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.

• IJAZ alias JAM vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1237 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-21Read full judgment →
• IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN And Others vs Mian IRSHAD ALI And Other1987 SCMR 2059 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-10
  displaced personsurban agricultural landallotment cancellationadministrative discretionnatural justiceSupplementary Scheme No. 2rehabilitation settlement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the validity of the Central Government’s orders regarding the allotment of urban agricultural land to a displaced person under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether the Central Government, having granted a benefit under the second proviso to paragraph 24 of Supplementary Scheme No. 2 to a claimant in continuous possession of urban land, could subsequently revoke that benefit without notice or hearing. The Supreme Court held that the second proviso remained valid and unrepealed, and the initial grant of the benefit was a lawful exercise of discretion. Consequently, the subsequent revocation was declared illegal and without lawful authority because it was passed in an adversary proceeding without affording the affected party an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice and fairness. The Court affirmed that administrative discretion, while broad, must be exercised consistently and fairly, and cannot be revoked arbitrarily once rights have accrued. The judgment also remanded related settlement revisions that were erroneously dismissed as infructuous by the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Central Government revoke a benefit granted under the second proviso to paragraph 24 of Supplementary Scheme No. 2 without providing notice or a hearing to the affected party?
  • Does the second proviso to paragraph 24 of Supplementary Scheme No. 2 remain valid and enforceable despite subsequent changes in government policy?
  • Is an administrative order granting a benefit to a claimant, once acted upon, immune from arbitrary revocation?
  • Does the failure of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to act expeditiously on a claim application attract the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit?
  Read full judgment →
• IFTIKHAR AHMAD and 5 others vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd. and 101987 MLD 402 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• IFTIKHAR AHMAD alias IFTI and 4 others vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 492 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-06Read full judgment →
• IFTIKHAR AHMAD Alias IFTI And 4 Other vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 492 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-06Read full judgment →
• IDREES SHAH and another vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, FAISALABAD and 3 others1987 MLD 1660 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-06Read full judgment →
• IBRAHIM vs UMAR DIN And Other1987 SCMR 23 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-19
  entitlement unitsrehabilitation settlementland allotmentlacheswrit petitionsupreme court of pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a dispute regarding the calculation of entitlement units for land left behind in India, specifically concerning the rates applied for Banjar Jadeed, Banjar Qadeem, and Ghair Mumkin land. The petitioner was allotted land in 1956 based on initial calculations but challenged them in 1969, seeking higher unit rates. The Settlement Commissioner dismissed the petitioner's revision on 25-3-1974, holding that his total entitlement was already satisfied and the calculations complied with paragraph 16, Part II of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The Lahore High Court dismissed the subsequent writ petition, noting the delay and lack of objection when the 1956 allotment was made. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the petitioner could not be permitted to agitate unit calculations that had been settled and satisfied as early as 1956. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner challenge the calculation of land entitlement units long after the original allotment has been finalized and satisfied?
  • Whether the High Court is justified in dismissing a writ petition filed years after the initial departmental calculation of entitlement units?
  Read full judgment →
• IBRAHIM vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KARACHI and 4 OTHERS1987 PLD Karachi 493 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-30Read full judgment →
• IBRAHIM vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KARACHI And 4 Other1987 PLD Karachi 493 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-30Read full judgment →
• IBRAHIM and others vs SHABBIR HUSSAIN1987 MLD 62 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
• IBRAHIM and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2643 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-10Read full judgment →
• IBRAHIM And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 284 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-11-05Read full judgment →
• IBRAHIM AND 6 OTHERS vs GHULAM HUSSAIN1987 PLD Lahore 229 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-22Read full judgment →
• IBRAHIM AND 6 Other vs GHULAM HUSSAIN1987 PLD Lahore 229, · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-22Read full judgment →
• IBRAHIM And 2 Others vs QAMAR RAZA KHAN And Other1987 SCMR 695 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-20
  land settlementconstitutional petitionres judicatadouble allotmentleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against the dismissal of three constitutional petitions by the Lahore High Court concerning a land settlement dispute. The core legal questions involve whether previous writ petition observations prevented the application of res judicata and whether the respondents had obtained excess or double land allotments. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the principle of res judicata was correctly applied and that concurrent factual findings by the authorities and the High Court confirmed no excess or double allotment existed, rendering the petitions unfit for leave to appeal. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed. The key principle laid down is that repeated litigation of settled factual matters is barred by res judicata where concurrent findings confirm the legality and correctness of land allotments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a previous judgment operates as res judicata when subsequent challenges raise the same factual issues regarding land settlement?
