Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232594 judgments in total.

• JALIL YAHYA SIDDIQUI vs ABDUL REHMAN1987 MLD 2840 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-05Read full judgment →
• JALEES AHMAD vs Mrs. ABIDA ISMAIL1987 MLD 114 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-29Read full judgment →
• JALALUDDIN Z AFAR and 2 others vs THE STATE1987 CLC 32 · Federal Land Commission · 1986-02-26Read full judgment →
• JALALI and 2 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2668 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-27Read full judgment →
• JALAL vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 573 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-15Read full judgment →
• JALAL KHAN vs HABIBULLAH1987 CLC 1345 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-03-02Read full judgment →
• JAHON PETER vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 357 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
• JAHAZ KHAN And Another vs THE STATE And Other1987 SCMR 351 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  murdercriminal appealcorroborationocular testimonyballistic evidenceenhancement of sentenceacquittalfirearm injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal appeals against a judgment of the High Court concerning the conviction and sentencing of multiple accused individuals for murder and related offences. The core legal question revolves around whether the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Jahaz Khan, and the acquittal of the other co-accused were sustainable based on the available ocular testimony and supporting corroborative evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the ocular account required corroboration due to inconsistencies and medical evidence, which was successfully established against Jahaz Khan through firearm recovery and ballistic matching, but lacking as to the other co-accused. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in enhancing the sentence of imprisonment for life to death without finding the trial court's discretion perverse or the sentence grossly inadequate. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court should not interfere with the sentencing discretion exercised by a trial court unless compelling reasons such as perversity or gross inadequacy are demonstrated, and ocular testimony requiring corroboration cannot sustain the conviction of accused persons lacking such support.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court is justified in enhancing a sentence of imprisonment for life to death without finding the trial court's reasons perverse or the sentence grossly inadequate?
  • Can an uncorroborated ocular testimony sustain a criminal conviction when inconsistencies exist between the medical evidence and the eye-witness account?
  • Whether the recovery of an empty cartridge matched with a recovered weapon serves as sufficient corroboration to maintain a murder conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  Read full judgment →
• JAHANGIR vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 591 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-25Read full judgment →
• JAHANGIR KHAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 191 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-11Read full judgment →
• JAHANGIR Alias BABBI vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 327 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-11Read full judgment →
• JAHANGIR alias BABBI vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 327 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-11Read full judgment →
• JAGGA And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1064 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-30Read full judgment →
• JAGAT RAM vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2235 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-07-02Read full judgment →
• J.M. SAKLAIM vs NAQI1987 MLD 2046 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-31Read full judgment →
• IZHAR AHMED And Others vs Maulvi GHULAM HABIB And Another1987 SCMR 316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-20
  permanent transfer deedsettlement authoritiesjurisdictionencroachmentevacuee propertycivil court jurisdictionfunctus officio
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside orders passed by Settlement Authorities after the issuance of permanent transfer deeds to the parties. The dispute involved the successors-in-interest of a transferee of an evacuee house and an auction purchaser of two adjacent evacuee plots, both of whom had obtained permanent transfer deeds in 1965. In 1969, the auction purchaser alleged encroachment by the transferee, leading to various demarcation orders by the Settlement Authorities. The High Court declared these post-transfer orders to be without jurisdiction, holding that once permanent transfer deeds are issued, the Settlement Authorities become functus officio. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed this view, holding that since the properties were distinct, owned by different evacuees, and bore different numbers, any dispute regarding trespass or encroachment after the issuance of permanent transfer deeds fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the civil courts. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Settlement Authorities retain jurisdiction to resolve encroachment or boundary disputes after permanent transfer deeds have been issued to the parties?
  • What is the proper legal forum to resolve a trespass or encroachment dispute between transferees of evacuee properties once permanent transfer deeds are executed?
  • Does the issuance of a permanent transfer deed render the Settlement Authorities functus officio regarding subsequent disputes over the transferred property?
