Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD TUFAIL1987 CLC 941 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-30Read full judgment →
- LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION vs Mst. ZAKIA BEGUM1987 MLD 374 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-18Read full judgment →
- LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION vs Mir MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN1987 MLD 2470 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
- LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION vs D.P. EDULJI And 4 Other1987 SCMR 2031 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for special leave to appeal filed by the Lahore Municipal Corporation against a judgment of the Lahore High Court. The High Court had dismissed the Corporation's intra-court appeals, thereby upholding a Single Judge's decision that declared the enhancement of octroi duty on goods brought into the Corporation's limits to be illegal and unenforceable. The core legal question was whether the Corporation had followed the mandatory procedural requirements for tax enhancement. The Supreme Court found that the lower courts correctly determined that the petitioner-corporation had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions, specifically rule 4(2), of the West Pakistan Municipal Committees (Imposition of Taxes) Rules, 1960, before imposing the increased duty. Finding no infirmity in the findings of the High Court, the Supreme Court refused the prayer for leave to appeal. The judgment reaffirms the principle that statutory procedural requirements for the imposition or enhancement of taxes by municipal bodies are mandatory and non-compliance renders such tax measures illegal and unenforceable.
Questions settled- Is compliance with Rule 4(2) of the West Pakistan Municipal Committees (Imposition of Taxes) Rules, 1960 mandatory for the enhancement of octroi duty?
- Does failure to follow mandatory procedural rules for tax enhancement render the tax illegal and unenforceable?
- LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs ABDUL QADIR And Other1987 SCMR 1143 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court declining to interfere in revisional jurisdiction with a judgment of the Additional District Judge, which affirmed the trial court's decree in a dispute concerning a shack located in Alamgir Market, Lahore. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could lawfully cancel the allotment of the shack to the respondents' predecessor-in-interest without issuing a notice regarding alleged subletting, and whether interference was warranted regarding the final price of the property. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were correct, ruling that the cancellation order was bad in law due to the failure to issue a notice to the legal successors before cancellation, and declined to interfere after nearly three decades of inaction by the petitioner in determining the final price. The key principle laid down is that an order cancelling property allotment on grounds of subletting is legally defective if issued without affording a pre-cancellation notice to the successors-in-interest.
Questions settled- Is an order cancelling the allotment of property for subletting bad in law if issued without notice to the successors-in-interest?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere in concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding property allotment and possession?
- Can a petitioner seek interference on the ground of unpaid final price after an inordinate delay of nearly three decades without indicating the final price?
- LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Through Its Director General & Another vs Mian RIAZ AHMAD And Other1987 SCMR 1850 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondents filed a suit against the Lahore Development Authority, which was decreed by the trial court under Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, based on admissions made in the Authority's written statement. The petitioners challenged this decree through an appeal before the Additional District Judge and subsequently a revision before the High Court, both of which were dismissed. Upon approaching the Supreme Court for leave to appeal, the petitioners' counsel requested an adjournment, citing ongoing out-of-court settlement negotiations. The Supreme Court, noting that this was the fourth such request for adjournment on the same grounds, refused to grant further time. The Court held that the judgments and decrees of the lower courts were legal and proper, finding no grounds for interference. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decisions based on the admissions in the pleadings.
Questions settled- Can a court refuse an adjournment request when it is the fourth such request based on the same grounds of out-of-court settlement?
- Is a decree passed under Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 legally sustainable when based on admissions in a written statement?
- LAHORE AMERICAN SOCIETY vs G.M.RIAZ and others1987 MLD 2522 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-18Read full judgment →
- Lady Dr. S. K. QURESHI And Another vs Mst. KHALIDA RAUF And Another1987 SCMR 1664 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court remanding a settlement matter to the Notified Officer for further inquiry regarding an alleged agreement of association over auctioned property. The Supreme Court considered whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain a time-barred appeal without explicitly condoning the delay after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) to the appellant. The Court observed that the appellate authority failed to apply its mind to the question of limitation and that mere disposal of an appeal on merits does not imply condonation of delay. Furthermore, there was no credible evidence establishing the execution of the earlier alleged agreement of association, which was denied under affidavit. The Supreme Court held that the exercise of appellate jurisdiction over a time-barred appeal without condoning delay was without jurisdiction. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned orders of the High Court and the Additional Settlement Commissioner.