  • Can an allottee retain land if the subsequent factual examination confirms that no excess or double allotment was made?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact by settlement authorities and the High Court open to interference when not shown to be illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• IBRAHIM ABDUL REHMAN MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1554 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-23Read full judgment →
• IBADAT vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1584 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-10Read full judgment →
• I BR A HIM vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE1987 CLC 565 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
• HYUNDAI MOTOR CO. vs DEPUTY REGISTRAR, TRADE MARKS1987 MLD 2847 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-15Read full judgment →
• HUSSAINI vs The STATE1987 SCMR 501 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-12
  triple murderleave to appealsentence mitigationhonour killingappreciation of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner, Hussaini, for the triple murder of Hafiz Obaidullah, Mst. Zaitun, and Mst. Bashiran. The petitioner was convicted under sections 302, 148, 364, and 120-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while his co-accused were acquitted by the High Court. The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecution witness, whose testimony was rejected regarding the acquitted co-accused, should not have been relied upon for his own conviction. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, noting that the murders occurred within the petitioner's house, where he was apprehended by witnesses while committing the acts. The Court upheld the conviction, finding the evidence sufficient. However, the Court granted leave to appeal solely on the question of sentence, considering the petitioner's argument that he acted under the belief of being honour-bound to prevent illicit relations involving his wife and sister-in-law, thereby potentially warranting a lesser punishment than the death penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal limited solely to the question of sentence?
  • Is a delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal condonable by the Supreme Court?
  • Does the belief that a murder was committed to stop illicit relations constitute a ground for mitigating a death sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• HUSSAIN vs ALLAH BAKHSH1987 SCMR 1495 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-10
  mortgage with possessionexecution of decreeredemption of mortgageoccupancy tenantspecial leave to appealcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court regarding the execution of a decree involving occupancy rights and a prior mortgage. The core legal question is whether, during execution proceedings, a court can order the redemption of a mortgage and direct the delivery of possession to a decree-holder, effectively bypassing the mortgagee's right to retain possession until redemption, or if such a determination requires a separate suit. The petitioner, a mortgagee with possession, argued that the High Court's direction to deposit mortgage money and proceed with execution deprived him of legitimate defenses, specifically citing Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the petitioner's contention regarding the propriety of the High Court's order—specifically whether it was permissible to direct redemption within execution proceedings rather than through a separate suit—raised significant legal questions requiring further examination. The Court held that the matter warranted a full hearing to determine if the petitioner's rights as a mortgagee were improperly curtailed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court order the redemption of a mortgage during execution proceedings?
  • Does an order for redemption in execution proceedings deprive a mortgagee of defenses available in a separate suit?
  • Is it permissible to bypass a separate suit for redemption when executing a decree for possession against a mortgagee?
  Read full judgment →
• HUSSAIN BUX vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 952 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-03Read full judgment →
• HUSSAIN BAKHSH vs THE STATEK.L.R. 1987 Shariat Cases 41 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-03Read full judgment →
• HUFFAZ SEAMLESS PIPES INDUSTRIES Ltd. vs ABDUL REHMAN and 2 others1987 MLD 2848 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-25Read full judgment →
• HUDAYBIA TEXTILE MILLS LTD. And Other vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. And Other1987 PLD Supreme Court 512 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-12
  judicial saleauction confirmationexecution of decreeBanking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979Code of Civil Procedure 1908judgment-debtordecree-holderauction purchaserstability of judicial sales
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming an auction sale of property executed under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, specifically regarding the confirmation of sales, applied to execution proceedings under the Ordinance, and whether a court could refuse to confirm an auction sale solely because the decree-holder and judgment-debtor reached a settlement post-auction. The Supreme Court held that the auction purchaser acquires a vested interest upon the fall of the hammer, which cannot be disregarded merely due to a subsequent compromise between the parties. The Court ruled that once a court adopts the procedure of public auction, it is bound by the legal consequences thereof, and the sale must be confirmed unless specific statutory grounds for setting it aside are met. The key principle laid down is that the stability of judicial sales is paramount; judicial discretion to refuse confirmation must be exercised on sound, equitable principles and not arbitrarily, ensuring that third-party interests are protected.