  Read full judgment →
• ITBAR GUL vs THE STATE1987 PLD Peshawar 163 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-07-18Read full judgment →
• ISSA KHAN and others vs THE STATE1987 PLD Quetta 174 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
• ISSA KHAN And Other vs THE STATE1987 PLD Quetta 174 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
• ISMAIL vs Mst. SARA BAI and another1987 CLC 1393 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-08
  tentative rent orderstriking off defencedefault in rentmiscellaneous rent caseurban rent restrictionejectment appealtechnical default
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal is directed against the order of the Rent Controller striking off the appellant's defence and directing him to hand over vacant possession of the disputed premises for alleged non-compliance with a tentative rent deposit order. The core legal question is whether depositing rent in a pre-existing miscellaneous rent case instead of the main ejectment case amounts to a contumacious default warranting the striking off of the tenant's defence under rent restriction laws. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, holding that where a tenant has regularly deposited rent in a miscellaneous rent case prior to and during the ejectment proceedings without mala fides, doing so constitutes a technical defect rather than a willful disobedience of the court's order. The court laid down the principle that a technical error in the docket number for rent deposits, absent contumacious conduct or bad faith, does not justify the penal consequence of striking off a tenant's defence and ordering eviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether depositing rent in a miscellaneous rent case instead of the main ejectment case amounts to disobedience of a tentative rent order?
  • Can a technical defect in the deposit of rent entail the penalty of striking off the tenant's defence and eviction?
  • Does the continuation of rent deposits in a pre-existing miscellaneous case constitute contumacious conduct by the tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• ISMAIL And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1390 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
• ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN through Assistant Collector of Customs1987 MLD 2588 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
• ISLAM KHAN and 9 others vs THE KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION1987 MLD 640 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• ISHTIAQ HUSSAIN vs MECHANIZED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN LTD.1987 PLC 558 · Commissioner For Workmen's Compensation · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
• ISHTIAQ HUSSAIN SHAH vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1724 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-16
  leave to appealculpable homicidesudden provocationmurder convictionSection 300 Exception 4criminal appealstatement of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges the Lahore High Court’s dismissal of an appeal against a conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was convicted for the murder of the deceased following a sudden altercation at a marriage ceremony. While the prosecution relied on the testimony of a solitary eye-witness, the accused admitted to inflicting the fatal knife blow but claimed it occurred during a sudden fight without premeditation, asserting he acted in self-defense or under provocation. The core legal question is whether the petitioner’s actions, involving a single blow during a sudden quarrel, constitute murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the petitioner's contentions regarding the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, required further judicial consideration. The Court emphasized the necessity of evaluating whether the absence of previous enmity and the sudden nature of the incident mitigate the offence from murder to culpable homicide.

  Questions settled

  • Does a single fatal blow inflicted during a sudden quarrel without premeditation fall under Exception 4 to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the accused admits the act but claims it occurred during a sudden fight?
  • Is the testimony of a solitary eye-witness sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder when the accused provides a plausible alternative version of events?
