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.
- PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN Ltd. vs THE SEIWA SHIPPING CO.1987 CLC 173 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-03Read full judgment →
- PORT QASIM AUTHORITY vs COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS' COMPENSATION1987 PLC 690 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-23Read full judgment →
- Pirzadaamir HASSAN And Another vs Mrs. SHAMIM SHAH NAWAZ And Another1987 SCMR 249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' Regular First Appeal and upheld the decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell passed in favour of the respondent-side. The core legal questions involved whether the trial court was legally justified in closing the petitioners' evidence upon repeated adjournments and failure to produce evidence, and whether the dismissal of an earlier suit for a mandatory injunction rendered the subsequent suit for specific performance barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court held that the trial court and the High Court rightly concluded that the provisions permitting the court to proceed forthwith upon refusal of an adjournment justified the closure of evidence, and that the earlier suit for a mandatory injunction to obtain transfer documents was distinct and did not bar the subsequent suit for specific performance. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle that trial courts possess inherent powers under procedural rules to prevent the abuse of adjournments and advance proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court is empowered to close a party's evidence upon the unjustified failure to produce evidence and refusal of further adjournments?
- Does the dismissal of an earlier suit for a mandatory injunction to obtain property transfer documents operate as res judicata against a subsequent suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell?
- Whether the provisions of Order XVII Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 authorize a court to proceed with a suit forthwith when sufficient cause for adjournment is not shown?
- PIRAN DITTA vs MEMBER, REVENUE BOARD And Another1987 SCMR 406 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition challenging a pre-emption decree passed in favour of the respondent/pre-emptor on the ground of tenancy. The High Court had declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact on tenancy rendered by the revenue authorities. In the Supreme Court, the petitioner sought to challenge the decree by relying on the Shariat Appellate Bench's judgment in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1986 SC 360). The Supreme Court held that since the appellate judgment in the present case was passed on May 24, 1984, which was well before the effective date of the Malik Said Kamal Shah judgment (July 31, 1986), the proceedings had become past and closed. Consequently, the petitioner could not derive any benefit from the declaration of un-Islamic provisions in the pre-emption laws. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emption decree passed and finalized before July 31, 1986, is affected by the Supreme Court Shariat Appellate Bench's judgment in the Malik Said Kamal Shah case?
- Can a vendee claim retrospective benefit from the Malik Said Kamal Shah judgment to defeat a pre-emption decree that attained finality prior to the date the relevant pre-emption laws became ineffective?
- Pir Syed SADRUDDIN SHAH vs MUHAMMAD BUX and 3 others1987 MLD 2957 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-09Read full judgment →
- PIR KHAN Through His Legal Heirs vs MILITARY ESTATE OFFICER, ABBOTTABAD1987 PLD SC 485 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Article 185(2)(e) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 arose from land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Land was acquired for the Central Government (Pakistan Ordnance Factory Havelian). The owner, dissatisfied with the Collector's award, obtained an enhanced compensation rate from the Senior Civil Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The Military Estate Officer and the Central Government appealed the decree to the High Court, which reduced the compensation. The land owner appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that neither the beneficiary nor the Central Government had locus standi to appeal. The Supreme Court held that right of appeal is purely statutory. Under Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, local authorities or beneficiary entities are barred from demanding a reference under Section 18 and have no statutory right to appeal the court's decree. The Court distinguished general principles allowing affected non-parties to appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court's judgment was set aside and the trial court's decree restored.
Questions settled- Does a beneficiary entity or local authority for whose benefit land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 have the right to file an appeal against an order enhancing compensation?
- Can a right of appeal be inferred or implied in the absence of an express statutory provision?
- Does the principle permitting an adversely affected stranger to appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to references under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- PIR BAKHSH vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER ,D.G. KHAN and others1987 MLD 1721 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-08Read full judgment →
- PIR BAKHSH REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND Other vs THE CHAIRMAN, ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE AND Other1987 PLD Supreme Court 145 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated batch of civil appeals by special leave arises from judgments of the Lahore High Court concerning the revision of agricultural land allotments under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Schemes. The core legal questions involved the scope and effect of judgments in rem versus judgments in personam, the applicability and limits of the doctrine of res judicata, the finality of past and closed transactions, and whether a subsequent favorable ruling of the Supreme Court can reopen matters finally adjudicated inter partes where no appeal was preferred. The Supreme Court held that proceedings relating to individual claims of land allotments are actions in personam, and judgments rendered therein are binding only between the parties or their privies. Once rights are finally determined inter partes, they assume finality as past and closed transactions, and a subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court overruling the legal view taken by the High Court operates prospectively under Article 189 of the Constitution and does not have the effect of automatically reopening concluded rights or overriding the bar of res judicata against parties who failed to challenge the earlier judgment. The Court laid down principles distinguishing judgments in rem under Section 41 of the Evidence Act from judgments in personam, and reaffirmed that the binding effect of res judicata applies to decisions of competent courts even if subsequently found to be erroneous in law.