Questions settled- Does the mere disposal of a time-barred appeal on its merits imply that the appellate authority has condoned the delay?
- Is an order passed in an appeal barred by limitation valid if the appellate authority fails to apply its mind to and explicitly condone the delay?
- LADHA and 4 others vs KARIM BAKHSH and another1987 PLD Lahore 671 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-01Read full judgment →
- LADHA And 4 Other vs KARIM BAKHSH And Another1987 PLD Lahore 671 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-01Read full judgment →
- KORANGI FEED LIMITED vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF OMER1987 MLD 868 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
- KOH-I-NOOR AGENCY vs KOHI-I-NOOR TEXTILE MILLS Ltd.1987 MLD 767 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-28Read full judgment →
- KISHWAR SULTANA vs ABDUR RAllAQ1987 MLD 130 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-19Read full judgment →
- KIA INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. and KIA MOTORCYCLE CO. LTD. vs THE DEPUTY1987 CLC 1286 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- KHWAJA SETHI MUHAMMAD MOINUDDIN vs (M/S). UNITED BANK LTD. KARACHIK.L.R. 1987 Labour and Service Cases 21 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-19Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 627 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-31Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs SHAHANA and 4 others1987 CLC 916 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-06Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs NAWAB DIN And Other1987 SCMR 713 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court modifying convictions and sentences in a murder and hurt case. The primary legal questions involve the applicability of joint liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the sustainability of murder convictions based on interested testimony where the initial altercation arose from property damage, and the adequacy of sentences. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the dismissal of the convict's petition and the complainant's enhancement petition, holding that the High Court's reduction of the death sentence to life imprisonment was based on sound principles given the mitigating circumstances. However, the Court granted leave to appeal to three co-accused to re-appraise the evidence regarding their individual culpability and the application of section 34, admitting them to bail pending the hearing.
Questions settled- Whether the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment is justified when the initial altercation arose from the deceased damaging the accused's crop?
- Can section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be applied to sustain murder convictions where there was no previous enmity, pre-meditation, or pre-concert?
- Is leave to appeal granted to re-appraise evidence regarding the culpability and sentence of co-accused petitioners?
- Whether bail should be granted to convicts whose petitions are allowed for re-appraisal of evidence when they may have already served a substantial portion of an appropriate sentence?
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs Mst. ATTA ELAHI1987 SCMR 1469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the trial court, appellate court, and the High Court dismissing a pre-emption suit. The respondent had acquired a tract of land through a transaction involving both cash payment and a transfer of land, which the lower courts concurrently characterized as an exchange rather than a sale. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether a transaction where the major portion of the consideration is paid in money constitutes a sale rather than an exchange for the purposes of pre-emption. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the contention regarding the nature of the transaction when the major portion of consideration is paid in cash requires detailed examination. The key principle laid down is that the proportion of monetary consideration versus property transfer in a transaction determines whether it amounts to a sale or an exchange.
Questions settled- Whether a transaction where the major portion of the consideration is paid in the form of money is a sale or an exchange?
- Can a pre-emption suit be dismissed solely on the ground that the underlying transaction is an exchange?
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs ABDUL SHAKOOR1987 SCMR 1473 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arose from a suit for possession by pre-emption filed by the respondent against the appellant regarding a residential Khata. The appellant contested the suit, initially arguing waiver of the right of pre-emption. Following a decree in favor of the respondent and the dismissal of his first appeal, the appellant sought revision in the High Court, raising the plea of limitation for the first time. The appellant contended that the suit was time-barred under Article 10 of the Limitation Act, 1908, arguing that possession was transferred on the date of the sale deed's execution rather than its registration. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' concurrent findings, noting that the plea of limitation was not raised in the trial court and involved a factual inquiry into when physical possession was actually transferred. The Court held that a mere recital in a sale deed does not conclusively establish the date of possession for limitation purposes. Consequently, the Court affirmed that a defendant cannot raise a limitation plea in appeal if it requires a fresh factual inquiry that was abandoned or not pursued in the trial court.