  Read full judgment →
• ISHFAQUE AHMAD And 15 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 427 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-29Read full judgment →
• ISHFAQ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1890 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-30Read full judgment →
• ISARDAS vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, KARACHI And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 803 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• ISA And 3 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1551 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-21Read full judgment →
• IRSHAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2131 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-29Read full judgment →
• IRSHAD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3034 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-24Read full judgment →
• IRSHAD H. KHAN vs Mrs. PARVEEN AJAZ1987 PLD Karachi 466 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-11Read full judgment →
• IRSHAD BEGUM vs GUL MUHAMMAD1987 CLC 590 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-18Read full judgment →
• IRSHAD And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 982 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-21Read full judgment →
• IRSHAD ALI vs SOOF KHAN and another1987 MLD 498 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-25Read full judgment →
• IRSHAD AHMAD vs THE STATE And 2 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 942 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-12-18Read full judgment →
• IRSHAD AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ SIDDIQUI and another1987 MLD 1000 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-04Read full judgment →
• IRFAN HUSSAIN vs Messrs UNITED LINES AGENCY1987 PLC 262 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-09-21Read full judgment →
• IRFAN HUSSAIN KHAN vs M.D. UNITED LINER AGENCIES OF PAKISTAN Ltd.1987 PLC 219 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-07-24Read full judgment →
• IRFAN HUSSAIN KHAN vs M. MOONIS1987 PLC 347 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-11-23Read full judgment →
• IRFAN ASHIQ vs GENERAL MANAGER, KUNDIAN NUCLEAR COMPLEX1987 SCMR 751 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-04
  limitationspecial leave to appealacquittalcriminal procedureessential servicesretrial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition concerning an acquittal under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. The petitioner, an employee at the Kundian Nuclear Complex, was prosecuted for failing to resume duty after leave and was acquitted by the Magistrate on 10-8-1981. The respondent filed a special leave to appeal before the Lahore High Court under section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which the High Court allowed, setting aside the acquittal and remanding the case for retrial after computing the limitation period under section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908. Upon further appeal to the Supreme Court, the core legal question was whether the High Court appeal was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that the petition for special leave to appeal before the High Court was indeed barred by one day upon correct calculation. The Court laid down that statutory limitation periods for filing appeals must be strictly computed and observed, and an appeal filed beyond the prescribed period without valid condonation cannot be entertained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for special leave to appeal under section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is barred if filed after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period?
  • Can the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the order be excluded under section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908 when computing the period of limitation for a special leave to appeal?
  • What is the effect of entertaining a time-barred petition for special leave to appeal without an application for condonation of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• IRFAN ALI vs Messrs HOTEL JABEES, KARACHI1987 PLC 830 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-02-09Read full judgment →
• IRAN Alias IRANI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1081 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
• IQBAL WASTI vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT) (APPEAL), KARACHI1987 PLC (C.S.) 758 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
• IQBAL vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3155 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-07Read full judgment →
• IQBAL HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1987 PCr.LJ 1211 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-27Read full judgment →
• IQBAL Ellahl vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-10
  vehicle confiscationdrug traffickingheroinProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Orderowner's liabilitynatural justicenexusdiscretionary powerconfiscation of property
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the confiscation of a car under Article 14 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, after heroin was found in it. The car's owner challenged the confiscation, arguing that liability to confiscation does not automatically necessitate such an order, and a nexus between the owner and the offence must be established. The trial court had confiscated the car despite acquitting three of the four occupants, including the driver, and the Federal Shariat Court upheld this. The Supreme Court held that the discretion to confiscate property must be exercised upon principles of natural justice, requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard. Crucially, no person should be deprived of property by way of penalty unless they are in some measure responsible for assisting or furthering the commission of the offence. The Court found that confiscation was not justified where a passenger secretly carried narcotics without the direct or indirect involvement of others in the vehicle or its control.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vehicle be confiscated under Article 14 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, solely based on its use in an offence?
  • Is it necessary to establish a nexus between the vehicle owner and the offence for confiscation under Article 14 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
  • What principles govern the exercise of discretion to confiscate property by way of penalty?
  • Does the principle of natural justice apply to confiscation proceedings under Article 14 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
  • Can a vehicle be confiscated if a passenger secretly carries narcotics without the owner's or driver's involvement?