Questions settled- Whether a judgment rendered in a writ petition regarding land allotment claims is a judgment in rem or a judgment in personam?
- Does a subsequent declaration of law by the Supreme Court operate retroactively to reopen rights and matters finally concluded by a High Court judgment that was not appealed against?
- Does the bar of res judicata apply where a previous judicial decision between the same parties is subsequently found to be founded on an erroneous view of the law?
- Can a party who was not properly impleaded or represented in earlier writ proceedings be held bound by the final judgment rendered therein?
- PIR BAKHSH and 4 others vs BAR KHURDAR1987 PLD Lahore 666 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-07Read full judgment →
- PIR BAKHSH And 4 Other vs BARKHURDAR1987 PLD Lahore 666 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-07Read full judgment →
- Pir BAHAUDDIN SIRHINDI vs THE MAYOR, HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL1987 MLD 2090 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-14Read full judgment →
- Pir ANWAR SHAH and another vs Malik ASAD SIKANDAR and others1987 MLD 1376 · Election Commission of Pakistan · 1987-05-25Read full judgment →
- Petitioner: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Zone, Karachi). vsPTCL 1987 CL. 267 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- PERVEZ ALAM vs REGISTRAR TRADE MARKS and another1987 CLC 647 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
- PERVEZ AHMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2391 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-19Read full judgment →
- PERVAIZ SAMAD vs KONKAR UNION COUNCIL and another1987 MLD 2347 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-03Read full judgment →
- PERVAIZ IQBAL vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 895 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
- PERVAIZ AKHTAR vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2915 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-29Read full judgment →
- PERVAIZ AKHTAR vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2367 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-20Read full judgment →
- PERSONNEL/ FACTORY MANAGER, PACKAGES LTD., LAHORE vs YOUSUF MASIH1987 PLC 668 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-01Read full judgment →
- PERSONNEL MANAGER, GLAXO LABORATORIES (PAKISTAN) Ltd., KARACHI vs BAKHTIAR KHAN1987 PLC 68(1) · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-10-05Read full judgment →
- PEHLAJ RAI vs KHEM CHAND And Other1987 SCMR 1772 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from four petitions for leave to appeal directed against a common judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeals under section 15 of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The core legal dispute involves a claim by the petitioner as landlord seeking the ejectment of the respondents, who disputed his title and claimed the property devolved to the State by escheat from a Hindu widow. The Rent Controller initially ordered ejectment, finding the landlord-tenant relationship established. However, the High Court set this aside, holding that the petitioner's title was clouded and pending civil litigation precluded ejectment, relying on precedent regarding genuine doubts on title in summary rent proceedings. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised substantial questions of law requiring examination, particularly regarding whether the tenants had successfully created a reasonable doubt as to the petitioner's title and whether prior procedural orders regarding staying the appeals were violated.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller order the ejectment of a tenant when the landlord's title is subject to genuine and reasonable doubt?
- Whether pending civil litigation challenging a landlord's title constitutes a bar to summary ejectment proceedings?
- Do appeals pending before the High Court under the rent laws warrant a stay of proceedings pending the final decision of a related civil suit regarding property title?
- PEER B AK HS H vs MUHAMMAD MOOSA and 4 others1987 CLC 708 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-11Read full judgment →
- PAYARAH MASIH And Another vs CHAIRMAN, TOWN COMMITTEE, TANDLIANWALA1987 PLC 226 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PARWAIZ AHMED vs DISTRICT JUDGE, WEST KARACHI and 2 others1987 CLC 1277 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arose from an execution proceeding of a family court money decree for maintenance. The Family Court had ordered attachment of 50% of the petitioner's salary under Section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, an order subsequently upheld by the District Judge on appeal on the ground that the phrase 'if the Court so directs' conferred wide discretion upon the court to adopt any mode of execution. The core legal question was whether a Family Court executing a money decree has discretion to execute it through attachment of salary under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or must execute it exclusively by recovering the decretal amount as arrears of land revenue. The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the lower courts' orders, holding that Section 13(3) provides a special procedure for executing money decrees. The Court ruled that the phrase 'if the Court so directs' does not grant discretion regarding the mode of execution, but only allows discretion on incidental matters such as granting time or postponing recovery.
Questions settled- Does a Family Court have the discretion under Section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 to execute a money decree by attaching the judgment-debtor's salary?
- Does the statutory phrase 'if the Court so directs' in Section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 grant discretion over the mode of execution or only incidental matters?
