whether orders passed by revenue authorities without reference to applicable statutory provisions are without lawful authority?
  • Is a tenant liable to eviction upon the expiration of the term of a contractual tenancy under section 23 of the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950?
  Read full judgment →
• PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE1987 PLC 662 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs SULEMAN KHAN1987 PLC 777 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-02-14Read full judgment →
• PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs M. MUHAMMAD SADIQ and another1987 CLC 933 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-18
  fatal accidentspecuniary lossrash and negligent drivingdamages assessmentvicarious liabilitycivil liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a civil suit for damages filed by the parents of a deceased woman, who died in a traffic accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of a bus belonging to the Punjab Road Transport Board. The core legal question concerns the scope of damages recoverable under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, specifically whether non-pecuniary losses like mental shock, loss of companionship, and affection are compensable, and the methodology for calculating pecuniary loss. The Court held that the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, limits recovery to actual pecuniary loss suffered by the beneficiaries. Consequently, claims for mental torture, loss of companionship, and medical expenses for other injured parties were disallowed. The Court established that damages must be based on the reasonable expectation of financial contribution the deceased would have provided had she lived, taking into account her age, health, and earning capacity. The decree was modified to reflect only the calculated pecuniary loss based on the deceased's probable contribution to her parents' maintenance over her expected lifespan.

  Questions settled

  • Are non-pecuniary damages such as mental shock and loss of companionship recoverable under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
  • What is the correct basis for calculating pecuniary loss in a wrongful death claim under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
  • Can a plaintiff recover medical expenses for injuries sustained by other family members in a suit brought under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
  Read full judgment →
• PUNJAB PROVINCE and others vs YOUSUF KAZMI (Advocate) and others1987 MLD 2507 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-30Read full judgment →
• PUNJAB PROVINCE and others vs FAQIR MUHAMMAD and others1987 CLC 1643 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-09Read full judgment →
• PUNJAB PROVINCE and anothers vs JAMAL DIN1987 CLC 521 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-07Read full judgment →
• PUNJAB EMPLOYEE's SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION vs KOH I NOOR TEXTILE1987 SCMR 765 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-21
  social security contributionextension of timeadministrative circularpenalty impositionstatutory interpretationemployer liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the imposition of penalties for delayed social security contributions. The respondent, an employer, had been granted specific permission by the Commissioner for Social Security in 1967 to deposit contributions within 30 days of the month's end, rather than the standard 15-day period. Despite this, a Regional Director later imposed penalties for late payments, citing a routine circular issued in 1974. The core legal question was whether the Commissioner possessed the authority to extend the payment deadline and whether a subsequent routine circular could override that specific grant of extension. The Supreme Court held that the Commissioner acted within the scope of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security (Contribution) Rules, 1966, which explicitly allow the Institution to extend the payment period for good cause. The Court affirmed that the routine circular did not revoke the prior, valid extension granted to the respondent. The principle established is that an administrative authority's specific grant of extension, authorized by statute, remains valid unless formally recalled, and cannot be implicitly overridden by general circulars issued by subordinate officials.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Institution have the authority to extend the time period for payment of social security contributions beyond the standard 15 days?
  • Can a routine administrative circular issued by a subordinate official implicitly revoke a specific extension of time previously granted by the Commissioner?
  • Is an employer liable for penalties for late payment if they are acting in accordance with a valid, unrevoked extension granted by the Commissioner?
  Read full judgment →
• PUNHOON vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 321 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
• PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN vs COLLECTOR, SIALKOT and another1987 CLC 305 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-08Read full judgment →
• PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB Through Secretary, Irrigation And Power1987 SCMR 1145 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  workmanrevisional jurisdictionnew plealeave to appealtrial courtfirst appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by the Province of Punjab against the respondent. The primary issue raised by the petitioner was whether the respondent qualified as a 'workman'. However, the record demonstrated that this specific question was neither raised at the initial trial stage nor presented in the subsequent appeal before the learned Additional District Judge. Instead, the petitioner sought to agitate this factual issue for the first time during the exercise of revisional jurisdiction before the High Court. The High Court refused to entertain the new plea at the revisional stage. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, holding that a new plea cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in revisional proceedings when it was omitted at trial and first appeal. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition, the Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise a new question of fact for the first time in revisional jurisdiction before the High Court?