Questions settled- Can a defendant raise a plea of limitation for the first time in an appellate court if it requires a fresh inquiry into facts?
- Does a recital in a sale deed regarding possession conclusively establish the date of possession for the purpose of calculating the limitation period in a pre-emption suit?
- Is a defendant debarred from raising a plea of limitation on the principle of estoppel if they deliberately abandoned it in the court of first instance?
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs ABDUL HAFEEZ And Another1987 P Cr. L J 615 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-02Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD And Others vs THE CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, SIND1987 SCMR 1630 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the entitlement to 237 acres of land in District Jacobabad, originally leased to a third party and surrendered to the Government under Martial Law Regulation 64. The petitioners, displaced persons from Mangla Dam, were allotted this land in 1967. While the Chief Land Commissioner regularized this allotment in 1982, competing claims from respondents led to litigation. The Sind High Court remanded the matter to the Deputy Land Commissioner, who subsequently ordered the land's disposal under Paragraph 18 of Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972. The petitioners challenged this, arguing the land was State land, not resumed land, and thus unavailable for disposal under land reform regulations. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether land surrendered under Martial Law Regulation 64 constitutes resumed land subject to the provisions of Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972, and whether the petitioners' prior allotment and regularization precluded the land's subsequent disposal to other claimants under land reform policies.
Questions settled- Does land surrendered to the Government under Martial Law Regulation 64 constitute resumed land for the purposes of Paragraph 18 of Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972?
- Can land previously allotted and regularized by the Chief Land Commissioner be treated as available for disposal under subsequent land reform policies?
- Is land that was leased and subsequently surrendered to the Government classified as State land or resumed land under Martial Law Regulation 69?
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD And Other vs SHER MUHAMMAD And OtherK.L.R. 1987 Revenue Cases 29 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Khushi Muhammad and others filed a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which had partly allowed their appeal in a pre-emption suit. The disputed land was sold to the petitioners, and the respondents filed a pre-emption suit claiming a superior right as legal heirs of the vendors. The trial court and the High Court both ruled in favour of the pre-emptors, finding they possessed a superior right of pre-emption and that the vendees had acquiesced regarding the extension of time for depositing security. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that section 15(a) and (b), clause thirdly, of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, recognizing the pre-emption right of a successor, is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam, relying on prior case law. The Supreme Court noted that leave had already been granted in similar cases and accordingly granted leave to appeal to be heard along with those pending matters.
Questions settled- Whether the right of pre-emption granted to a successor of a vendor under the Punjab Pre-emption Act is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam?
- Does the failure of vendees to agitate against an order extending time for submitting security bonds amount to acquiescence?
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD And Another vs The STATE1987 SCMR 2009 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal filed by Khushi Muhammad and Maqbool against their convictions and sentences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Rafique. The petitioners challenged the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court, primarily arguing that the delay in lodging the First Information Report and the fact that the complainant's statement was recorded on the roadside rather than at the police station undermined the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, including the testimony of eye-witnesses Muhammad Shafi and Nazar Hussain, and found their presence at the scene natural and their testimony credible. The Court held that the procedural irregularities regarding the recording of the FIR did not diminish the credibility of the eye-witnesses or the sufficiency of the evidence. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the contentions raised, affirmed the convictions, and dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioners had already received the benefit of the lesser sentence for the offence.
Questions settled- Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report automatically affect the credibility of eye-witnesses?
- Does the recording of a complainant's statement on the roadside rather than at the police station invalidate the prosecution's case?