- Must money decrees passed by a Family Court be executed exclusively through recovery as arrears of land revenue?
- PARVEEN AKHTAR vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL and another1987 CLC 1668 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WAPDA) vs ANWAR1987 PLC (C.S.) 518 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-01Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN WAPDA LABOUR UNION (REGD.) vs MAHMOOD -AKHTAR, MEMBER, N.I.R.C. And Another1987 PLC 656 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1987-04-06Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN vs PUBLIC AT LARGEK.L.R. 1987 Labour and Service Cases 131 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-06Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN TOBACCO vs MUHAMMAD YARK.L.R. 1987 Revenue Caaca 148 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-02Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN TOBACCO BOARD vs MUHAMMAD YAR and 3 others1987 MLD 2480 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-02Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN through The Secretary, Communications, Islamabad vs ABDUL1987 CLC 2403 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN Through The General Manager, Pakistan RailwaysLahore vs Messrs Q.M.R. EXPERT CONSULTANTS, LAHORE1987 SCMR 383 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a High Court order in revisional jurisdiction, which set aside a Civil Judge's order and held that the petitioner's time to file objections to an arbitration award had expired. The petitioner, Pakistan Railways, had its contract dispute referred to arbitration under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. After the award was filed, notice was served on the petitioner's former standing counsel, whose services had been terminated prior to the filing of the award but without obtaining the leave of the court under Order III Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court ruled that service on the counsel constituted valid service on the petitioner under Order III Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner contended that the special provisions of Order XXVII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 overrode the general provisions of Order III, and that the presumption of communication was rebutted by the termination of the counsel's engagement. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these substantial legal questions.
Questions settled- Whether the service of notice of an arbitration award on a counsel whose engagement was terminated, but without the court's leave under Order III Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, constitutes valid service on the client?
- Does the special provision for service on Government Pleaders under Order XXVII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 override the general provisions of Order III Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is the presumption of communication of process to a party under Order III Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 rebuttable by proving the prior termination of the counsel's appointment?
- PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Industries Islamabad and another1987 MLD 2062 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-22Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and another1987 CLC 1844 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-01-20Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN Through Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, KARACHI1987 PLC 653 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
- RAB NAWAZ vs Mst. MEHR SAWAI And Other1987 SCMR 785 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's civil revision in a matter concerning inheritance. The plaintiff-respondent, Mst. Mehr Sawai, filed a suit for her share in the inheritance property of her deceased husband, Sultan A.I Shah, which was decreed by the trial court and upheld in first appeal and revision. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner, claiming as a successor-in-interest from the heirs, urged that the property had already been partitioned as framed under issue No. 7. The Supreme Court observed that the trial court had correctly noted that the defendants at whose instance the issue was framed did not contest the suit, leading to the decision against them. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the petition lacked force and dismissed it. The key principle affirmed is that an un-contested issue regarding prior partition cannot be successfully urged by a successor-in-interest when the defendants who raised it failed to contest the suit.
Questions settled- Can a successor-in-interest press an issue of prior partition when the defendants at whose instance the issue was framed failed to contest the suit?
- Whether a civil revision arising out of an inheritance suit can be maintained when the underlying factual issues were left uncontested at trial?
- PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION vs S. AHTRAMULLAH1987 SCMR 753 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed an Intra-Court Appeal as not maintainable. The dispute arose when the Pakistan Television Corporation removed the respondent from service under the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance 1978. The respondent successfully challenged this removal in a writ petition, arguing his appointment date fell outside the Ordinance's scope. The petitioner Corporation contended that the respondent was appointed earlier, thus falling within the Ordinance's purview, and that the removal was protected by Article 15(2) of the Provisional Constitution Order 1981 and the Constitution (8th Amendment) Order 1985. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the respondent, as a deemed civil servant, should have approached the Service Tribunal under the Service Tribunals Act 1973, pursuant to Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting the substantial questions of law regarding jurisdiction and the applicability of the Service Tribunals Act, and suspended the operation of the impugned High Court order pending final adjudication.
Questions settled- Does the Service Tribunals Act 1973 bar the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters concerning the removal of employees of the Pakistan Television Corporation?
- Whether an Intra-Court Appeal can be dismissed as not maintainable if the underlying writ petition was filed against an order passed under the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance 1978?
- Does Article 15(2) of the Provisional Constitution Order 1981 validate orders passed under the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance 1978 notwithstanding a contrary High Court judgment?
- PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LTD. vs BURMAH OIL PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY1987 CLC 272 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-17Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN SPORTS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD vs KH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL BUTT1987 SCMR 993 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a dispute over the transfer of property, specifically a double-storeyed building associated with an industrial concern, Kuckreja Sports Limited. The petitioner, having purchased the industrial concern at auction, sought to include the double-storeyed building in its transfer, a request initially granted by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. However, the respondent successfully appealed this decision to the Settlement Commissioner, who ruled that the portion in the respondent's possession be transferred to him. This order became final. Subsequently, the respondent obtained a Permanent Transfer Order (P.T.O.) that contradicted the final order by including property previously awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner sought correction of this P.T.O. from the Chief Settlement Commissioner, who ordered the document to be amended to align with the final order. The High Court later set aside this correction, prompting the current petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question concerns whether a transfer document must strictly conform to the final underlying transfer order. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that transfer documents must conform to the contents of the final transfer order.
Questions settled- Must a Permanent Transfer Order (P.T.O.) conform to the contents of the final transfer order?
- Can a Settlement Department issue a transfer document that contradicts a final judicial order?
- Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner have the authority to direct the amendment of a P.T.O. to make it consistent with a final order?
- PAKISTAN SPORTS CO OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LTD. vs Khawaja1987 SCMR 953 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a dispute over the ownership of two rooms previously attached to an evacuee industrial concern purchased by the petitioner-society. The respondent, a displaced person, had obtained a transfer order for an adjacent evacuee house, which included the disputed rooms. Following a series of litigation rounds, including eviction proceedings where the respondent successfully evicted the petitioner, the Additional Settlement Commissioner directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to correct the transfer documents to align with an earlier Settlement Commissioner order dated 6-12-1960, which allegedly excluded the disputed rooms from the respondent's transfer. The High Court, however, set aside this direction, prompting the current petition. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the petitioner's contention—that the respondent's transfer was based on an order that never included the disputed rooms—required further examination. The Court held that the legality of the administrative correction of transfer documents based on the original, final Settlement Commissioner order warrants a deeper judicial review to determine if the respondent's claim to the property was legally substantiated.
Questions settled- Can a Settlement Commissioner's original transfer order be used to correct subsequent transfer documents issued to a party?
- Does a party have a valid claim to property that was not included in the original transfer order issued by the Settlement Commissioner?
- Is a High Court's interference in administrative corrections of transfer documents justified when the corrections align with the original settlement order?
- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs Syed MUHAMMAD IQBAL And Others1987 PLC 460(2) · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-18Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs MUHAMMAD SARWAR1987 PLC 238 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-02Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs KHURSHID ALI And Others1987 PLC 454 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-01Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs GHULAM MUSTAFA1987 PLC 83 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-09-02Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY Ltd. vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND and 2 others1987 MLD 1402 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-31Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN PROGRESSIVE CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD. (Now National Cement1987 SCMR 139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, wherein the petitioners challenged the tax treatment of interest paid on the purchase price of the Dalimia Cement Factory Limited. The core legal question examined by the court is whether the amount of interest paid by the petitioners on the purchase price could be deemed to have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and consequently allowed as a permissible deduction. The court granted leave to appeal to consider this question in depth based on the facts and circumstances of the case, requiring security of Rs. 5,000 in each case. The key principle relates to the interpretation and application of business expenditure deductions under tax law.
Questions settled- Whether interest paid on the purchase price of a factory can be deemed to have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business under the Income-tax Act 1922?
- Can interest payments on capital acquisitions qualify as allowable business deductions?
- PAKISTAN POST OFFICE vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other1987 SCMR 1119 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Peshawar High Court on the ground of laches regarding an urban settlement dispute. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly dismissed the petition without addressing the merits, and how the doctrine of laches applies to government litigation involving departmental delays. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its approach. It established that laches is an equitable doctrine, distinct from the statutory bar of limitation, and does not operate as an inflexible rule. The Court emphasized that the discretion to dismiss a writ petition on laches must not be exercised to perpetuate injustice. Furthermore, departmental delays in government litigation should be evaluated on their own merits rather than being automatically rejected under an inflexible formula. Consequently, the Court set aside the dismissal, ruling that a void, unjust, and improper order should not be shielded by the doctrine of laches, especially when the delay is reasonably explained and no estoppel arises.
Questions settled- Is the doctrine of laches equivalent to the statutory bar of limitation?
- Should departmental delays in government litigation be automatically rejected as a ground for condonation?
- Can a High Court dismiss a writ petition on the ground of laches if the impugned order is void and unjust?
- Does the principle of laches apply to government litigation in the same manner as it applies to private litigants?