  Questions settled

  • Does the satisfaction of a decree after an auction sale but before its confirmation entitle the judgment-debtor to have the sale set aside?
  • Are the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to execution proceedings conducted by a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
  • Can a court refuse to confirm a judicial sale on the sole ground that the decree-holder and judgment-debtor have reached a compromise?
  • Does an auction purchaser acquire a vested interest in the property upon the fall of the hammer in a public auction?
  Read full judgment →
• HOYU KABUSHIKI KAISHA vs REHMAT ELAHI and another1987 CLC 1471 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-14Read full judgment →
• HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION WORKERS UNION vs REGISTRAR OF INDUSTRY-WISE TRADE UNIONS And 2 Others1987 PLC 337 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-09-18Read full judgment →
• HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' UNION, ISLAMABAD vs REGISTRAR, INDUSTRY-WISE TRADE UNIONS N.I.R.C. And Another1987 PLC 126 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-08-21Read full judgment →
• HOTEL METROPOLE LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN's1987 PLC 615 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-10Read full judgment →
• HOTEL INDUSTRIES (Pvt.) Ltd. vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through Secretary, Excise And Taxation And Another1987 SCMR 9 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-22
  hotel taxretrospective amendmentpast and closed transactiontax assessmentconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant-Company challenged a demand for hotel tax following a retrospective amendment to section 12 of the West Pakistan Finance Act, which included telephone charges within the definition of maximum daily charges for lodging units. The District Excise and Taxation Officer had sought tax recovery and production of accounts for the years 1965-66 to 1969-70. The Lahore High Court held that the tax for 1965-66 was a past and closed transaction and could not be re-opened, but permitted assessment for the remaining years as tax liability for those years had not been finalised. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the tax levy notice should have been issued within a reasonable time. During the hearing, the appellant abandoned the leave grounds and raised a new plea that all subsequent years were also past and closed transactions. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that this new plea, not raised before the High Court, lacked factual foundation as the appellant had not submitted tax returns or accounts, and upheld the High Court's judgment. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retrospective amendment to a taxing statute can re-open a tax liability that has already become a past and closed transaction?
  • Can an appellant raise a new factual plea before the Supreme Court that was neither pleaded in the constitutional petition nor argued before the High Court?
  • Are telephone charges included in the maximum daily charge for a single lodging unit under the West Pakistan Finance Act?
  Read full judgment →
• HOTE KHAN and 2 others vs Mst.KHANZADI and 2 others1987 MLD 694 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-31Read full judgment →
• Hony. Captain BAGH ALI vs Mirza MAHMOOD BAIG and others1987 CLC 1746 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-17Read full judgment →
• HOLIDAY INN PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC WORKERS' UNION vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE1987 PLC 780 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-16Read full judgment →
• HOECHST PAKISTAN LIMITED and another vs Messrs DECOLA PAKISTAN Ltd.1987 MLD 2384 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
• HISSAMUD DIN vs Mst. FAIZAN And Other1987 SCMR 289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-08
  abatement of appeallegal representativescondonation of delaysufficient causeLetters Patent Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the appellant's Letters Patent Appeal on the ground that it stood abated due to the failure to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent on record within the prescribed period. The core legal question concerns whether the appellant showed sufficient cause for the condonation of delay in applying to set aside the abatement. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had sound factual grounds to conclude that the appellant failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay, noting that the parties were litigating for a long time and resided in close proximity, making the appellant's claim of ignorance regarding the respondent's death implausible. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that findings of fact regarding knowledge of a party's death arrived at by the High Court will not ordinarily be interfered with by the appellate court, and in the absence of sufficient cause, an appeal that has abated cannot be revived.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellant can obtain condonation of delay for failing to implead legal representatives without showing sufficient cause?
  • Will the Supreme Court ordinarily interfere with a concurrent finding of fact by the High Court regarding a party's knowledge of a litigant's death?