- Is the testimony of eye-witnesses sufficient to support a conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD And 3 Others vs SHER MUHAMMAD And Other1987 SCMR 129 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had affirmed a trial court decree granting a suit for pre-emption. The dispute arose over the sale of 510 Kanals of land, where the respondents claimed a superior right of pre-emption as legal heirs of the vendors, alleging that the sale price was inflated to deter pre-emption. The trial court and the High Court upheld the respondents' superior right and rejected the petitioners' arguments regarding the maintainability of the suit and the failure to deposit Zar-e-Panjum. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners challenged these findings, specifically arguing that Section 15(a) and (b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, which recognizes the right of pre-emption for a successor of a vendor, is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam, citing the precedent in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah. Finding that leave had been granted in similar cases involving this specific legal point, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the pre-emption claim in light of the cited constitutional repugnancy.
Questions settled- Whether the right of pre-emption granted to a successor of a vendor under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam?
- Does the failure of a defendant to challenge an order extending time for the submission of security bonds amount to acquiescence?
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and 3 others vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT1987 CLC 907 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-01Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and 3 others vs ABDUL HAMEED and 4 others1987 CLC 1246 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-11Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MASIH vs Messrs PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY1987 PLC 772 · Labour Court · 1987-04-20Read full judgment →
- KHUSHAL and 3 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1642 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-06-13Read full judgment →
- Khurshied Ahmad Khan & another. vs Pak Cycle Manufacturing CompanyPTCL 1987 CL. 165 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- KHURSHID UL HAQ And Others vs MULTAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Through Its Director General1987 SCMR 1321 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court examines the correctness of the Lahore High Court's judgment affirming the refusal of an interim injunction to the appellants in a pending civil suit challenging land acquisition proceedings. The appellants raised substantial questions of law regarding the legality of acquiring evacuee property, alleged changes in the purpose of acquisition, non-publication of statutory notifications, and the frustration of proceedings due to prolonged delay. The trial court, appellate court, and High Court concurrently dismissed the application for a temporary injunction, finding that possession had already been taken by the respondent Multan Development Authority, compensation had been deposited, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondents. The Supreme Court held that while the appellants raised substantial questions of law requiring a full trial, the discretionary orders refusing interim relief were unexceptionable given that the appellants were out of possession and development work was underway. The Court dismissed the appeal while protecting the appellants' interests by ordering that any improvements made during the litigation would be at the risk and cost of the respondents, and directed the trial court to conclude the suit expeditiously.
Questions settled- Whether an interim injunction can be granted to restrain a development authority from executing a housing scheme when possession of the disputed land has already been taken over and compensation deposited?
- Does the acquisition of land by a trust under the Town Improvement Act divest the property of its evacuee character upon the announcement of the award and transfer of charge under section 17-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Are discretionary orders passed by lower courts refusing temporary injunctions open to interference by the Supreme Court when concurrent findings show that the balance of convenience favours the respondent?
- KHURSHID KHAN vs EXTRA-ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE, JHANG And 21987 PLC (C.S.) 60 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-01-27Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID HAIDER NAQVI vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 71 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-10Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID Alias SAID AHMED And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1562 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-02Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID ALAM vs I.-G. OF POLICE, PUNJAB And 2 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 732 · Punjab Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID AHMAD vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1982 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-21Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID AHMAD vs IQBAL AHMAD and 2 others1987 MLD 2715 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-05Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID AHMAD vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA, LAHORE And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 186 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-09-30Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID AHMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER vs PAK CYCLE MANUFACTURING1987 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-23Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID AHMAD KHAN AND Another vs PAK CYCLE MANUFACTURING1987 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-23Read full judgment →
- KHUDADAD vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3183 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-03Read full judgment →
- KHUDADAD And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 567 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-05Read full judgment →
- KHUDA YAR AND 4 OTHERS vs Resaldar Malik NAWAZ KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 127 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
- KHUDA YAR AND 4 Other vs Resaldar Malik NAWAZ KHAN AND 2 Other1987 PLD Lahore 127 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
- KHUDA E NAZAR vs The STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 9 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BUX vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1785 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Accounts Clerk in a Town Committee, was tried and convicted under sections 468, 471, and 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for forging and encashing a cheque and misappropriating funds. The trial court convicted him under sections 468, 471, and 418, acquitting him of section 409. The Sind High Court dismissed his appeal while modifying his sentences. The core legal question before the Supreme Court involved evaluating the reliance placed by the High Court on accomplice evidence—specifically, testimony from bank officials and Town Committee officers whom the High Court itself deemed to be accomplices or in collusion—and whether an accused's statement could be partially relied upon to establish guilt. The Supreme Court considered the arguments challenging the conviction based on tainted evidence and contradictory statements regarding the custody of cheque books. The judgment reviews these elements without a recorded final order in the provided excerpt.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained primarily on the testimony of prosecution witnesses who have been characterized by the court as accomplices in the crime?