- PAKISTAN NAVY through Commanding Officer vs KHALILULLAH BAIG1987 CLC 615 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION vs Messrs CRESCENT STAR1987 MLD 2130 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-19Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION vs Messrs ALPHA INSURANCE1987 MLD 578 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-05Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION vs ADAMJEE INSURANCE1987 CLC 1376 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION vs PAKISTAN NATIONAL1987 MLD 698 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-17Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN MINERAL CORPORATION vs SALIM INDUSTRIES LTD.1987 CLC 1941 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-02Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY LIBERAL UNION vs MESSERS PAKISTANK.L.R. 1987 Labour and Service Cases 3 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-23Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE1987 CLC 966 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION vs Messrs SARHAD1987 MLD 2147 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-05Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN INSURANCE CORPORATION vs GRINDLAYS BANK LTD. and 3 others1987 CLC 2164 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a judgment and decree by the Special Court (Banking) which dismissed the Pakistan Insurance Corporation's application for leave to defend a suit and decreed the claim against it. The core legal questions concerned whether the application for leave to defend was time-barred, whether the Corporation acted as an agent of the Federal Government or as a principal under the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme, and whether the alleged breaches of policy terms justified granting leave. The Court held that the application was time-barred as service by publication was valid. Furthermore, the Court determined that the Corporation operated the Scheme as a principal, not an agent, rendering it liable for claims. Finally, the Court found the allegations regarding breaches of policy terms to be vague and insufficient to warrant leave to defend. The key principle laid down is that an entity managing a government scheme can be held liable as a principal if the scheme's rules establish it as such, and that vague assertions of breach are insufficient to secure leave to defend in summary proceedings.
Questions settled- Is an entity managing a government-backed scheme liable as a principal if the scheme's rules establish it as such?
- Can a court examine the question of limitation at the appellate stage even if it was not raised before the trial court?
- Does service of summons by publication constitute valid service in a suit under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
- Are vague allegations of breach of contract sufficient grounds to grant leave to defend in a summary suit?
- PAKISTAN INSURANCE CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' UNION, KARACHI AND NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' UNION, LAHORE vs PAKISTAN INSURANCE CORPORATION And 7 Others NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION And 7 Others1987 PLC 361 · National Industrial Relations CommissionRead full judgment →
- PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (Pvt.) Ltd. vs CENTRAL1987 MLD 505 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-10Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (PRIVATE) Ltd. vs NISAR1987 PLC 157 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-02-27Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN DIPLOMA ENGINEERS FEDERATION (Regd.),LAHORE vs FEDERATION1987 CLC 2154 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a registered federation of diploma engineers, filed a constitutional petition in a representative capacity on behalf of its members to challenge matters concerning their terms and conditions of service. The High Court raised a preliminary question regarding the maintainability of the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court observed that while any person can invoke constitutional jurisdiction for writs of Quo Warranto and Habeas Corpus, the competency to invoke jurisdiction for writs of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition is strictly circumscribed to an 'aggrieved party'. The Court held that the petitioner, as an association, was not an aggrieved person because the alleged grievance affected the individual terms and conditions of its members and not the federation itself. Since the petitioner suffered no direct injury, it lacked locus standi. Distinguishing unargued sub-silentio precedents, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, affirming that representative bodies cannot maintain writ petitions for individual grievances of their members.
Questions settled- Whether a registered association or federation qualifies as an 'aggrieved party' under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to challenge service matters affecting its individual members?
- Does a representative body have the locus standi to file a writ petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition when it has not suffered any direct personal injury?
- Can a precedent sub-silentio, where the question of locus standi was neither discussed nor decided, override express judicial precedents on the definition of an aggrieved party?
- PAKISTAN DAY MEMORIAL COMMITTEE and another vs Mian ABDUL KHALIQ &1987 CLC 1169 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking the release of a withheld sum and accrued profit following the dismissal of an appeal arising from arbitration proceedings. The core legal question was whether a court can amend its judgment under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to include directions regarding a sum and its accrued profit withheld by way of security during stay proceedings, where the omission to do so arose from an accidental slip or omission. The Lahore High Court held that the omission to pass directions regarding the withheld security amount and profit in the earlier judgment constituted an accidental omission amounting to a flaw or error under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which the court has the power to correct. The court laid down the principle that no party should suffer due to an act or oversight of the court, and that accidental omissions in judgments concerning security amounts deposited during stay proceedings can be corrected at any time under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Questions settled- Can a court amend its signed judgment under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to supply an accidental omission relating to the disposal of a security amount withheld during stay proceedings?