  • Whether the High Court properly exercises its discretion by refusing to entertain an issue not agitated at trial or first appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH COLLECTOR, SHEIKHUPURA vs ANJUMAN TALIM UL ISLAM AND Other1987 PLD Supreme Court 123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-12
  grant of landresumption of landproprietary rightstenant statusarbitration clauseColonization of Government Lands ActCollector powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which allowed a second appeal and decreed the respondent's suit challenging the resumption of land. The core legal question was whether condition No. 9 of the grant, empowering the Collector to cancel the grant and resume possession for breach of conditions, was an independent power exercisable upon violation and whether it excluded the arbitration procedure provided in the grant or the application of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. The Supreme Court held that since the grantee had not yet fulfilled the conditions of the grant (specifically constructing a school), he remained a tenant pursuant to condition No. 8 and section 15 of the Act, and had not acquired full proprietary rights to attract section 30. Consequently, the Collector validly exercised the power to cancel the grant and resume the land under condition No. 9, which was saved from arbitration by its own terms. The appeal was allowed and the suit dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Collector is empowered to cancel a land grant and resume possession under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 upon a breach of the conditions of the grant?
  • Does a grantee of government land who has not fulfilled the mandatory conditions of the grant maintain the status of a tenant rather than a proprietor?
  • Whether the arbitration clause in a conveyance deed excludes the operation of the Collector's power of resumption under condition No. 9 of the grant?
  • Does section 30 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 apply to a grantee who has not acquired proprietary rights in accordance with the prescribed statement of conditions?
  Read full judgment →
• PROVINCE OF SIND through the Deputy Commissioner, Thatta and 3 others1987 CLC 668 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
• PROVINCE OF SIND and others vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN1987 MLD 2858 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-18Read full judgment →
• PROVINCE OF PUNJAB, Through COLLECTOR D.G. KHAN And Others vs Messrs1987 SCMR 1904 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-26
  leave to appealarbitration awardrule of the courtlimitation periodextension of timecivil revisionexecution appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The Provincial Government and others sought leave to appeal against judgments of the Lahore High Court which dismissed their civil revision arising from an arbitration award made rule of the court and dismissed their execution appeal. The dispute arose from a road construction contract wherein an arbitrator rendered an award against the petitioners. The petitioners raised contentions regarding the rank of the arbitrator, the expiration of the four-month period for rendering the award without formal extension, and the non-applicability of limitation against a null and void award. The Supreme Court held that the question regarding the arbitrator's rank was a question of fact not raised before the High Court and could not be entertained at that stage. Furthermore, correspondence by the court amounted to an extension of time, concluding the factual findings on limitation. The Court laid down that concurrent findings of fact regarding extension of time by the courts below will not be interfered with lightly, and dismissed both petitions for lack of force.

  Questions settled

  • Can a question of fact regarding the rank of an arbitrator, not raised before the High Court, be entertained for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
  • Whether official correspondence and reminders sent by a court to an arbitrator can be interpreted as granting an extension of time for rendering an arbitration award?
  • Does the bar of limitation operate against objections filed out of time when the underlying arbitration award is challenged as a nullity?
  Read full judgment →
• PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs SHER MUHAMMAD And Another1987 SCMR 1351 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-08
  land acquisitionstay of executioninterim orderdiscretionary powercompensation awardsecurity for refund
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab against an order of the Lahore High Court, which refused to stay execution proceedings regarding compensation awarded for land acquired under the Lahore Township Scheme. The respondents were granted compensation at a rate of Rs.2,000 per Kanal by the civil court following a reference under the Land Acquisition Act. The High Court had declined to stay the execution but permitted the respondents to withdraw the awarded amount subject to furnishing security for potential refund, should the government's appeal succeed. The petitioner challenged this interim order, raising issues regarding the maintainability of the reference, limitation, and the government's alleged lack of funds. The Supreme Court held that the legal questions regarding the merits of the appeal would be addressed by the High Court during the final adjudication. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a plea of non-availability of funds does not justify staying execution proceedings, especially when the High Court has already secured the petitioner's interest by requiring security for refund. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as the Court found no justification to interfere with the High Court's discretionary interim order.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-availability of funds justify a stay of execution proceedings in a land acquisition case?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a discretionary interim order of the High Court regarding the stay of execution?
