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.

• Haji SHABBIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2026 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-04Read full judgment →
• Haji RUSTAM SHAH vs ABDUL SATTAR AND OTHERS1987 PLD Quetta 27 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
• Haji RUSTAM SHAH vs ABDUL SATTAR AND Other1987 PLD Quetta 27 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
• Haji REHMAT ULLAH and others vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE1987 CLC 1084 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-19Read full judgment →
• Haji RAJAB ALI vs SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT JAIL, QUETTA And Another1987 SCMR 1746(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-08
  infructuous petitionwithdrawal of petitionjudicial economypractice and procedureSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition filed by Haji Rajab Ali against the Superintendent of the District Jail, Quetta, and another respondent. The core legal question involved the merits of the petition as originally presented to the Court. However, during the proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Tahir Muhammad Khan, informed the Court that the petition had been rendered infructuous due to subsequent developments or changes in circumstances. Consequently, the counsel did not press the petition further. In light of this submission, the Supreme Court held that the petition could not be adjudicated upon its merits as it no longer presented a live controversy. The Court accordingly dismissed the petition as withdrawn. This decision reinforces the principle that courts will not entertain or proceed with petitions that have become infructuous, allowing parties to withdraw such matters when the underlying grievance or legal necessity for the petition has ceased to exist, thereby conserving judicial time and resources.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petition be dismissed if it has been rendered infructuous by subsequent events?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to withdraw a petition that is no longer pressed by counsel?
  Read full judgment →
• HAJI RAHIM vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, DADU and others1987 CLC 1775 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
• Haji QUDRAT ALI vs GOVERNMENT OF N. W.F.P. Through Secretary, Law Department1987 SCMR 945 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-03-03Read full judgment →
• Haji PIR BAKHSH vs JUDGE FAMILY COURT, SHUJABAD And Another1987 PLD Lahore 673 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-01Read full judgment →
• Haji PIR BAKHSH vs JUDGE FAMILY COURT, SHUJABAD and another1987 PLD Lahore 673 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-01Read full judgment →
• Haji MURAD KHAN and 7 others vs ABDUL GHAFOOR and 12 others1987 CLC 7 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-07-21Read full judgment →
• Haji MUHAMMAD. SHAFI vs MUHAMMAD ARSHAD1987 MLD 338 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-26Read full judgment →
• HAJI MUHAMMAD vs INAYAT1987 PLD Lahore 133 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-28Read full judgment →
• Haji MUHAMMAD USMAN through his Legal Heirs vs MUHAMMAD PARYAL1987 CLC 552 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-08Read full judgment →
• Haji MUHAMMAD SODHO And 6 Others vs THE STATE and another1987 P Cr. L J 351 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-20Read full judgment →
• Haji MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs THE STATE and others1987 P Cr. L J 150 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
• Haji MUHAMMAD SHAFI and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1710 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-14Read full judgment →
• Haji MUHAMMAD RASHID vs SHAHID MAHMOOD and others1987 P Cr. L J 869 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-31Read full judgment →
• Haji MUHAMMAD RASHID vs KHADIM HUSSAIN And Others1987 P Cr. L J 2329 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-18Read full judgment →
• Haji MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs SHAHENSHAH JEHAN BEGUM1987 PLD Karachi 180 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
• Haji MUHAMMAD KHAN And Other vs DEPUTY LAND COMMISSIONER And Other1987 PLD KARACHI 387 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-19Read full judgment →
• Haji MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and another vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1987 MLD 2457 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-29
  constitutional petitionaggrieved personlocus standidelegation of powermutationpro bono publicocontempt of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed pro bono publico by the President of the Pakistan Motors Transport Federation challenging a land mutation gifted to the Municipal Committee, Narowal, on grounds of financial impropriety and lack of title. The petitioners also contested the vacation of a stay order by the Commissioner under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners did not qualify as 'aggrieved persons' under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, as they lacked direct personal interest in the matter. The Court laid down the principle that a delegator does not divest itself of statutory powers by delegating them; the Provincial Government retains the authority to act if its delegate's conduct is unsatisfactory. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the validity of a mutation is generally not examined in constitutional jurisdiction, for which the civil courts remain the appropriate forum, and that contempt of court is strictly a matter between the Court and the contemner.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delegator divest itself of statutory powers by delegating them to a delegatee?