- Whether the dismissal of an appeal renders a court functus officio so as to bar the correction of an accidental omission or flaw in the judgment under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- Does an inadvertent failure by the court to include directions for the payment of withheld security and accrued profit constitute an 'error' correctable under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- PAKISTAN CHEMICAL AND SODIUM SILICATE INDUSTRIES vs LEVER BROTHERS1987 MLD 1276 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- PAKISTAN CABLES Ltd. vs EMPLOYEES' UNION LABOUR WELFARE SOCIETY1987 PLC 111 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-07-27Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN BURMAH SHELL LIMITED vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI And Other1987 SCMR 1288 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from an ejectment order concurrently maintained against the appellant public limited company by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, and subsequently upheld by the Lahore High Court in writ proceedings. The appellant had leased a piece of land from the original owner, Brig. K.M. Idris, and after his death and the subsequent death of his widow, disputes or doubts arose regarding the payment of rent to the legal heirs, leading the appellant to withhold rent for a prolonged period. The core legal question was whether the absence of a formal notice under section 13-A of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, vitiated the eviction proceedings and whether the appellant's failure to pay rent constituted wilful default. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant had sufficient knowledge of the devolution of ownership and that, in any case, the rent could have been deposited before the Rent Controller. The Court established that failure to serve a notice under section 13-A does not negate the relationship of landlord and tenant, and non-payment of rent following the eviction application renders the tenant liable to eviction.
Questions settled- Whether the absence of a notice under section 13-A of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, amounts to the absence of a relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Does the failure to pay or deposit rent during the pendency of eviction proceedings constitute a wilful default making the tenant liable to eviction?
- Is a tenant justified in withholding rent indefinitely on the ground of uncertainty regarding which legal heir is entitled to receive it?
- Pakistan Battery Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Karachi. vs The Deputy Collector, Central Excise and three othersPTCL 1987 CL. 407 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- PAKISTAN AND Other vs PUBLIC AT LARGE AND Other1987 PLD Supreme Court 304 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals concerned the validity of provisions in the Civil Servants Act, 1973, corresponding provincial civil service laws, and the Pakistan Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954, which empowered competent authorities to compulsorily retire civil servants in the "public interest" before the normal retirement age of sixty, without prior notice or opportunity of hearing. The core legal question was whether such compulsory premature retirement provisions, lacking safeguards of notice and hearing, are repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah.
By majority, the Supreme Court held that the impugned provisions are repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam insofar as they do not provide for due notice of the proposed action and an opportunity to show cause. The Court reasoned that compulsory retirement without notice or hearing violates Qur'anic and Sunnah injunctions requiring investigation, notice, and opportunity of hearing before depriving a person of rights, honour, or livelihood, as drawn from verses including Surah 4 Verse 94, Surah 49 Verse 6, and relevant Sunnah. The Court directed the competent authorities to amend the laws within six months to incorporate these safeguards, failing which the provisions would cease to have legal effect. A dissenting opinion would have upheld the provisions, holding that mere possibility of misuse does not render a law repugnant and that the affected civil servant's right of appeal to the Service Tribunal provides adequate remedy, while recommending that reasons for retirement be communicated to the affected person.
- PAINDA GUL And Another vs THE STATE And Another1987 SCMR 886 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal calls in question an order of the Peshawar High Court whereby a criminal revision filed by respondent No. 2 was accepted, the trial court's order was set aside, and the prosecution was permitted to exhibit a cheque as case property and examine additional witnesses under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved the scope of the trial court's powers, the finality of earlier interlocutory and revisional orders, and the bar under section 439(4)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding successive revisions. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that fundamental questions of jurisdiction and the procedural history of repeated applications had not been properly considered by the High Court. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision in light of the background facts and observations made. The key principle laid down is that while section 540 confers wide discretionary powers on courts, such powers must be exercised with caution, and lower courts and high courts must consider the legal bars of finality, previous dismissals, and statutory restrictions on revisional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is barred by subsection (4)(b) of section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 from exercising revisional jurisdiction with respect to an order previously considered and dismissed in revision by the Sessions Judge?
- Can a party circumvent statutory bars on successive applications or revisions by repeatedly filing fresh applications for summoning additional witnesses under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- To what extent are courts restricted from reviewing or altering their own earlier interlocutory decisions in light of the general principles of finality in criminal proceedings?
- PACKAGES LIMITED vs SAEED HASSAN And Another1987 PLC 467 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
- P.S. RAMDASIA vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, LAHORE And Other1987 SCMR 1148 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court concerning the remand of a settlement case. The petitioner contended in an Inter-Court Appeal that the case ought to have been remanded to the Chief Settlement Commissioner rather than the Additional Settlement Commissioner because an earlier order had been passed by the former, creating potential embarrassment for subordinate authorities. The High Court Division Bench observed that following the repeal of the relevant law by Act XIV of 1975, neither the Chief Settlement Commissioner nor the Additional Settlement Commissioner exists, and the case must instead be decided by a notified officer. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan noted that the Single Judge's remand order had already explicitly directed the deciding authority to dispose of the matter independently without being influenced by the previous directions of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Consequently, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition with these clarifying observations.