- Whether an accused person's statement must be accepted or rejected as a whole rather than being relied upon only in part?
- Does the uncorroborated opinion of a handwriting expert regarding the body of a cheque suffice to prove forgery of signatures when bank officials and committee officers are found to be in collusion?
- KHUDA BUX BHANGO vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) and others1987 MLD 2350 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-03Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BAKHSH vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1196 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-20Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BAKHSH vs THE STATE and another1987 MLD 1429 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-03Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BAKHSH Alias GULLI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1593 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
- KHIZAR vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1766 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-26Read full judgment →
- KHIZAR HAIDER MALIK And Others vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ MALIK And Another1987 SCMR 78 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 examines whether the Punjab Service Tribunal correctly applied the law in restoring a departmental order that re-fixed the seniority of respondent No.1 as an Assistant Labour Officer. The core legal question concerns the interpretation of statutory rules regarding eligibility, specifically the requirement of possessing five years of practical on-the-job experience 'as such' in a specified category to qualify for promotion under a reserved quota, as well as the rules governing the determination of seniority from the date of regular appointment. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal erred in adopting a 'common sense' view to bypass the strict eligibility condition of five years' actual experience, and that mere eligibility without actual promotion and selection by the competent board does not confer a right to seniority. The Court laid down the principle that statutory service rules prescribing specific experiential conditions and selection procedures must be strictly satisfied, and seniority in a grade takes effect from the date of regular appointment.
Questions settled- Whether holding a lien on a post satisfies the requirement of having practical on-the-job experience on that post for a specified period under service rules?
- Can a civil servant claim seniority from the date of mere eligibility for promotion without actually being promoted and appointed to the post?
- Does seniority in a grade take effect from the date of regular appointment to a post in that grade under the Punjab Civil Servants Act?
- KHIZAR ABBAS vs SHAHID HUSSAIN1987 CLC 674 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-20Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Sethi MUHAMMAD MOINUDDIN vs Messrs UNITED BANK Ltd.1987 PLC 248 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-03-09Read full judgment →
- Khawaja MUMTAZ HUSSAIN vs THE DISTRICT JUDGE, BAHAWALPUR and 41987 MLD 2477 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-06Read full judgment →
- Khawaja MUMTAZ HUSSAIN vs Brig. MUHAMMAD ABBAS KHAN ABBASI and another1987 MLD 2471 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-06Read full judgment →
- Khawaja KHALID PERVEZ vs FEDERATION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC and 7 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 323 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-06Read full judgment →
- Khawaja KHALID PERVEZ vs FEDERATION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC And 7 Other1987 PLD Lahore 323 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-06Read full judgment →
- Khawaja KHALID MEHMOOD vs Hakeem MUHAMMAD FAZAL HAQ1987 MLD 718 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-21Read full judgment →
- Khawaja GHULAM QADIR vs Messrs REGENT PROPERTIES Ltd. and 5 others1987 MLD 646 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-09Read full judgment →
- Khawaja GHULAM HASSAN vs MUHAMMAD YAR And Other1987 SCMR 1261 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute regarding the apportionment of agricultural land between a landlord and occupancy tenants following the promulgation of the Punjab Tenancy (Amendment) Act VII of 1952. The core legal controversy concerned the appropriate share of land ownership allocated to the landlord and tenants, which had been subject to conflicting revenue mutations and subsequent litigation in both civil and revenue courts. The tenants had challenged an interim order of the Board of Revenue via a Constitutional Petition in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition, declaring it infructuous because the underlying legal issue had been resolved in separate proceedings. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that a prior civil court judgment regarding the land shares had attained finality and should not be reopened by subsequent writ proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's determination that the Constitutional Petition was infructuous was legally sound. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that issues outside the scope of the specific Constitutional Petition could not be adjudicated in the present appeal.