  • Does a petitioner acting pro bono publico without direct personal interest qualify as an 'aggrieved person' under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the validity of a land mutation be properly examined under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Can a third party who was not a party to the original proceedings demand contempt of court proceedings as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs MUHAMMAD ABBAS And Other1987 SCMR 1983 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-26
  election petitionrecount of votestampering of election recordcompromise agreementmutual mistake of factremandElection Tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose out of an election dispute concerning the Municipal Corporation, Gujranwala. The petitioner and the returned candidate originally entered into a compromise before the Election Tribunal agreeing to resolve the dispute solely through a recount of votes. However, upon summoning the election packets, the Tribunal observed that the seals of envelopes containing ballot papers were broken, opened, and torn, indicating deliberate tampering. Notwithstanding objections raised by the returned candidate regarding the tampered record, the Election Tribunal enforced the compromise and declared the petitioner elected. On writ, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case for adjudication in accordance with law, holding that the agreement was founded upon a mutual mistake of fact regarding the integrity of the official records. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment and refused leave to appeal, ruling that judicial and quasi-judicial determinations must rely on materials beyond suspicion. When election records are tampered with, a compromise based on the presumption of their authenticity cannot be strictly enforced.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Election Tribunal can enforce a compromise for a recount when the election records are discovered to be deliberately tampered with?
  • Does a compromise based on the presumed regularity of official election records become unenforceable upon discovery of mutual mistake of fact regarding record tampering?
  • Whether judicial or quasi-judicial adjudications can validly proceed upon evidentiary material whose authenticity and integrity are fundamentally compromised?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji MUHAMMAD IJAZ vs RAHIM GUL and others1987 P C r. L J 816 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-03Read full judgment →
• Haji MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs HAMZ00 KHAN Opponent/1987 PLD Karachi 520 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• Haji MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs HA141200 KHAN1987 PLD Karachi 520 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• Haji MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ KHAN vs ABDUL WAHAB KHAN1987 MLD 1298 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-04Read full judgment →
• Haji MUHAMMAD DIN vs MANZOOR HUSSAIN and 3 others1987 MLD 1936 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-08Read full judgment →
• Haji MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs THE STATE and another1987 P Cr. L J 1225 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-28Read full judgment →
• Haji MUHAMMAD ASHIQ vs S.H.O., POLICE STATION, KAHNA and another1987 MLD 815 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-17Read full judgment →
• Haji MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs Mst. HUSAN BANO And Another1987 P Cr. L J 1092 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-28Read full judgment →
• Haji MUHAMMAD AKRAM And Another vs Syed JALIL AHMAD And Other1987 SCMR 1462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-23
  ex parte decreeservice of summonsspecific performancesetting aside ex parte decreecivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 8-3-1986, which had set aside an ex parte decree. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the respondents were duly served with summonses in the suit for specific performance and whether their application for setting aside the ex parte decree was valid. The Supreme Court held that the decision of the High Court does not require any interference, noting that once the trial Court itself concluded that the respondents did not reside at the place where summonses were served, it was wrong to hold that they were properly served. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs. The key principle laid down is that proper service of summons is a prerequisite for an ex parte decree, and service at an incorrect address where the defendant does not reside does not constitute valid service.

  Questions settled

  • Can an ex parte decree be sustained when the defendant was not properly served at their actual place of residence?
  • Whether service of summons at an address where the defendant does not reside constitutes valid service under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji MUHAMMAD AHSAN vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND through Secretary, Board1987 CLC 608 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
• Haji MUHAMMAD AHMAD and another vs KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION1987 MLD 2959 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-30Read full judgment →
• Haji MOOSA vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 305 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-24Read full judgment →
• Haji MEHBOOB ALI KHAN vs Mst. ILLACHI and 3 others1987 MLD 637 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-11Read full judgment →
• Haji KHUDA-E-NAZAR vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1522 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
• Haji ILYAS Haji ISSA and 9 others vs Haji AHMAD and 7 others1987 CLC 2509 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-02Read full judgment →
• Haji Hafiz RASHID AHMAD vs The STATE1987 SCMR 844 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-02
  leave to appealmurderdeath sentencebenefit of the doubtdefence versioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 23-11-1986, whereby his conviction for the murder of his wife and the sentence of death passed by the trial court were upheld and confirmed. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner's defence version, when placed alongside the prosecution case, created a reasonable possibility of being true, thereby entitling him to the benefit of the doubt and acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the evidence on record did not warrant interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, finding no merit in the contention that the defence version was ignored or misconstrued. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of guilt based on proper appreciation of evidence will not be disturbed by the apex court where the defence plea fails to create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of guilt in a murder trial?