Questions settled- Whether a case remanded by the High Court under repealed settlement laws should be decided by a notified officer?
- Can a subordinate settlement authority decide a remanded case without being influenced by previous orders of the Chief Settlement Commissioner?
- OURANGZEB alias RANGOO vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1231 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
- OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR,THE NEW JHELUM TRANSPORT COMPANY LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), JHELUM vs Mirza FAZAL HAQ And 9 Other1987 PLD Lahore 618 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-21Read full judgment →
- OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, THE NEW JHELUM TRANSPORT COMPANY LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), JHELUM vs Mirza FAZ AL HAQ and 9 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 618 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-21Read full judgment →
- OBAID UD SALAM And Others vs FAIZ MUHAMMAD KHAN And Other1987 SCMR 216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which allowed the respondent pre-emptor's writ petitions concerning the extension of time for depositing pre-emption money. The core legal question involved the validity of extending the time for depositing pre-emption money when the preceding day was a public holiday, and the scope of interference by a revisional court and a constitutional court with a discretionary order. The Supreme Court held that the trial Court's order extending time under section 23(4) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, was passed in exercise of a discretionary jurisdiction, and the District Judge acted without lawful authority in setting aside that discretionary order in revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without establishing any jurisdictional defect, illegality, or irregularity. Consequently, the High Court's judgment upholding the extension was unexceptionable. The key principle laid down is that a revisional court cannot interfere with a proper exercise of judicial discretion by a trial court under section 23(4) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, in the absence of jurisdictional error or material irregularity.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court's order extending time for deposit of pre-emption money under section 23 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950 is a discretionary order?
- Can a revisional court interfere with a discretionary order of the trial court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without proof of illegality or jurisdictional defect?
- Does section 9 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act 1956 permit the deposit of pre-emption money on the next working day when the deadline falls on a public holiday?
- OBAB KHAN And 34 Other vs Messrs RASHID TEXTILE MILLS Ltd.1987 PLC 94 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-08-27Read full judgment →
- NUSRAT ALI SHAH AND Other vs AMIR AND Other1987 PLD Supreme Court 297 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals arise from a common judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning disputes over land allotments between alienees of fraudulent claimants and subsequent allottees. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether sales of land in favour of contesting respondents by fake persons and fraudulent means were protected against appellants' allotments, and to determine the effect of the Rural Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme regarding alienations where the Special Military Court did not order confiscation of fraudulent properties. The Supreme Court held that upon the promulgation of Martial Law Regulation No. 49 and the cancellation of allotments, the disputed lands assumed the status of evacuee property and vested in the Custodian. The court ruled that properties excluded from the order of confiscation by Martial Law authorities were not the personal property of the fraud perpetrator and therefore could not receive protection under President's Order No. 26 of 1962, as their status as evacuee property remained unaltered. The judgment establishes that alienations of land obtained through fraud or misrepresentation remain void and continue as evacuee property, incapable of being retained by bona fide purchasers under the guise of confiscation exclusions.
Questions settled- Whether land obtained through fraudulent claims and subsequently alienated can retain its status as evacuee property notwithstanding its exclusion from a Martial Law confiscation order?
- Does the exclusion of certain properties from a criminal confiscation order against a fraud perpetrator confer valid title upon subsequent alienees of bogus allotments?
- Whether alienations of land made by bogus allottees are deemed void under the provisions of the Rural Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme?
- Can protection under President's Order No. 26 of 1962 be extended to properties that do not constitute the personal property of the convicted person?
- NUR MUHAMMAD and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 972 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
- NUR AHMAD And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1278 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-20Read full judgment →
- NORTHERN FOUNDRY. AND ENGINEERING WORKS LTD. vs EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER, ZONE 3, Lahore and another1987 PLD Lahore 520 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-24Read full judgment →
- RAB NAWAZ vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND 2 Other1987 PLD Karachi 175 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
- NORTHERN FOUNDRY AND ENGINEERING WORKS LTD. vs EXCISE AND TAXATION1987 PLD Lahore 520 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-24Read full judgment →
- NOORI MASIH vs MUHAMMAD YOUNIS And Others1987 P Cr. L J 1115 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-22Read full judgment →
- NOORI And Others vs THE STATE And Other1987 SCMR 1806 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from criminal petitions for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning convictions under sections 302, 325, 323, and 148 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The primary legal question addressed is whether section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code was correctly applied in a case involving multiple injuries, a concerted attack, and a background of enmity where the fatal injury was not specifically attributed to an individual accused. The Supreme Court held that section 149 was rightly invoked given the concerted nature of the attack and the multitude of injuries sustained by the victims, and accordingly dismissed the petition on merits while granting the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The key principle laid down is that constructive liability under section 149 is attracted in a concerted assault by an unlawful assembly where injuries are numerous and demonstrative of a joint action, even if the specific fatal blow is not pinned on a particular assailant.