  • Is it appropriate for the High Court to allow the withdrawal of compensation money subject to the furnishing of security for refund pending an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs Mirza BASHIR AHMAD1987 CLC 651 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-01Read full judgment →
• PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs Ch. RASHID AHMAD1987 SCMR 7 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-25
  service tribunalabatement of suitscivil servant statusjurisdiction of service tribunalslocal council serviceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Punjab Services Tribunal, which dismissed the Government of Punjab's appeal regarding the service status of a Local Council Service member. The respondent had initially obtained a civil court decree concerning his service conditions in 1973. Following a 1978 amendment to the Local Government Ordinance, 1979, which classified Local Council Service members as civil servants under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, the Government sought to transfer the matter to the Punjab Services Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding it incompetent because the original civil court decree had attained finality. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of abatement under Section 8 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974. The core legal question is whether the establishment of the Tribunal for a specific class of employees, following a legislative amendment, triggers the abatement of pending civil proceedings and allows for a fresh appeal before the Tribunal within the statutory limitation period, notwithstanding prior civil court proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the establishment of a Service Tribunal for a specific class of employees trigger the abatement of pending civil suits concerning their service matters?
  • Can an appeal be filed before a Service Tribunal within ninety days of the establishment of the Tribunal for a specific class of employees, even if a civil court decree was previously passed?
  • Does an amendment classifying employees as civil servants retrospectively bring them under the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal for the purpose of pending litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through SECRETARY EDUCATION, LAHORE And Others1987 SCMR 1173 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-22
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantresidential buildingpersonal usegood faithleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments of the courts below ordering the ejectment of the petitioner, who operates a school in the rented premises. The landlord sought ejectment claiming the premises were required in good faith for his own use and the use of his sons, specifically stating at trial an intention to establish a school. The core legal question concerns whether a landlord can obtain the vacation of a residential building under the relevant rent restriction provisions for establishing a school rather than for personal residence. The Supreme Court observed that the statutory provision prima facie applies when a landlord requires the building for occupation by themselves or their children, and not for commercial purposes such as running a school, noting that evicting an existing school to start another would contravene the statutory intent. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the matter further while maintaining the interim stay order during the pendency of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord can get a residential building vacated under section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 for establishing a school instead of for personal residence?
  • Does the requirement of a building for commercial purposes such as running a school fall within the scope of personal occupation under the rent restriction law?
  Read full judgment →
• RAB NAWAZ vs Mst. MEHR SAWA1 and others1987 CLC 2039 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
• PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through Collector, Faisalabad And Others vs ALI1987 SCMR 664 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-04
  State landproprietary rightsejected tenant schemeconstitutional petitiongovernment policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from appeals against a judgment of the Lahore High Court that allowed constitutional petitions regarding the acquisition of proprietary rights in State land by allottees under the ejected tenant scheme. The core legal question concerned the legality of denying the purchase of State land exceeding a specific limit. Based on a change in government policy and a compromise reached between the parties, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeals by permitting the allotment of the excess land subject to the fulfillment of prescribed conditions and payments. The Court held that the precise amount to be paid by the respondents under the revised policy should be determined by the competent authorities after affording an opportunity of hearing, keeping open the question of calculation. The principle laid down is that administrative authorities must apply revised government policies regarding land disposal fairly and consistently, ensuring equal treatment to similarly situated parties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether allottees under the ejected tenant scheme are entitled to purchase State land in excess of the prescribed limit upon a change in government policy?
  • How should the market value and additional charges for excess State land be calculated upon the adoption of a revised government policy?
  Read full judgment →
• PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through Collector vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL QURESHI And Other1987 SCMR 719 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-01
  civil court jurisdictionservice tribunalleave to appealdepartmental examinationN.P.S.-16service matters
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, concerning the jurisdiction of civil courts in service matters. The core legal questions involve whether the civil court possessed the jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit in light of the provisions of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, and whether the High Court correctly determined that the civil court had jurisdiction. Furthermore, the petition challenges the High Court's finding regarding the entitlement of the petitioners to retain N.P.S.-16 status despite failing to pass the departmental examination. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, finding these issues to be of public importance, granted leave to appeal to consider the jurisdictional and service-related questions raised. The Court ordered that the matter be heard on the existing record, with liberty for parties to file additional documents, and suspended the operation of the impugned order of the High Court pending the final adjudication of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to adjudicate matters falling under the Punjab Service Tribunal Act 1974?
  • Is the finding of the High Court regarding the jurisdiction of the civil court in service matters correct under the Punjab Service Tribunal Act 1974?
  • Are employees entitled to retain N.P.S.-16 status if they have not passed the required departmental examination?