  • Does a defence version presented by an accused automatically entitle him to the benefit of the doubt?
  • When will leave to appeal against a death sentence confirmed by the High Court be refused?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji GUL MUHAMMAD Haji ISMAIL and others vs MUNAWAR ALI KHAN and others1987 MLD 2828 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-25Read full judgment →
• Haji GUL HASSAN vs THE STATE1987 PLD Karachi 275 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
• Haji EJAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1738 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-25Read full judgment →
• Haji DILMIR and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1747 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
• Haji Babu MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE And Others vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN And Other1987 SCMR 1861 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-21
  cooperative bankgovernment directiveadministrative powerconstitution petitionjurisdictionoffice shifting
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave was directed against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which had dismissed a Constitution Petition filed by the appellants. The appellants, members of the Board of Directors of the Baluchistan Provincial Co-operative Bank Ltd., challenged a directive issued by a Section Officer on behalf of the Secretary to the Government of Baluchistan, Agriculture and Co-operative Department, instructing the bank to shift its office from Jinnah Road to a newly constructed building at Rani Bagh. The core legal question was whether the Secretary to the Government of Baluchistan possessed the legal authority or power to direct the management of the Co-operative Bank to shift its office premises. During the Supreme Court proceedings, the counsel for the respondent conceded that the impugned letter did not constitute a command or binding order issued by the respondent to the bank. Consequently, the Supreme Court modified the High Court's judgment to reflect that the letter was not an order, satisfying the appellants and resolving the dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a government department has the legal authority to direct a provincial co-operative bank to shift its office premises?
  • Whether a letter from a Section Officer conveying a desire of a Secretary constitutes a binding administrative command or order?
  Read full judgment →
• HAJI and others vs BAHADAR1987 MLD 2263 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-14Read full judgment →
• Haji AMIN JAN And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 959(1) · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-17Read full judgment →
• Haji ALLAHDITTO and 5 others vs THE STATE and another1987 MLD 1561 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-03Read full judgment →
• HAJI AHMED vs ABDUL KARIM AND 4 OTHERS1987 PLD Karachi 219 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
• HAJI AHMED vs ABDUL KARIM AND 4 Other1987 PLD Karachi 219 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
• Haji AHMAD HAJI ABDUR REHMAN vs AHSHER ALI1987 CLC 378 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-18Read full judgment →
• Haji AHMAD HAJI ABDUL REHMAN vs Late Syed NAZIR HUSSAIN SHAH Through Legal Heirs1987 PLD Karachi 603 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-22Read full judgment →
• Haji AH 4AD HAJI ABDUL REFIMAN vs Late Syed NAZIR HUSSAIN SHAH. through Legal HeirSRespondent1987 PLD Karachi 603 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-22Read full judgment →
• HAJI Through His Legal Heirs And Other vs KHUDA YAR Through His Legal1987 PLD Supreme Court 453 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-20
  abatement of appealpartial abatementlegal representativesOrder XXII CPCrevenue record entrieslimitation for declaration suitco-sharers possessioninconsistent decrees
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arose from a Lahore High Court decision affirming a decree declaring the respondents entitled to a two-thirds share in agricultural land and holding that the appellants' second appeal had abated as a whole due to the non-impleadment of the legal representatives of one deceased appellant (Haji). The Supreme Court examined whether the abatement of an appeal qua a single deceased co-appellant causes the entire appeal to abate under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Reversing the High Court on this procedural point, the Supreme Court held that where the rights of co-appellants are divisible or relate to distinct, ascertainable shares in immovable property, the abatement of the appeal as to one deceased appellant does not render the entire appeal improperly constituted or result in impermissibly inconsistent decrees. The Court also affirmed that an erroneous mutation in revenue records does not confer title or trigger limitation under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 where co-sharers remain in continuous possession. The appeal was dismissed on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to implead the legal representatives of one deceased co-appellant cause the entire appeal to abate if the rights of the co-appellants relate to divisible shares?