  • Does an appeal stand abated if an application for impleading the legal representatives of a deceased party is not made within the prescribed period?
  Read full judgment →
• HIRJINA & CO. (PAK.) LTD. vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1987 MLD 700 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-28Read full judgment →
• HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION, MULTAN BENCH vs JAMSHAID AHMAD and others1987 MLD 17 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-03Read full judgment →
• HIDAYATULLAH and another vs KHURSHID KHAN1987 CLC 832 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-21Read full judgment →
• HERCULES INCORPORATED vs SIND VINYL INDUSTRIES, KARACHI and another1987 MLD 1281 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-10Read full judgment →
• HAZRAT GUL vs S.D.M./TRIBUNAL, NAWAB SHAH-1987 PCr.LJ 1231 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-11Read full judgment →
• HAZOOR BUX and 4 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1590 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-10Read full judgment →
• HAZOOR BAKHSH And Others vs ABDUL RASHID And Other1987 SCMR 1845 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-08
  mutation entryrevenue recordtitle disputeoral saleregistration of documentsrebuttable presumptiontransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil dispute concerns a claim of ownership over a Katcha house in Quetta. The appellants, as legal heirs of the original purchaser, sought a declaration of title and possession against the respondents, who claimed ownership through an alleged prior oral sale. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the appellants, relying on mutation entries in the revenue record. The appellate court reversed this decision, holding that mutation entries alone cannot create title for property worth over one hundred rupees without registration. The High Court affirmed this, dismissing the appellants' revision. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that in the absence of a written instrument, the provisions of the Registration Act 1908 are not attracted. The Court affirmed that under Section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967, mutation entries raise a rebuttable presumption of correctness. Furthermore, as the Transfer of Property Act 1882 is not applicable in Quetta, an oral sale of property is valid, and the appellants' evidence successfully shifted the burden of proof to the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mutation entry in the revenue record raise a rebuttable presumption of correctness under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967?
  • Are the provisions of the Registration Act 1908 attracted to an oral sale of immovable property where no written instrument exists?
  • Can a valid sale of immovable property be effected in Quetta without complying with Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  Read full judgment →
• HAYAT vs ANWAR ALI and 4 others1987 MLD 2726 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-03Read full judgment →
• HAYAT vs AHMAD KHAN and others1987 MLD 387 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-21Read full judgment →
• HASSAN MUHAMMAD vs MUNSHI KHAN and 2 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 415 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
• HASSAN MUHAMMAD vs MUNSHI KHAN And 2 Other1987 PLD Lahore 415 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
• HASSAN MASOOD vs S.M. AHSAN1987 SCMR 655 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-16
  tentative rent orderstriking off defencewilful defaultejectment applicationlandlord and tenantrent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against the dismissal of a second appeal by the Sind High Court, which had upheld an order setting aside the striking off of a tenant's defence in an ejectment application. The core legal question was whether the tenant had committed wilful default in depositing rent under a tentative rent order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 13(6) of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Rent Controller had struck off the defence due to alleged non-compliance with the deposit schedule. The Supreme Court held that the initial tentative rent order was vague regarding the specific period of arrears and the commencement of future rent, which caused confusion for the tenant. Consequently, the Court found no wilful default and upheld the appellate courts' decisions to restore the defence. The key principle laid down is that a tentative rent order under the rent laws must be precise and unambiguous regarding the period of arrears and future rent obligations; it should not require parties to rely on extraneous calculations, as such orders carry serious consequences for the tenant.

  Questions settled

  • Does a vague tentative rent order under the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 justify striking off a tenant's defence?
  • Is a tenant liable for wilful default if they are misled by an ambiguous tentative rent order regarding the payment schedule?
  • Should a tentative rent order for the deposit of rent be self-contained and specific regarding the period of arrears and future rent?