Questions settled- Can a Constitutional Petition be dismissed as infructuous if the underlying legal controversy has been resolved in separate proceedings?
- Does a final judgment from a civil court regarding land apportionment preclude subsequent adjudication of the same issue in revenue proceedings?
- KHAWAJA GHULAM ABBAS Dar vs DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AZAD JAMMU &K.L.R. 1987 Labour and Service Cases 38 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- KHAWAJA AUTO CARS Ltd. vs SHAHNAWAZ Ltd. and another1987 CLC 469 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-27Read full judgment →
- Khawaja AMMAR HUSAIN vs MUHAMMAD SHABBIRUDDIN KHAN1987 CLC 1149 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-06Read full judgment →
- KHATIJAN vs THE STATE--Opponent1987 P Cr. L J 1359 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-25Read full judgment →
- KHANZADA vs Messrs PAK STEEL OILS1987 PLC 318 · Labour Court · 1987-01-04Read full judgment →
- KHAN ZAMAN And Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal filed by Khan Zaman and others against a judgment of the High Court dated 15-8-1983, whereby their convictions under section 302 read with sections 149 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for double murder were maintained, their death sentences were altered to imprisonment for life on each count, and the High Court ordered that the sentences should run consecutively. The core legal question was whether the aggregate of consecutive sentences of life imprisonment awarded in a single trial could exceed the twenty-five-year limit prescribed under proviso (a) of section 35(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held, following established precedent, that imposing consecutive life imprisonment terms exceeding the statutory aggregate limit is impermissible. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and modified the High Court's order by directing that the sentences of imprisonment for life on each count shall run concurrently rather than consecutively.
Questions settled- Whether consecutive sentences of imprisonment for life in a single trial can exceed the twenty-five-year limit prescribed under proviso (a) of section 35(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should multiple sentences of imprisonment for life awarded in one and the same trial run concurrently or consecutively?
- Khan Sahib SHER MUHAMMAD MIR vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN1987 SCMR 92 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Central Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal regarding the restoration of his full pension benefits as time-barred and without merit. The petitioner, a retired Deputy Secretary, sought restoration of his full pension after repaying the commuted portion. Following a rejection by the Ministry of Finance in 1981, the petitioner engaged in repeated departmental representations rather than filing a timely appeal before the Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the time spent pursuing departmental representations after a final order could be excluded from the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was correctly dismissed as time-barred, affirming that time spent on repeated representations and reminders to higher authorities cannot be excluded from the statutory period of limitation. The Court established the principle that departmental redress must be sought within the prescribed legal framework, and failing to file an appeal within the statutory period after a final order renders the claim time-barred, regardless of subsequent representations.
Questions settled- Can the time spent on repeated departmental representations and reminders be excluded from the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Is an appeal before the Service Tribunal time-barred if filed after the statutory period following the communication of a final order from the Ministry of Finance?
- KHAN MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1918 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-06Read full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2495 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMAD vs REHABILITATION AUTHORITY and others1987 CLC 188 · Custodian Evacuee Property · 1986-11-19Read full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMAD KHAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2178 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-09Read full judgment →
- Khan MUHAMMAD KHAN vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1987 SCMR 190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against departmental action resulting in his removal from service and an order for the recovery of the value of missing wheat. The petitioner, serving as a Food Grain Inspector, faced departmental proceedings following allegations of selling wholesome wheat as damaged wheat and a subsequent shortage of 346.85 metric tons of wheat stored under his supervision. The core legal question before the court was whether any illegality or irregularity was committed during the course of the departmental proceedings that warranted interference with the Tribunal's decision. The Supreme Court held that the disciplinary action was taken in accordance with the relevant service rules, both penalties imposed were authorized by the rules, and no illegality or irregularity was pointed out in the proceedings. Consequently, the court laid down that where departmental action is regularly conducted under applicable service rules without procedural defects and no substantial question of public importance arises, leave to appeal will be refused. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether departmental proceedings resulting in removal from service and recovery of losses can be interfered with when conducted in accordance with relevant rules?