  • Can a court pass inconsistent decrees in respect of different parties to the same suit relating to immovable property?
  • Does an erroneous entry in a revenue mutation start the running of limitation against a co-sharer who remains in continuous possession of the property?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji ADAM KHAN vs YAR MUHAMMAD1987 CLC 475 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-17Read full judgment →
• Haji ABDUR RAHIM vs DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE And Another1987 SCMR 1414 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-31
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentdishonoured chequewrit jurisdictionleave to appealquestion of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which declined to interfere with the order of the District Judge setting aside an order of ejectment. The petitioner, owner of a house, had filed an ejectment application against respondent No.2 on the ground of default in rent payment before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller allowed the application, but the District Judge dismissed it on appeal, a view upheld by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. The core legal question concerned whether respondent No.2 was a legal defaulter in rent payment given the circumstances of the dishonoured cheque and the timing of the eviction application. The Supreme Court held that the District Judge's finding was essentially on a question of fact not suffering from any legal infirmity, and accordingly dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact determined by lower appellate courts, when based on an appraisal of evidence, will not ordinarily be interfered with in constitutional or appellate jurisdiction unless shown to be suffering from a legal infirmity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant can be considered a defaulter in rent payment when an eviction application is filed within sixty days of the rent becoming due?
  • Does a cheque dishonoured solely due to a notation written by the tenant constitute a default in the absence of insufficient funds?
  • Can findings of fact rendered by a District Judge in rent matters be interfered with under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji ABDULLAH vs Haji DOST MUHAMMAD And 3 Other1987 SCMR 1825 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-12
  proper partynecessary partyimpleadment of partymultiplicity of proceedingscivil proceduredeclaration and permanent injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arises out of an order passed by the High Court dismissing the petitioner's revision petition, which had challenged the trial court's order allowing the first respondent's application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to be impleaded as a party in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The core legal question was whether the first respondent qualified as a necessary or proper party to be joined in the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that although the first respondent was not a necessary party, he was a proper party for the effective determination of the matters in controversy and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, given his categorical claim to the suit property and the admissions made in the plaint. The Court laid down the principle that a person laying a bona fide claim to the subject matter of a suit can be joined as a proper party to ensure complete and effective adjudication and prevent multiple legal actions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person laying a claim to the suit property can be impleaded as a proper party under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is an intervenor who is not a necessary party still entitled to be joined as a proper party for the effective determination of the suit?
  • Does the inclusion of a proper party help in avoiding the multiplicity of proceedings in a civil suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji ABDULLAH through L.Rs. and 9 others vs S. IQBAL NASEEM1987 CLC 166 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-27Read full judgment →
• Haji ABDULLAH through his Legal Heirs and another vs JAFFAR through his1987 CLC 644 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Haji ABDUL WAHAB CHACHAR vs POSTMASTER HEAD POST OFFICE, SUKKUR1987 PLC 366 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-11-06Read full judgment →
• Haji ABDUL SALAM vs Mst. REHMAT BIBI and others1987 MLD 1 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-08Read full judgment →
• Haji ABDUL MAJEED vs MUHAMMAD YOUSUF And 2 Others1987 P Cr. L J 2056 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-16Read full judgment →
• Haji ABDUL JABBAR and others vs HARYANA ASBESTOS CEMENT1987 CLC 726 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-09-07
  annual general meetingcompany lawproxy formnotice of meetingmandatory versus directorymaterial defectshareholders
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 161(8) of the Companies Ordinance 1984, seeking a declaration that the annual general meeting (AGM) of Haryana Asbestos Cement Industries held on April 30, 1986, was invalid due to material defects in the notice and gross irregularities in the proceedings. The petitioners argued that the notice was issued without the Board's approval, lacked the required 21-day gap, and failed to include audited accounts and proxy forms. The High Court of Balochistan examined whether the statutory requirements were mandatory or directory. It held that the 21-day notice requirement under Section 158(3) is mandatory but is calculated from the date of sending, not receipt; thus, the 22-day gap was valid. The court further ruled that the requirement to attach proxy forms under Section 161(2) and to circulate balance sheets under the Articles of Association are directory in nature. Since no prejudice was caused and no evidence of irregularities or prevented participation was produced, the court dismissed the petition, establishing that minor directory omissions do not invalidate an AGM.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the twenty-one days notice period for an annual general meeting under Section 158(3) of the Companies Ordinance 1984 is to be computed from the date of sending or the date of receipt?