  Read full judgment →
• HASSAN KHAN DURRANI vs MEHBOOB KHAN1987 CLC 2185 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-23
  execution of decreelimitation periodresiduary articlecompromise decreecivil revisionobjections to execution
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application arises from concurrent lower court orders dismissing the applicant's objections under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against the execution of a compromise decree, and holding that the execution application was governed by section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 rather than the Limitation Act 1908. The core legal question is whether an application for the execution of a civil court decree is governed by the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 or exclusively by section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 following the omission of Article 182 by the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972. The Sindh High Court held that section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 only provides an outer limit or maximum period for a fresh execution application and does not prescribe the limitation period for an initial execution application, which is instead governed by the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908. Consequently, the revision was allowed and the execution application was dismissed as time-barred under Article 181. The key principle laid down is that after the deletion of Article 182 from the Limitation Act 1908, initial execution applications for civil court decrees fall under the residuary Article 181, while section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 merely prescribes the outer time bar for fresh applications.

  Questions settled

  • Is an application for the execution of a civil court decree governed by section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or by Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 after the omission of Article 182?
  • Does section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 provide a period of limitation for a first or initial application for the execution of a decree?
  • What is the effect of the omission of Article 182 from the Limitation Act 1908 by the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 on execution applications?
  Read full judgment →
• HASSAN DIN vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others1987 CLC 951 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-06Read full judgment →
• HASSAN DIN And Another vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1078 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-07
  leave to appealmurderappreciation of evidenceblood-stained weapon recoverycriminal trialmedical evidence contradiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing their appeal and maintaining their conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners and their co-accused attacked the deceased, with the petitioners inflicting hatchet blows. The trial court had acquitted four co-accused but convicted the petitioners based on ocular testimony corroborated by the recovery of blood-stained hatchets. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the medical evidence revealed no sharp-edged injuries on the deceased, that the prosecution never claimed the hatchets were used from the blunt side, and that the recovery evidence was erroneously relied upon while co-accused were acquitted. The Supreme Court held that the matter required further consideration regarding the proper appreciation of evidence in criminal cases, and consequently granted leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the recovery of blood-stained hatchets can corroborate ocular testimony when the medical evidence reveals no sharp-edged injuries on the deceased?
  • Whether the conviction of petitioners can be sustained based on weapon recovery when co-accused with similar allegations have been acquitted?
  • Whether the well-recognized principles of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases were properly followed by the courts below?
  Read full judgment →
• HASSAN ARSHAD And Others vs THE STATE1987 P Cr. L J 466 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-07Read full judgment →
• HASNAT AHMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2242(1) · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-02Read full judgment →
• HASINA BEGUM vs GHAUS MUHAMMAD and another1987 CLC 945 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
• HASHWANI HOTELS LIMITED vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through the Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others1987 CLC 341 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-29Read full judgment →
• HASHMAT vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 707 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-21Read full judgment →
• HASHIM vs MRS. HAMIDA BEGUM AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Karachi 151 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-18Read full judgment →
• HASHIM ALI KHAN AND SHAH MUHAMMAD NAREJO vs PROVINCE OF SIND And 4 Others GOVERNMENT OF SIND And 4 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 231 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1986-09-10Read full judgment →
• HASHAM ALI vs MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR and others1987 MLD 946 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
• HASEEN AHMED KHAN/Appellant vs IRSHAD KHAN THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS1987 PLD Karachi 16 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• HASEEN AHMED KHAN vs IRSHAD KHAN THROUGH His LEGAL HEIRS AND ANOTHER Opponents_S1987 PLD Karachi 16 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• HAROON vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2081 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-24Read full judgment →
• HAQEEQULLAH Alias ATEEQULLAH And 2 Other vs HAZRAT NABI Alias TOTI And 53 Other1987 PLD Peshawar 121 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-01-25Read full judgment →
• HAQ NAWAZ vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3097 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-15Read full judgment →
• HAQ NAWAZ vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 137 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
• HAQ NAWAZ vs DILDAR alias DARA and others1987 CLC 1021 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-04Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz And Another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1173 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-05Read full judgment →
• HAQ N AWA Z vs THE STATE and others1987 CLC 1182 · Board of Revenue · 1986-07-08Read full judgment →
• HANSRAJ vs Mrs. ZAHIDA ALI1987 MLD 179 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-29Read full judgment →
• HANIF SHAH vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1451 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-12Read full judgment →
• HAMZO KHAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1988(2) · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-15Read full judgment →
• HAMID ASLAM Alias HAMA vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 872 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-10Read full judgment →
• HAMID ALI vs THE GOVERNMENT OF SIND, KARACHI Through Its Secretary1987 PLC (C.S.) 843 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
• HAMEED vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 834 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
• HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (PAKISTAN) vs E.I.DU PONT DE NEMOURS &1987 CLC 1935 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• HAMAL And 3 Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1082 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-05
  leave to appealappreciation of evidenceunexplained injuriescriminal convictionself-defenseburden of proofmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the convictions of the petitioners for murder and related offenses. The core legal question concerns whether the lower courts properly appreciated the evidence, particularly in light of the prosecution's failure to explain serious injuries sustained by one of the accused, Imam Bakhsh, during the occurrence. The defense contended that these injuries supported their version of events, which the lower courts allegedly failed to properly consider. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions regarding the unexplained injuries on the accused and the potential validity of the defense version required further judicial scrutiny. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution's failure to explain injuries on the person of an accused in a criminal case necessitates a rigorous re-evaluation of the evidence to ensure that the established principles of criminal evidence appreciation, particularly regarding the burden of proof and the credibility of the prosecution's narrative, were correctly applied by the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prosecution's failure to explain injuries on the person of an accused necessitate a re-evaluation of the evidence?