  Read full judgment →
• PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through COLLECTOR FAISALABAD And Others vs Mirza1987 SCMR 1391 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-04
  arbitration awardlimitation periodremission of awardarbitration proceedingsleave to appealprocedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against the rejection of objections filed by the petitioners regarding an arbitration award. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing to remit the arbitration awards to the arbitrator for failing to provide sufficient reasons, particularly in light of the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's decision was correct because the objections were time-barred. Furthermore, regarding the petitioners' contention that the awards lacked sufficient reasoning and should have been remitted under Section 3(1) of the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981, the Court found no merit in this argument. The ratio of the decision is that a party cannot seek relief on appeal regarding the remission of an award for lack of reasoning if such a request was never formally made before the trial court or the appellate court below. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed as the petitioners failed to raise the specific prayer for remission at the appropriate stage of the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party seek the remission of an arbitration award for lack of reasoning on appeal if the request was not made before the trial court?
  • Are objections to an arbitration award filed outside the statutory limitation period maintainable?
  • Does the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance 1981 mandate the automatic remission of awards lacking sufficient reasons without a request from the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN vs Sardar MUHAMMAD USMAN KHAN1987 PLD Quetta 33 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-04
  arbitration awardad valorem court feelimitation actreturn of plaintinterest on awardmisconduct of arbitratorcivil procedure code
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses four connected civil miscellaneous appeals filed by the Province of Baluchistan against the decrees passed by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Quetta, making arbitration awards rules of the court. The core legal questions involve the proper forum and valuation for filing appeals arising from arbitration decrees, the requirement of ad valorem court fees under the Court Fees Act 1870, the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 for condonation of delay resulting from prosecuting appeals in an incorrect forum, and the validity of the arbitrator's appointment and award including the grant of interest. The Balochistan High Court held that proceedings resulting in a decree based on an arbitration award are contentious and subject to ad valorem court fees, that the appeals were wrongly filed before the District Judge and subsequently presented to the High Court with deficient court fees and without sufficient cause under Section 14 or Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and that new questions of fact cannot be raised for the first time in appeal. The appeals were dismissed with a modification regarding interest.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal against a decree passed in terms of an arbitration award requires ad valorem court-fee under Schedule I of the Court Fees Act 1870?
  • Can time spent in prosecuting an appeal before an incompetent forum be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 when the appellant acted with gross negligence?
  • Whether new questions of fact regarding the validity of an arbitration agreement can be raised for the first time at the appellate stage?
  • Does an arbitrator have the authority to award interest, and can an appellate court modify an award in this regard under Section 29 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  Read full judgment →
• PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN Through Secretary, C & W Department, Quetta1987 SCMR 1755 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-15
  withdrawal of appealappellate procedurecivil appealdismissal of appealprocedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as an appeal filed by the Province of Baluchistan, represented by the Secretary of the C & W Department. Upon the commencement of proceedings, the learned Advocate-General, acting on behalf of the appellant, formally requested the Court's permission to withdraw the appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent indicated that they had no objection to this request. Consequently, the Court granted the permission sought by the appellant. The Supreme Court of Pakistan accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with no order issued regarding costs. The judgment serves as a procedural record of the voluntary withdrawal of the appeal by the appellant with the concurrence of the respondent, thereby concluding the litigation between the parties before the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellant withdraw an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan with the consent of the respondent?
  • Does the withdrawal of an appeal by the appellant result in an order as to costs?
  Read full judgment →
• Professor ATTAUL HAQ vs INAYAT SAEED And Another1987 SCMR 1714 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-09
  leave to appealfinding of factwrit petitionrent restrictionSupreme Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition arising from proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The petitioner sought to challenge the High Court's decision before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Upon review of the impugned judgment and hearing the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court determined that the decision of the High Court was based entirely on a finding of fact. The Court held that the matter did not involve any substantial question of law that would necessitate intervention or a decision by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition. This judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court will generally decline to interfere in matters where the lower court's decision rests on findings of fact rather than legal error or constitutional interpretation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal in cases where the impugned judgment is based solely on a finding of fact?
  • Is a finding of fact by the High Court sufficient to warrant interference by the Supreme Court in a rent restriction matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Prof. MUHAMMAD RASHID vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT And 2Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 493 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• PRINCIPAL COLLEGE OF COMMUNITY MEDICINE, LAHORE vs Dr. Syed ABDUL1987 MLD 996 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
• PREMIER TOBACCO INDUSTRIES Ltd., KOTRI vs SIND LABOUR COURT N0. VI And Another1987 PLC 14 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-16Read full judgment →
• PREMIER TOBACCO INDUSTRIES LTD. vs THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS and others1987 MLD 2752 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-16Read full judgment →