  • Is the statutory requirement to accompany a meeting notice with a proxy form under Section 161(2) of the Companies Ordinance 1984 mandatory or directory?
  • Can subsequent omissions, such as the failure to supply minutes of a meeting, be used to challenge the validity of an annual general meeting under Section 161(8) of the Companies Ordinance 1984?
  • Does a minor or directory omission in a meeting notice invalidate the proceedings of an annual general meeting if no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the members?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Hameed (dead) by his LRS. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P., LucknowPTCL 1987 FC. 101 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
• Haji ABDUL GHAFOOR RISHI vs RAZA MUHAMMAD KHAN1987 SCMR 1826 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-14
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide requirementadditional groundleave to appeallandlord and tenantpleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a landlord, filed an ejectment application against the respondent tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, based on personal bona fide requirement, which was allowed by the Rent Controller. During the appeal before the High Court, the respondent sought to raise an additional ground under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, asserting that the landlord had obtained possession of another portion of the building and thus no longer required the disputed premises. The core legal question concerned whether a new plea regarding subsequent acquisition of premises could be raised for the first time in appeal without affording the landlord an opportunity to rebut it in the pleadings. The Supreme Court held that the contention required examination and granted leave to appeal to consider whether the landlord was seriously prejudiced by the admission of such a plea without a proper foundation in the written statement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant raise a new plea of subsequent acquisition of premises for the first time in appeal without pleading it in the written statement?
  • Does the acquisition of another portion of the building by the landlord during the pendency of proceedings extinguish the need for the disputed premises?
  • Is a landlord prejudiced when an appellate court allows an additional ground regarding alternative accommodation without giving an opportunity to rebut?
  Read full judgment →
• HAJAN KALSOOM AKHTAR vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER III, LAHORE1987 CLC 1476 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-25Read full judgment →
• HAITAM vs THE STATE and others1987 MLD 977 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-26Read full judgment →
• Hail MUHAMMAD KHAN and others vs DEPUTY LAND COMMISSIONER and others1987 PLD Karachi 387 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-19Read full judgment →
• HAIDER ZAMAN vs Messrs MUHAMMAD FAROOQ TEXTILE MILLS Ltd.1987 PLC 915 · Labour Court · 1986-12-06Read full judgment →
• HAIDER ALI MALIK vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 412 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-06Read full judgment →
• HAIDER ABBAS RIZVI And 2 Other vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND1987 PLC (C.S.) 642 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-03-11Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Syed AKHTAR HUSSAIN And Others vs USMAN KHAN And Other1987 SCMR 245 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-11
  limitationcondonation of delaypetition for leave to appealcertified copysufficient cause
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan is directed against an order of the High Court in a writ petition. The primary issue centers around whether sufficient cause was made out for condoning a delay of 37 days in filing the petition for leave to appeal. The appellants initially obtained a copy of the judgment for 'private use' after a delayed announcement of the decision, and subsequently applied for another copy for Supreme Court use, resulting in the time bar. The Supreme Court held that the delay was not sufficiently explained, as the appellants failed to act with due diligence after receiving the first copy within the period of limitation, or alternatively, to file the petition with the available copy seeking relaxation of rules. Consequently, the Court upheld the respondents' preliminary objection regarding limitation, setting aside the earlier conditional condonation of delay, and dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal can be condoned when the appellant fails to act with due diligence upon receiving a copy of the judgment?
  • Can a respondent challenge an order condoning delay that was passed without hearing them?