  Read full judgment →
• IQBAL and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1809 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-23Read full judgment →
• IQBAL And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2047 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-25Read full judgment →
• IQBAL Alias BALI And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1243 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-08Read full judgment →
• IQBAL AHMAD And Others vs KHURSHID AHMAD And Other1987 SCMR 744 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-20
  pre-emptionadditional evidenceappellate discretionrecord of rightsprocedural negligenceJamabandirebuttal evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which allowed the plaintiffs/respondents to produce additional evidence—specifically a copy of a Jamabandi—during the pendency of a regular second appeal in a pre-emption suit. The plaintiffs had previously failed to produce this document during the trial, leading to the dismissal of their suit for possession by pre-emption. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in exercising its discretion to allow the production of this document at the appellate stage, despite the plaintiffs' earlier negligence. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the impugned order was not exceptionable because the document in question was a certified copy of a record of rights, the authenticity of which was not in dispute. The Court held that procedural technicalities should not prevent the reception of authentic public documents essential to the case, provided the opposing party is granted the right to rebut such evidence. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the petitioners granted the right to challenge the document's authenticity and produce rebuttal evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court allow the production of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the document is a certified public record?
  • Does the failure to produce a document at the trial stage due to negligence absolutely bar its production at the appellate stage?
  • Is a party entitled to produce rebuttal evidence when the court allows the opposing party to introduce additional evidence in appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN vs S.AHMAD SARWANA (Advocate)1987 MLD 2442 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-16Read full judgment →
• INTERNATIONAL BUILDING INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs JUMMA and 14 others1987 CLC 138 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-28Read full judgment →
• INTERFORM DESIGN ASSOCIATES (Pvt.) Ltd. vs BAHRIA FOUNDATION1987 MLD 656 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-05Read full judgment →
• INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES (EAST DIVISION), KARACHI vs CLAUS SODOWSKI1987 PLC 213 · Labour Court · 1986-03-09Read full judgment →
• INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE vs ABID HUSSAIN SHERAZI1987 SCMR 1869 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-23
  service tribunaladverse remarksannual confidential reportspecial leave to appealjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which accepted the respondent's appeal and ordered the expungement of adverse remarks in his annual confidential report. The core legal question concerns the extent of the jurisdiction of the Provincial Service Tribunal regarding the expungement of adverse remarks in service matters. The Supreme Court noted that leave to appeal had already been granted in a connected petition involving the identical legal question. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal in the present petition and directed that the appeal be heard alongside the earlier matter on the existing record with permission to file additional documents.

  Questions settled

  • Does the jurisdiction of the Provincial Service Tribunal extend to the expungement of adverse remarks in annual confidential reports?
  Read full judgment →
• INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BALUCHISTAN vs JAWAD HAIDER And Another1987 SCMR 1606 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-20
  service tribunallimitationdepartmental appealdismissal from serviceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Inspector General of Police, Baluchistan, challenging the decision of the Service Tribunal which overruled an objection regarding the limitation period of an appeal filed by a dismissed Motor Vehicle Examiner. The respondent was dismissed from service for corrupt practice on 29-6-1977, and his departmental appeal was rejected on 2-8-1977. Instead of approaching the competent authority, the respondent made further representations and eventually filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal on 24-11-1982, relying on a later letter dated 24-10-1982 to compute limitation. The core legal question is whether the Service Tribunal erred in condoning the delay and overruling the objection of limitation when the respondent had knowledge of the earlier rejection of his departmental appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the correctness of the Tribunal's decision on the question of limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal is barred by limitation when filed long after the rejection of the departmental appeal?
  • Can a civil servant claim a fresh period of limitation based on subsequent correspondence regarding a representation that lay outside the prescribed departmental remedies?