Questions settled- Whether section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code is applicable in a concerted attack where the fatal head injury is not specifically attributed to any individual member of the accused party?
- Can criminal petitions for leave to appeal seeking enhancement of sentence be dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of a compromise between the parties?
- Is corroboration mandatory for ocular testimony in cases involving a background of previous enmity and cross cases?
- NOOR ZAMAN vs Mst. ALLAH JAWAI And Other1987 SCMR 1165 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-03-04Read full judgment →
- NOOR UR REHMAN vs THE STATE and another1987 P Cr. L J 2171 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-29Read full judgment →
- NOOR SAMAND vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2326 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-23Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1239 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-06Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1842 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-28Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs Hafiz INAYATUR REHMAN1987 MLD 2814 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-19Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY and another1987 CLC 393 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff regarding a shop at Karachi Airport. The core legal questions were whether the plaintiff, having been forcibly dispossessed by the defendants after the service of notice of the injunction application, was entitled to restoration of possession, and whether the underlying agreement between the parties constituted a lease or a license. The court held that where a defendant, with notice of a pending suit seeking an injunction, performs the very act sought to be restrained, they act at their own peril. Consequently, the court ordered the restoration of the status quo ante, directing the restoration of possession to the plaintiff pending the final determination of the suit. The court established the principle that a court possesses the inherent power to restore the status quo ante in such circumstances to prevent a party from benefiting from their own wrongful conduct, irrespective of the ultimate merits of the case, which remain to be decided at trial.
Questions settled- Can a court grant a mandatory injunction on an interlocutory application to restore the status quo ante after a defendant has forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff with notice of the suit?
- What are the distinguishing features between a lease and a license under Pakistani law?
- Does the reservation of a right of access by a grantor automatically negate the grantee's right to exclusive possession?
- Is the substance of an agreement or its nomenclature the determining factor in deciding whether a transaction is a lease or a license?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD Etc. vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER Etc.K.L.R. 1987 Revenue Cases 150 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-23Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 691(2) · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-14Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD And 7 Others vs Haji SHAHAMAND And 3 Other1987 SCMR 2057 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption suit where the Trial Court, District Judge, and High Court concurrently decreed the suit in favor of the respondents. The petitioners challenged the decision on two primary grounds: first, that the suit was barred by limitation, arguing that the starting point for limitation should be the date of taking possession rather than the date of mutation attestation; and second, that the courts erred in calculating the price at which the land should be pre-empted. The Supreme Court examined the findings of the lower courts, noting that the trial and appellate courts found no reliable evidence to support the petitioners' claim regarding the date of possession. Regarding the price calculation, the Court observed that this was a question of fact concurrently decided against the petitioners by the subordinate courts. Finding no infirmity in the lower courts' concurrent findings of fact, the Supreme Court held that there was no merit in the petition and refused to grant leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does the date of taking possession or the date of mutation attestation serve as the starting point for limitation in a pre-emption suit when evidence of prior possession is unreliable?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the price calculation in a pre-emption suit?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD And 5 Other vs Messrs MORNING NEWS And Another1987 PLC 116 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-08-28Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD and 4 others vs Syed WALAYAT ALI and another1987 PLD Lahore 417 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-23Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD alias NOORA and 2 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1506 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-23Read full judgment →
- NOOR ELAHI vs THE STATE and another1987 P Cr. L J 1990 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-26Read full judgment →
- NOOR AHMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 800 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-17Read full judgment →
- NOOR AHMAD vs SHAMIR And Other1987 SCMR 722 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard two connected petitions arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench. The High Court had maintained the conviction of the respondents under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but reduced their sentences from death to life imprisonment. The complainant filed Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 299 of 1981 seeking enhancement of sentence to the extreme penalty, arguing the murder was premeditated. Concurrently, the convicts filed Jail Petition No. 69/R of 1984 seeking acquittal, which was barred by 981 days without sufficient cause for condonation. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings, noting the prosecution witnesses established the crime, while the reduction of death sentence to imprisonment for life was justified because the immediate cause remained shrouded in mystery and the motive involved vindication of family honour due to suspected illicit relations with the convicts' mother. Consequently, the Court dismissed the jail petition on grounds of limitation and merits, refusing to interfere with the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Whether being landless tenants constitutes sufficient ground for condonation of a 981-day delay in filing a jail petition?
- Whether the vindication of family honour due to suspected illicit relations constitutes a valid mitigating circumstance for altering a sentence of death to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment when the immediate cause of the murder remains shrouded in mystery?