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when filed beyond the period of limitation without establishing sufficient cause?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and 6 others vs NIAZI and 3 others1987 MLD 207 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-02Read full judgment →
• Hafiz MUHAMMAD AHSAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2434 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-04Read full judgment →
• Hafiz MANZOOR AHMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 941 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-07Read full judgment →
• Hafiz ALLAH BAKHSH vs MUHAMMAD BAKHSH1987 P Cr. L J 408 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-08Read full judgment →
• HAFIZ AHMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1086 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-16Read full judgment →
• Hafiz ABDUL MALIK vs MUHAMMAD ILYAS1987 CLC 419 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-24Read full judgment →
• HAFEEZULLAH vs ALLAH DIN1987 CLC 1722 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-23Read full judgment →
• HAFEEZULLAH and anothers vs COMMISSIONER, D.G.KHAN DIVISION D.G.KHAN1987 CLC 1133 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-15Read full judgment →
• HAFEEZ AHMAD vs Malik M. ANWAR And Others1987 P Cr. L J 450 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-05Read full judgment →
• HADI BUX vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1565 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-26Read full judgment →
• HADAYAT KHAN vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ And Another1987 SCMR 1417 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-26
  acquittalpetition for leave to appealself-defenceunexplained injuriesmurderinterested witnessescriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the acquittal of the respondents by the Lahore High Court for the murder of the petitioner's son under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question involves the propriety of an acquittal where the prosecution failed to explain injuries sustained by the accused and where eye-witnesses were found to be interested and inimical. The Supreme Court held that the courts below correctly appraised the evidence, noting that the multiple injuries on the accused suggested the complainant party was the aggressor and that the fatal injury may have been inflicted in the exercise of the right of self-defence. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of acquittal based on a plausible appraisal of evidence, including unexplained injuries on the accused and an established right of self-defence, will not be interfered with by the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the acquittal of an accused can be maintained when the prosecution fails to explain injuries sustained by the accused during the occurrence?
  • Does the presence of multiple injuries on the person of the accused indicate that the complainant party was the aggressor?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding acquittal based on the appraisal of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• HABID BANK Ltd.-Decree-holder vs Messrs COUGOTHENE CHEMICAL1987 PLD Lahore 567 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-05Read full judgment →
• HABIBUR REHMAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 35 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-27Read full judgment →
• HABIBUR RAHMAN vs ABDUL RAHMAN and 3 others1987 CLC 195 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-13
  partition suitSunni Law of Inheritancenominationbenami transactionres judicatajoint tenancyrecurring cause of action
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff filed a suit for the partition of a house, claiming his share as an heir of his deceased father, Abdul Razzaq, under Sunni Law. The primary defendant, a nominee of the deceased in the records of the housing society, contested the suit, asserting sole ownership based on the nomination and claiming the property was purchased and constructed with his own funds. The core legal questions were whether a nomination in society records confers exclusive ownership rights to the exclusion of other legal heirs, and whether a previous suit for partition dismissed in default bars a subsequent suit under the doctrine of res judicata. The Court held that a nomination merely authorizes the nominee to manage the property as a trustee for the benefit of all legal heirs and does not override the law of inheritance. Furthermore, the Court established that a suit for partition is not barred by res judicata following a dismissal in default, as the right to partition is a recurring cause of action inherent in joint tenancy.

  Questions settled

  • Does a nomination in housing society records confer exclusive ownership of property to the nominee, or does the nominee hold it as a trustee for the legal heirs?
  • Is a suit for partition barred by the doctrine of res judicata if a previous suit for the same property was dismissed in default?
  • Can a nominee claim absolute ownership of property based solely on a nomination, thereby excluding other legal heirs from their inheritance?