  Read full judgment →
• INSHAH ALLAH BEGUM and others vs IZZAT KHAN and others1987 MLD 2566 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-22Read full judgment →
• INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN vs CHEMFABS LTD. and others1987 CLC 2286 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-13Read full judgment →
• INDUS PENCIL INDUSTRIES (Pvt.) Ltd.--Plaintiff vs INDUS COPY HOUSE--1987 MLD 2073 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-27Read full judgment →
• Indo-Aden Salt Mfg. and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of IncomePTCL 1987 FC. 406 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
• INAYAT vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 136 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-13Read full judgment →
• INAYAT ULLAH vs ZAHOOR UD DIN And Another1987 SCMR 1313 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-19
  ejectmentwilful defaulttender of rentmoney orderdeposit with Rent Controllerpersonal requirementsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose out of ejectment proceedings initiated by the appellant-landlord under Section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance on grounds of personal requirement and default in rent payment. The Rent Controller and the first appellate authority concurrently ordered the eviction of the respondent-tenants on the basis of rent default. However, the High Court reversed these findings in second appeal, determining that the alleged default was not wilful. The Supreme Court considered whether a finding of default without mitigating circumstances could justify overturning concurrent ejectment orders. Affirming the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court held that the respondents were not wilful defaulters because they had tendered rent via money order—which the landlord refused—and subsequently deposited it regularly with the Rent Controller. The Court affirmed that where a landlord deliberately refuses rent to engineer grounds for eviction and the tenant acts diligently through prescribed alternative modes, the tenant cannot be held to be a wilful defaulter. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant can be held to be a wilful defaulter when the landlord refuses rent tendered via money order and the tenant subsequently deposits it with the Rent Controller?
  • Whether concurrent orders of ejectment on grounds of default may be reversed in second appeal if the landlord failed to prove that the default was deliberate and wilful?
  • Can the Supreme Court examine additional grounds of eviction when leave to appeal was granted exclusively on the question of whether the default in rent payment was wilful?
  Read full judgment →
• INAYAT MUHAMMAD vs EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER I, GUJRANWALA And 21987 PLC (C.S.) 58 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-09-22Read full judgment →
• INAYAT KHAN vs Haji MUHAMMAD SULEMAN And Other1987 SCMR 1500 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-05
  allotment of landmukhbari informationresumed landdisplaced personsrevisional powersretrospective operationpast and closed transaction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a dispute over the allotment of resumed land between an original allottee and an informant who provided information leading to the resumption of said land. The core legal question was whether the respondent, as an informant, held a superior right to the land, and whether the revisional order in his favor was legally competent. The Supreme Court held that the allotment in favor of the appellant, made on 10-9-1964, was valid because the concession for informants was withdrawn at that time. Furthermore, the Court determined that the revisional order passed in 1965 by the Additional Settlement Commissioner was a nullity, as the Displaced Persons (Laws) Amendment Ordinance 1964 had removed such revisional powers. The Court established that while subsequent legislation (Act XXXVI of 1974) granted retrospective rights to informants, it specifically protected prior valid allotments by allowing informants to claim alternative land rather than displacing existing allottees. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the appellant's original allotment was restored as a past and closed transaction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an informant has a preferential right to land resumed on their information if the concession for such allotment was withdrawn at the time of the original allotment?
  • Did the Displaced Persons (Laws) Amendment Ordinance 1964 remove the revisional powers of the Additional Settlement Commissioner?
  • Does the retrospective operation of Act XXXVI of 1974 allow for the displacement of a valid prior allottee of resumed land?
  • Is an order passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction considered a nullity in law?
  Read full judgment →
• INAYAT ALI vs Mst. SAEEDA BEGUM and 8 others1987 CLC 445 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-08Read full judgment →
• INAYAT ALI vs ALLAH DITTA And 2 Other1987 SCMR 1526 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-20
  murderculpable homicidealteration of convictionreduction of sentencedying declarationleave to appealenhancement of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the respondents were acquitted of murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, their conviction being altered to section 304-II and their sentences reduced to the period already undergone. The core legal question involves whether the High Court erred in altering the conviction and reducing the sentence given the dying declaration, medical evidence, and the brutal nature of the assault. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against the respondent to examine whether the offence fell under section 300 rather than section 304-II, and whether the sentence reduction resulted in a miscarriage of justice, while dismissing the petition regarding the co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from murder under section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304-II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does a dying declaration corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of weapons suffice to establish a murder charge?