  • Must a court consider the defense version of events when the prosecution fails to explain injuries sustained by the accused?
  • Are the established principles of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases satisfied when unexplained injuries on an accused are ignored by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• HAMAD-MAHMOOD vs DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 940 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-01-30Read full judgment →
• HALEEMA BIBI and others vs KHAN MUHAMMAD and others1987 MLD 2881 · Board of Revenue · 1986-12-30Read full judgment →
• HALAL HUSSAIN vs STATE and another1987 MLD 1661 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-19Read full judgment →
• HAKIM QURESHI And Others vs MUHAMMAD MANZOOR And Other1987 SCMR 1722 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-06
  evacuee propertytransfer of propertycondonation of delayconstitutional petitionlocus standiurban immovable property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the constitutional petition filed by the appellants regarding the transfer of an evacuee property. The core legal questions involved the determination of when the property actually became available for disposal and whether the delay in submitting transfer application forms could be condoned under the relevant scheme. The Supreme Court held that the property only became available for disposal after it was partitioned by metes and bounds on 10-1-1978, separating the non-evacuee shares, and that the applications submitted by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were well within the extended target date of 31-12-1978 pursuant to the Government Press Note. Furthermore, the Court held that the appellants had no locus standi to restrain respondents from submitting their forms as no legal rights were infringed thereby. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • When does an evacuee property with mixed non-evacuee shares become legally available for disposal under the settlement laws?
  • Whether the target date for filing applications under the Management and Disposal of Available Urban Immovable Property Scheme was extendable by a government press note?
  • Does a rival applicant have the locus standi to challenge the mere submission of transfer forms by another party?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim MUHAMMAD NABI KHAN And 2 Others vs WARASATULLAH Through Legal Representatives1987 SCMR 1698 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-08
  Permanent Transfer Deedcompensation poolsuo motu revisionres judicatasettlement of claimsdisplaced personswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The respondent claimed entitlement to the 'Amrat Dhara Pharmacy' premises, which the Settlement Department contended was never sold, arguing that only machinery was transferred. Following the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD), the Settlement Commissioner sought to re-examine the transaction via suo motu revision. The High Court initially ruled that the Settlement Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to re-examine the entitlement once the property left the compensation pool, suggesting a civil suit was the proper remedy. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in ignoring the finality of an earlier judgment (Writ Petition No. 260-R of 1966), which had been upheld by the Supreme Court, and which explicitly permitted the Settlement Commissioner to examine the respondent's entitlement to determine if the PTD was erroneously issued. The Court ruled that the earlier judgment operated as a bar to the subsequent relief granted by the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court judgment that has been upheld by the Supreme Court operates as a bar to subsequent writ petitions seeking the same relief?