  Read full judgment →
• HABIB ULLAH vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (R) and others1987 MLD 12 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-10Read full judgment →
• HABIB MUHAMMAD vs ZAMIR HASSAN KHAN1987 CLC 510 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-24Read full judgment →
• HABIB MASIH vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 564 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-19Read full judgment →
• HABIB KHAN vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS1987 PLC 236 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-06Read full judgment →
• HABIB KHAN vs Mst. HAFIZA BIBI And Other1987 SCMR 1149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-26
  civil litigationoral saleconcurrent findingsrevisional jurisdictionburden of proofspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court order in a civil dispute concerning the ownership and possession of a three-marla plot of land in village Tatliali, District Gujranwala. The petitioner claimed to have purchased the land through an oral transaction from the respondents' predecessor-in-interest and asserted subsequent construction of a shop. Both the trial court and the District Judge concurrently found that the petitioner failed to establish the alleged sale or prove possession of the disputed property. The High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, declined to interfere with these factual findings, noting they were based on a sound appreciation of the evidence. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the District Judge failed to record findings on all framed issues. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner failed to establish the foundational claim of ownership via the alleged sale, the omission to record findings on all issues did not warrant interference. The petition was dismissed, affirming that concurrent factual findings supported by evidence remain undisturbed in the absence of legal infirmity.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a lower appellate court to record findings on all framed issues necessarily warrant interference by the Supreme Court when the primary claim of ownership has failed?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding an alleged oral sale when those findings are based on the appreciation of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• HABIB JALIB vs SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, ISLAMABAD and another1987 CLC 2090 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-01Read full judgment →
• HABIB BUX Alias MUNNA And ANOTHER vs THE STATE- Respondent1987 P Cr. L J 1985 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-21Read full judgment →
• HABIB BANK Ltd., KARACHI And Another vs MAZHAR HUSSAIN ALVI1987 PLC 863 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1987-03-09Read full judgment →
• HABIB BANK LTD. vs MUHAMMAD TUFAIL1987 MLD 2850 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-17Read full judgment →
• HABIB BANK Ltd. vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and OTHERS1987 PLD Karachi 612 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-11Read full judgment →
• HABIB BANK Ltd. vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN And Other1987 PLD Karachi 612 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-11Read full judgment →
• HABIB BANK LTD. vs MUBARAK ALAN SYED and another1987 CLC 1914 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-08Read full judgment →
• HABIB BANK Ltd. vs M.TUFAIL AND BROTHERS1987 MLD 2953 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-17Read full judgment →
• HABIB BANK LTD. vs CARGO DESPATCH CO. LTD. and 4 others1987 CLC 1002 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-07
  banking recovery suitlimitation periodservice by publicationcontinuing guaranteenovationleave to defendoverdraft facilitymortgage by deposit of title deeds
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a suit filed by a banking company for the recovery of outstanding overdraft facilities, promissory notes, and mortgage securities against a limited company and its directors. The core legal questions addressed were whether the suit was time-barred, whether service of summons by publication under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules, 1980, constituted valid service, and whether a director’s resignation or a reduction in liability constituted a novation of the original guarantee. The Court held that the suit was within the limitation period due to subsequent acknowledgments of liability. It further held that service by publication is invalid unless it is proven that the defendant was avoiding ordinary service. Regarding the merits, the Court determined that a director’s resignation does not absolve them from a continuing guarantee, and a reduction in liability does not amount to a novation of the agreement. The key principle laid down is that service by publication under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules, 1980, is not a substitute for ordinary service unless the defendant is actively avoiding the court's process.

  Questions settled

  • Does service of summons by publication under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules, 1980, constitute valid service if the defendant was not avoiding ordinary service?
  • Does a director's resignation from a company absolve them of liability under a continuing guarantee executed in their personal capacity?
  • Does a letter from a debtor requesting a reduction in liability against the appropriation of fixed deposits constitute a novation of the original loan agreement?
  • Can a suit for recovery of money be considered within the limitation period if the defendant has acknowledged liability through a letter or partial payment?
  Read full judgment →
• HABIB BANK LTD. vs ALI MOHTARAM NAQVI1987 PLD Karachi 102 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-01
  stay of suitsummary procedureleave to defendbanking suitpreviously instituted suitres sub-judicenegotiable instruments
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil matter arose from a recovery suit filed by the plaintiff bank under the summary procedure of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Section 6 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979. The defendant, having previously instituted a comprehensive suit against the bank for declaration, redemption, and damages, moved an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to stay the bank's subsequent suit. The plaintiff argued that Section 10 did not apply to summary suits, or alternatively, that such an application could not be considered until the defendant was granted leave to defend. The High Court of Sindh held that the mandatory bar under Section 10 applies to all classes of suits without distinction, including summary suits under Order XXXVII. The Court ruled that deferring the Section 10 application until after the leave-to-defend stage would defeat the statutory purpose of preventing conflicting adjudications, as refusing leave results in an immediate decree. Consequently, the Court stayed the subsequent suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mandatory stay of suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to summary suits filed under Order XXXVII?
  • Can an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be decided before the court determines the defendant's application for leave to defend under Order XXXVII?
  • Does the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 exclude the application of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• HABIB BANK LTD. vs ABDUL SULTAN1987 CLC 2212 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-01Read full judgment →