- Does a petition against the dismissal of a service appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal raise a substantial question of public importance in the absence of procedural illegality?
- KHAN MUHAMMAD And Others vs ISHTIAQ HUSSAIN1987 SCMR 1482 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit valued at Rs. 1,60,000, initially decreed by a Civil Judge. At the time of the decree, appeals for suits of this value lay with the High Court. However, during the pendency of the appeal, Act V of 1986 amended the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance, increasing the appellate jurisdiction of District Judges to Rs. 2,00,000. Consequently, the High Court transferred the appeal to the District Judge, Bahawalnagar, invoking its powers under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners challenged this transfer, arguing they possessed a vested right to have their appeal heard by the High Court and that the amendment was not retrospective. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, affirming that Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 expressly empowers the High Court to transfer pending appeals to competent subordinate courts. The Court held that litigants have no vested right to a specific forum for appeal that overrides the High Court's statutory power of transfer.
Questions settled- Does a litigant have a vested right to have an appeal heard by a specific forum?
- Does the High Court have the power to transfer a pending appeal to a subordinate court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can the High Court transfer an appeal to a subordinate court without notice to the parties?
- KHAN MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS vs GHULAM RASOOL AND 5 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 71 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-01Read full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMAD and 15 others vs INJUMAN ISLAMIA and others1987 CLC 1911 · Lahore High Court · 1974-01-17Read full judgment →
- KHAN MIR vs SHER KHAN And Other1987 SCMR 213 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court acquitting the respondents of murder. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained solely on the basis of dying declarations corroborated by medical evidence, in circumstances where the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses had been completely disbelieved and rejected by the courts below. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's approach was fundamentally flawed, as medical evidence can only corroborate the type of weapon used but cannot identify the assailants, and the total rejection of the ocular testimony undermined the authenticity of the dying declarations, which required reliable independent corroboration that was absent in this case. The Supreme Court affirmed the acquittal and dismissed the appeal, laying down the principle that when the presence of eye-witnesses is doubtful and their testimony is rejected in its entirety, dying declarations lose their credibility and cannot safely be relied upon without strong, independent corroboration implicating the accused.
Questions settled- Can medical evidence alone corroborate the identity of an assailant in a murder trial?
- Whether dying declarations can be relied upon without independent corroboration when the ocular testimony of prosecution witnesses has been rejected?
- Does the rejection of ocular testimony destroy the authenticity of a dying declaration?
- KHAN BAHADUR vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3135 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-19Read full judgment →
- KHAN BAHADUR vs D.I. G. POLICE, LAHORE And Another1987 SCMR 1740 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the reversion of the petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, to the rank of Head Constable following departmental proceedings. The petitioner faced charges of misconduct, specifically regarding his failure to attend mandatory anti-terrorist training courses and unauthorized absence from his headquarters. The core legal question is whether the departmental enquiry was vitiated because the petitioner was not provided with a copy of the enquiry report alongside the final show-cause notice, and whether he was adequately informed of the specific charges proven against him, as required by Rule 16-14(ix) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The Supreme Court noted that it was an admitted position that the enquiry report was not served upon the petitioner, raising the issue of whether the principle established in Syed Mir Muhammad v. Government of N.-W.F.P. (PLD 1981 SC 176)—requiring the provision of an enquiry report to an accused official to enable a proper defense—applies to departmental enquiries under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine these procedural requirements.
Questions settled- Is it a mandatory requirement in a departmental enquiry under the Punjab Police Rules 1934 to furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the accused official along with the final show-cause notice?
- Does the failure to provide an enquiry report to an accused official in a departmental proceeding vitiate the subsequent disciplinary order?