  • Whether the reduction of a sentence to the period already undergone in a brutal murder case constitutes a grave miscarriage of justice warranting leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• INAYAT ALI And Another vs MANZOOR ULLAH And Another1987 SCMR 407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-10
  service tribunalseniorityad hoc appointmentcontinuous officiationdirect recruitcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition challenging the seniority determination of civil servants by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The core legal question concerned whether an ad hoc, stop-gap appointment subsequently regularized could be counted as continuous officiation for seniority purposes over a direct recruit, and how statutory rules and the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 govern inter se seniority. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that an ad hoc appointment constituting a stop-gap arrangement, which was terminated when the officer went abroad, does not constitute continuous officiation, and seniority must be counted from the date of regular appointment pursuant to section 7(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The key principle laid down is that ad hoc, temporary stop-gap service cannot be tacked as continuous officiation for claiming senior gradation over a regularly appointed direct recruit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ad hoc and stop-gap appointment can be counted as continuous officiation for the purpose of determining seniority under the service rules?
  • Does a temporary stop-gap arrangement create a lien on a post when the incumbent proceeds abroad for training?
  • From which date does seniority in a grade take effect for a promoted civil servant under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• INAMULLAH vs RAO MUHAMMAD IQBAL S.P. SIALKOT and others1987 MLD 2667 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-18Read full judgment →
• INAMUL HAQUE vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, QUETTA1987 PLC 420 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• INAM ILAHI vs Haji IMAM BAKHSH1987 CLC 830 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
• In re: SADARA ENTERPRISES Ltd. (LIQUIDATION) vs NOT1987 MLD 347 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-29Read full judgment →
• In re: Mst. ISHRAT JEHAN and another vs NOT1987 MLD 314 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-23Read full judgment →
• In re: Mrs. ZAMARRUD SABZWAR vs NOT1987 CLC 1112 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-04Read full judgment →
• In re: Metalex Corporation Limited, Karachi. vs NotPTCL 1987 CL. 171 · Monopoly Control Authority · 1977-11-01Read full judgment →
• In re: Messrs CENTRAL FIBRE INDUSTRIES vs NOT1987 MLD 351 · Monopoly Control Authority · 1979-07-01Read full judgment →
• IN RE: K.M. MUNEER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, TOBACCO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,1987 MLD 3039 · Corporate Law Authority · 1987-10-21Read full judgment →
• IN RE: J & K LIBERATION LEAGUE vs NOT1987 CLC 2027 · Chief Election Commissioner · 1987-04-22Read full judgment →
• In re: Habib Bank (Overseas) Limited. vs NotPTCL 1987 CL. 66 · Monopoly Control Authority · -Read full judgment →
• In re: CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS Ltd. and another vs NOT1987 MLD 2518 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-19Read full judgment →
• In re : ARIF BILAL vs NOT1987 CLC 1280 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-29Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Muhammad Khan vs MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ CHEEMA, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND Other1987 PLD Supreme Court 20 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-05
  ejectmentreconstructionlandlord and tenantwrit jurisdictionconcurrent findingsrent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an ejectment order passed against tenants of a shop on the ground of reconstruction. The Rent Controller and the appellate authority concurrently ordered ejectment, finding the landlord's plea for reconstruction established, which the High Court maintained in writ jurisdiction. The core legal question addressed is whether a landlord seeking ejectment on the ground of reconstruction must prove that the premises are required reasonably and in good faith, in light of an intervening amending ordinance. The Supreme Court held that since the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance, 1978 never came into force due to the lack of the requisite notification and was subsequently repealed, the original legal position remains unaltered. Consequently, a landlord seeking ejectment for reconstruction must plead and prove that the building is reasonably and in good faith required for that purpose. The Court laid down that concurrent findings of fact regarding good faith and reconstruction cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord seeking ejectment of a tenant on the ground of reconstruction is required to prove that the building is reasonably and in good faith required for that purpose?