  • Can the Settlement Commissioner re-examine the entitlement of a transferee after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
  • Does the appellate court have the power to extend relief to a non-appealing party under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 7 others vs Haji AHMAD BAKHSH1987 CLC 2156 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-29Read full judgment →
• Hakim LIAQAT ALI And 3 Others vs Mst. SARWAR BANO And 3 Others1987 P Cr. L J 973 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-03Read full judgment →
• HAKIM KHAN vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, RAWALPINDI And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 589 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1987-03-01Read full judgment →
• Hakim JAMIL AHMED vs JALAL MASIH And Another1987 SCMR 195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-07
  settlement operationsproperty transferScheme No. VIIIDeputy Settlement Commissionerclaim formconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside an order of the Settlement Commissioner regarding the transfer of property in Lunda Bazar, Lahore. The core dispute concerned whether a specific residential unit, occupied by the respondent, had been previously transferred to the petitioner during settlement operations. The petitioner contended that the unit was part of the property already transferred to him, while the respondent argued it remained available for transfer under Scheme No. VIII. Upon reviewing the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order and the associated claim forms, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner had only been granted unit No. 5, while unit No. 4, occupied by the respondent, had been designated for auction and not transferred to the petitioner. Consequently, the Court held that the subsequent transfer of unit No. 4 to the respondent was lawful. The petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that property transfer orders must be strictly construed based on the specific units allocated in the original settlement proceedings, and a claimant cannot assert rights over property not explicitly granted in their transfer order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a claimant successfully challenge the transfer of a property unit to another party if the claimant's own transfer order explicitly excluded that specific unit?
  • Does the mere occupation of a property unit by a claimant during settlement operations automatically entitle them to its transfer if the official order allocated only a different unit?
  • Is a transfer of property under Scheme No. VIII valid if the unit in question was previously designated for auction rather than transferred to another claimant?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim GULSHER MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL1987 SCMR 1614 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-14
  leave to appealevictionbona fide personal useconcurrent findings of factrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the Rent Controller's eviction order on the ground of personal bona fide requirement of the respondent-landlord. The core legal question concerns the propriety of interfering with concurrent findings of fact rendered by the lower forums regarding the landlord's personal need. The Supreme Court held that since the High Court re-appraised the case and confirmed the findings of fact based on a correct appreciation of evidence, there is no scope for interference by the apex court. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing the principle that concurrent findings of fact rooted in evidence regarding personal bona fide use will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact reached by the Rent Controller and the High Court regarding personal bona fide use?
  • Can a tenant challenge an eviction order based on personal requirement when the findings are rooted in evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim GHULAM RASUL vs KARAM HUSSAIN SHAH And Other1987 SCMR 1618 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-07
  land settlementGhair Mumkin houseres judicataallotment of landmukhbari applicationremand order
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment that remanded a land dispute case to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for re-examination. The core legal question was whether a specific plot of land (Khasra No. 737/257) was classified as 'Ghair Mumkin house' and thus ineligible for transfer under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958. The appellant argued that the matter had already been settled in previous litigation. The Supreme Court held that the lower Settlement authorities had misdirected themselves by conflating the current dispute with prior judicial proceedings involving a different plot of land (Khasra No. 736/257). The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that because the specific status of the disputed land had never been adjudicated upon, the order of remand was fully justified. The principle laid down is that settlement authorities cannot dismiss a claim based on res judicata when the subject matter of the previous litigation is distinct from the current dispute, particularly when a specific statutory prohibition regarding the nature of the land remains unexamined.

  Questions settled

  • Can settlement authorities dismiss a claim based on previous litigation if the subject matter of the current dispute involves a different plot of land?