- KHALILUR REHMAN vs THE CONTROLLER OF POST OFFICES, GENERAL POST1987 CLC 333 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenges an order of the Rent Controller dismissing the appellant landlord's eviction application against the respondents, who occupied a room as a post office. The core legal questions involved whether the respondents committed a default in the payment of rent and whether the lack of a specific plea regarding notice under section 18 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 permitted the Rent Controller to dismiss the application on that ground, alongside questions of personal requirement and reconstruction. The Sindh High Court held that default in the payment of rent was duly established and that the Rent Controller erred in shifting the burden of proof regarding notice onto the appellant when the respondents raised no such plea in their written statement. Furthermore, subsequent payment of rent did not absolve the established default. The court affirmed the findings regarding the lack of proof for personal requirement and reconstruction but nonetheless allowed the appeal and ordered eviction exclusively on the ground of default in rent payment, granting a six-month period to vacate.
Questions settled- Does a tenant need to be supplied with documents of title by a transferee before being bound to pay rent?
- Can a Rent Controller decide a case on the absence of a notice under section 18 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 when the tenant has not pleaded the want of such notice in the written statement?
- Does the acceptance of rent by a landlord after the filing of an ejectment application create an estoppel or absolve the tenant from a prior default?
- Is a landlord's mere desire to occupy a building sufficient to establish personal requirement for eviction under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- KHALIL UR REHMAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1957 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-16Read full judgment →
- KHALIL AHMED vs Dr. FEROZUDDIN and 2 others1987 MLD 631 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-05Read full judgment →
- KHALIL AHMAD vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2028 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-26Read full judgment →
- KHALIFE vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 154 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
- KHALID vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1618 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-19Read full judgment →
- KHALID vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 481 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-10Read full judgment →
- KHALID SHER vs PRINCIPAL AND CHAIRMAN, ACADEMIC COUNCIL, SELECTION1987 PLD Karachi 255 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-24Read full judgment →
- KHALID SHE R vs PRINCIPAL AND CHAIRMAN, ACADEMIC COUNCIL, SELECTION1987 PLD Karachi 255 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-24Read full judgment →
- KHALID SAEED vs HOCKEY CLUB OF PAKISTAN LTD. and others1987 CLC 959 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-18Read full judgment →
- KHALID RASOOL and 2 others vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF and 2 others1987 CLC 253 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-25Read full judgment →
- KHALID NAWAZ vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2507 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-21Read full judgment →
- KHALID MAHMOOD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1575 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-09-24Read full judgment →
- KHALID MAHMOOD vs ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY, BAHAWALPUR AND 10 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 170 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-08Read full judgment →
- KHALID MAHMOOD vs ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY, BAHAWALPUR AND 10 Other1987 PLD Lahore 170 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-08Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID ALI vs SADAL KHAN and 3 others1987 MLD 2065 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-16Read full judgment →
- KHALID JAVED vs ANWAR KHAN And Other1987 SCMR 1043 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which set aside the conviction and death sentence of the respondent, Anwar Khan, under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of Mahmood Ejaz, and answered the murder reference in the negative. The Supreme Court examined the facts, including the ocular testimony of interested or chance witnesses, the delayed FIR, and the circumstances of the incident where the deceased was alleged to have wielded a Danda against a co-accused. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the respondent and whether the right of private defence of person applied. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court's evaluation of the unreliable evidence regarding chance witnesses was sound, and further noting that the respondent was entitled to the right of private defence of the person of his co-accused based on the established facts. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts will not interfere with an acquittal order based on a reasonable appreciation of evidence, and a plea of private defence can be gathered from the totality of facts and circumstances even if not expressly raised.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court's acquittal based on the evaluation of chance witnesses and delayed FIR warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
- Can the right of private defence of another person be gathered from the facts and circumstances of the case?
- Is the testimony of chance witnesses from a distant village sufficient to guarantee presence at the crime scene without corroboration?
- KHALID HUSSAIN Alias KHALID PERVAIZ vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1979 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-12-04Read full judgment →
- KHALID HASSAN vs DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 845 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-05-03Read full judgment →
- KHALID ANWAR vs ZIA UL HAQ RAUF1987 MLD 2544 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-14Read full judgment →
- KHALID AHMAD vs Ch. MUHAMMAD HANIF BHATTI1987 CLC 1042 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-18Read full judgment →