  • Did the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance of 1978 take legal effect without the issuance of a notification by the Governor?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the requirement of a building for reconstruction be interfered with in writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• IMTIAZ BANO vs Hakim HADIATULLAH1987 CLC 1204 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-27Read full judgment →
• IMRAN SOOMR0 vs Mst. BILQEES1987 MLD 713 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-01Read full judgment →
• IMDAD ALI vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, RAWALPINDI AND 2 Other1987 PLD Karachi 8 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-09Read full judgment →
• IMDAD ALI vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, R.AWALPINDI AND 2 OTHERS1987 PLD Karachi 8 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-09Read full judgment →
• IMDAD ALI KHAN vs MUHAMMAD RASHID And 3 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 783 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1987-07-05Read full judgment →
• IMDAD ALI and others vs MUHAMMAD AZHAR IQBAL1987 CLC 839 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-18Read full judgment →
• IMDAD ALI alias SAMANDRI vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1028 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-29Read full judgment →
• IMAMAD DIN vs Mst.AMINA and others1987 MLD 747 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-23Read full judgment →
• IMAM DIN and others vs MUHAMMAD ALI1987 MLD 380 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
• IMAM BUX and 2 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1526 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-28Read full judgment →
• IMAM BUX And 2 Others vs THE STATE And Other1987 SCMR 1539 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-03
  petition for leave to appealalteration of convictionculpable homicide not amounting to murderbenefit of doubtsentence enhancementballistic evidencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court, which partly allowed a criminal appeal by altering the convictions of two accused from murder under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing their sentences to seven years' rigorous imprisonment, while acquitting a third co-accused, and dismissing the first informant's revision application for sentence enhancement. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court's substitution of conviction and acquittal were founded on sound principles of criminal justice in light of the ocular and ballistic evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the submissions regarding the propriety of altering the conviction and acquitting the co-accused deserved detailed consideration. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the first informant and, under section 439(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, also granted leave to the convicts to enable a comprehensive review of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was legally justified in altering the conviction from murder under section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the absence of a prosecution witness warrant an adverse inference sufficient to alter a conviction and acquit a co-accused?
  • Whether the acquittal of an accused charged under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was based on sound principles of criminal justice?
  Read full judgment →
• IMAM BAKHSH vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 618 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-28Read full judgment →
• ILYAS vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 962 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-15Read full judgment →
• IKRAMUDDIN SYED vs PROVINCE OF SIND And 15 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 539 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1986-12-14Read full judgment →
• IKHLAQ AHMAD And Another vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1760 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-25
  suspension of sentencepending appealappellate jurisdictionearly hearingcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, convicted under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment, sought suspension of their sentence from the Supreme Court after the High Court had previously refused their application pending the disposal of their appeal. The core legal question addressed was whether the Supreme Court should intervene to suspend a sentence while an appeal remains pending before the High Court. The Court held that it is inappropriate for the Supreme Court to intervene or express an opinion on the merits of a case while the appeal is still pending before the High Court. Consequently, the petition for suspension of sentence was dismissed. However, the Court observed that, given the petitioners' arguments regarding the merits of their case and the potential for acquittal, the High Court should endeavor to hear the pending appeal at an early date. The key principle established is that the Supreme Court will generally decline to suspend a sentence or interfere in matters currently sub judice before the High Court, preferring that the appellate process take its course.

  Questions settled

  • Should the Supreme Court suspend a sentence while an appeal against conviction is pending before the High Court?
  • Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to comment on the merits of a case while the appeal is sub judice before the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• IJLAL HUSSAIN and 4 others vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 5 OTHERS1987 PLD Karachi 489 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-31Read full judgment →
• IJLAL HUSSAIN And 4 Other- vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN And 5 Other1987 PLD Karachi 489 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-31Read full judgment →
• IJAZ MUHAMMAD vs CHAIRMAN, TOWN COMMITTEE, SILLANWALI and another1987 CLC 1051 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-04Read full judgment →