  • Is a remand order justified when settlement authorities fail to examine the specific status of land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
  Read full judgment →
• HAKIM ALI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2254 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-13Read full judgment →
• HAKIM ALI And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1308 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-02Read full judgment →
• HAKAM KHAN and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1884 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-21Read full judgment →
• Hajiani ZULEKHA BHAI and 5 others vs Haji ABDUL RAUF1987 CLC 1763 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-12Read full judgment →
• Hajiani KALSUMBAI and 9 others vs YAR MAST KHAN 4 and others1987 MLD 1350 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-21Read full judgment →
• Haji YAR MUHAMMAD And Another vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, PISHIN And Another1987 P Cr. L J 2091 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-04-19Read full judgment →
• Haji YAQOOB KHAN vs MURREE CANTONMENT BOARD, MURREE1987 CLC 108 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-21Read full judgment →
• HAJI vs LOUNG1987 CLC 1275 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-18Read full judgment →
• Haji ULAS vs Maulvi MUHAMMAD RAZA1987 SCMR 1830 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-12
  ejectmentrent defaultburden of proofleave to appeallandlord-tenant disputebona fide requirement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller. The petitioner-landlord had sought the respondent-tenant's ejectment on grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide requirement. While the Rent Controller ruled in favor of the petitioner on both issues, the High Court reversed this decision. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged the High Court's finding regarding rent default, arguing that the respondent failed to substantiate his defense that rent had been paid or tendered. The petitioner contended that he had successfully discharged the burden of proof regarding the default, whereas the respondent provided no evidence to support his claims of having sent rent via money order or deposited it in court. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner's contention regarding the respondent's failure to discharge the onus of proof required further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court erred in overturning the Rent Controller's findings on default.

  Questions settled

  • Does a tenant's failure to produce evidence of rent payment or deposit, after a landlord has established a prima facie case of default, constitute a failure to discharge the burden of proof?
  • Can a High Court set aside a Rent Controller's finding on default without addressing the tenant's failure to substantiate their defense?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji TOTI BASHAR vs THE STATE and 3 others1987 P Cr. L J 1626 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-10Read full judgment →
• Haji TAJ DEEN vs Sayyed HAMID SHAH and 2 others1987 CLC 433 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-10Read full judgment →
• Haji SULTAN MUHAMMAD vs Syed Haji TAJ MUHAMMAD and 3 others1987 CLC 187 · Balochistan High Court · 1973-04-11Read full judgment →
• Haji Shaikh MUHAMMAD ABOOBAKR RATRA vs JAMAL MUSHARIFF And 3 Other1987 SCMR 1588 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-23
  review petitionbona fide requirementrented premisesevictionunchallenged evidenceacademic exercise
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a review petition filed against a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed an appeal regarding an eviction order. The petitioner challenged an order directing him to vacate premises, which the Rent Controller had granted upon finding that the respondent-landlords bona fide required the property for personal use. Although the Supreme Court initially granted leave to appeal to determine whether a landlord residing in a rented house is, by itself, sufficient proof of a bona fide requirement under the relevant rent legislation, the appeal was ultimately dismissed on its merits. The Court observed that the petitioner had failed to challenge the evidence presented by the respondents regarding their need for the premises. Consequently, the Court held that the High Court correctly upheld the Rent Controller's order. In the present review petition, the Court reaffirmed that because the appeal was decided on its specific merits due to the unchallenged evidence, the legal question for which leave was granted became redundant. The Court reiterated its practice of avoiding academic exercises and dismissed the review petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented.

  Questions settled

  • Is a landlord's residence in a rented house, by itself, sufficient to prove a bona fide requirement for personal occupation under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Should the Supreme Court decide a question of law if the case can be resolved on its merits without doing so?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji SHAFI MUHAMMAD vs Mst. SHAH BIBI And Another1987 SCMR 347 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-04
  sale-deed registrationpart performanceDastoorul Amal Diwanitransfer of propertyIslamic Shariacivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan which allowed a second appeal and dismissed the appellant's suit for declaration and possession regarding agricultural land. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether under the Dastoorul Amal Diwani applicable in the former Kalat State, the rule of decision was Shariat which did not require registration of a sale-deed, and whether the High Court erred in denying the appellant the benefit of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The Supreme Court held that the Registration Act, 1908, was duly extended to Kalat by Ordinance XXI of 1960, rendering registration imperative for conveying title, and that the Council of Islamic Ideology had found the Registration Act not repugnant to Islamic injunctions. Furthermore, the Court held that the appellant could not claim the benefit of part performance under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act as he did not enter into or hold possession in part performance of the contract. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether under the provisions of Dastoorul Amal Diwani applicable in the former Kalat State the rule of decision in the Court of the Kazi was Shariat which did not require registration of the sale-deed?
  • Whether the High Court was in error in denying to the appellant the benefit of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act?
  • Whether the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, are repugnant to the injunctions of the Qur'an and Sunnah?
  Read full judgment →