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.
- GHULAM ABBAS vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 122 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ABBAS vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT And 2 Others1987 P Cr. L J 1261 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ABBAS through Legal Heirs vs SULTAN AHMED1987 MLD 704 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
- GHOUS MAHNOOR CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD. vs PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and another1987 MLD 2853 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-26Read full judgment →
- GHAZI INAM NABI PARDESI Through His Legal Heirs And Others vs Mst. KANIZ1987 SCMR 1299 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-11Read full judgment →
- GHAZI GUL vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2140 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-04-06Read full judgment →
- GHAZANFAR REHMAN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2684 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-09Read full judgment →
- GHAZANFAR ALI SHAH vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 520 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-10-27Read full judgment →
- GHAUS MUHAMMAD And Another vs The STATE1987 SCMR 776 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These are three petitions for special leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a murder case. Two brothers were convicted under sections 302 and 323 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of the deceased and causing simple injuries to another, receiving life imprisonment and lesser sentences. Their co-accused was acquitted by the High Court, and the deceased's uncle sought enhancement of the convicts' sentences and challenged the acquittal. The core legal questions involved the determination of whether the killing occurred under grave and sudden provocation due to an illicit liaison, the justification for the co-accused's acquittal, and the appropriateness of the lesser sentence of life imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully established a preconcerted attack away from the defense's claimed place of occurrence, the co-accused was rightly granted the benefit of the doubt as he bore no injuries and had no independent motive, and the lesser penalty of life imprisonment was justified given the family honor context. The petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the plea of grave and sudden provocation can be sustained without evidence placing the accused and the deceased together at the alleged place of occurrence?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt when he bears no injuries and lacks an independent motive to commit the crime while co-accused are injured?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the discretion exercised by lower courts in imposing the lesser penalty of life imprisonment instead of death for a murder committed to rehabilitate family honour?
- GH UL AM SARWAR vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE and 6 others1987 CLC 1519 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-22Read full judgment →
- GEORGE MASIH vs THE STATEK.L.R. 1987 Shariat Cases 68 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-29Read full judgment →
- GEORGE MASIH vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1410 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-19Read full judgment →
- GENERAL SECRETARY, KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY LIMITED CORPORATION1987 PLC 340 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-11-23Read full judgment →
- GENERAL SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING MAZDOOR UNION, HYDERABAD vs The ENGINEER, AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, THATTA1987 PLC 25 · Authority under Payment of Wages Act · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
- GENERAL MANAGER, ROHRI CEMENT WORKS, ROHRI vs MUHAMMAD MOHSIN1987 PLC 520 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-18Read full judgment →
- GENERAL MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION), PUNJAB INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT1987 PLC 129 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged interim orders passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) suspending transfer and relieving orders issued by the Punjab Industrial Development Board (PIDB) against union office-bearers. The PIDB contended that the transfers were administrative actions taken due to reorganization and that the NIRC lacked jurisdiction because the orders had already been implemented. Conversely, the union argued the transfers constituted unfair labour practice intended to disband union activities and that the NIRC possessed jurisdiction to issue prohibitory orders against apprehended unfair labour practices. The Court held that while the NIRC cannot interfere with fully implemented actions through interim prohibitory orders, it possesses clear jurisdiction under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, to pass such orders where an unfair labour practice is likely to occur or is apprehended. Declining to pre-empt the NIRC's factual determination on whether the transfers actually constituted unfair labour practice, the Court upheld the NIRC's jurisdiction to issue the interim orders and dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that writ jurisdiction should not interfere with interim tribunal orders unless a total lack of jurisdiction is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have jurisdiction to pass prohibitory interim orders where an unfair labour practice is apprehended?
- Can the High Court interfere with interim orders of a tribunal in writ jurisdiction if the tribunal possesses the legal authority to pass such orders?
- Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have the power to suspend transfer orders that have already been fully implemented?
- GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING CORPORATION vs GHULAM MUSTAFA1987 MLD 413 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-29Read full judgment →
- FURRUKH AMEEN vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 477 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-01-28Read full judgment →
- FRIENDS MUTUAL COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY (Regd.) vs SHAMIM AFZA1987 CLC 1235 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-23Read full judgment →
- FIROZUDDIN AHMAD vs TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. and another1987 MLD 124 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-26Read full judgment →
- FIRDOUS SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS Ltd. vs KARACHI METROPOLITAN1987 MLD 240 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- FIRDAUS COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY Ltd . vs SECRETARY, LABOUR AND COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF SIND and 11 others1987 CLC 1457 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-06Read full judgment →
- FIDA HUSSAIN SHAH vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE SHAH1987 SCMR 845 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order dismissing an application to set aside an ex parte pre-emption decree on the grounds of limitation. The trial court had applied Article 164 of the Limitation Act 1908, treating the application as time-barred. Relying on the precedent established by the Supreme Court in Messrs Rehman Weaving Factory v. Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan, the parties agreed that the controversy regarding the applicable limitation period had been resolved. The core legal question concerned which article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs an application to set aside an ex parte decree in these specific circumstances. Following the cited precedent, the Court held that Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 is the applicable provision, rendering the petitioner's application within the period of limitation. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal, the appeal was allowed, the ex parte decree was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Questions settled- Does Article 164 or Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to an application for setting aside an ex parte pre-emption decree?
- Is an application to set aside an ex parte decree governed by the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- FIDA HUSSAIN SHAH vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ SHAH1987 CLC 1120 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-06Read full judgment →
- FIDA HUSSAIN AND 4 OTHERS vs Mir ABDUL MAJID AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Lahore 219 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-23Read full judgment →
- FIDA HUSSAIN AND 4 Other vs Mir ABDUL MAJID AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Lahore 219 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-23Read full judgment →
- FIAZ HUSSAIN Another vs THE STATE1987 PLD Peshawar 116 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-03-18Read full judgment →
- FIA2 HUSSAIN another vs THE STATE1987 PLD Peshawar 116 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-03-18Read full judgment →
- FEROZUDDIN and another vs TIEN YING LEE and others1987 MLD 2035(1) · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-29Read full judgment →
- FEROZE KHAN vs ALI HAIDER And Other1987 SCMR 197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a constitutional petition concerning the allotment of evacuee land in Sahiwal. The core legal question was whether a claimant (Ahmad Khan) possessed a preferential right to land allotment over the appellant (Feroze Khan) based solely on having unsatisfied units within the same Patwar Circle, despite the absence of a formal transfer of those units to the specific Estate (Chak) where the land became available. The Supreme Court held that the appellant, whose units were formally transferred to the relevant Chak, held a superior claim. The Court determined that the respondent’s units, which were neither formally nor actually transferred to the disputed Chak, did not qualify him for allotment. The Court further clarified that a previous inter-parties decision by a Rehabilitation Commissioner did not constitute a general modification of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme’s procedural requirements. Consequently, the Court upheld the principle of first come, first served, declaring the lower authorities' orders invalid as the appellant was the only eligible claimant with units present in the Estate at the time of allotment.
Questions settled- Does a previous inter-parties decision by a Rehabilitation Commissioner automatically modify general procedural instructions under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme?
- Is a formal transfer of unsatisfied units to a specific Estate required for a claimant to be eligible for land allotment in that Estate?
- Does the principle of first come, first served apply to the allotment of evacuee land when competing claims exist?
- Can administrative instructions issued by a competent authority be considered equivalent to statutory rules?
- FEROZE DIN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-27Read full judgment →
- FEROZE DIN and another vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI and 2 others1987 MLD 149 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-01Read full judgment →
- FEROZE and another vs ADMINISTRATOR, THAL BHAKKAR and another1987 MLD 405 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
- FEROZE ALI and 3 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1708 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-21Read full judgment →
- FEROZE AHMED vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2164 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-01Read full judgment →
- FEROZ KHAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 277 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-30Read full judgment →
- FEROZ KHAN And Others vs Mst. WAZIRAN BIB11987 SCMR 1647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed their second appeal arising from a suit challenging a registered sale-deed on the grounds of fraud, impersonation, and non-payment of consideration. The trial court had dismissed the suit, finding no fraud or non-payment, while the Additional District Judge held that fraud was established but dismissed the suit due to improper form. The High Court reversed the appellate court's finding on fraud and upheld the sale-deed, noting inter alia the failure of the plaintiffs to appear in the witness box. The core legal question was whether an adverse inference could be legally drawn against parties who failed to depose in support of their allegations of fraud, and whether fraud and impersonation were established regarding the sale-deed. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in drawing an adverse inference against the petitioners for withholding themselves from the witness box, and that the evidence failed to establish fraud or lack of consideration. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can an adverse inference be drawn against a party who alleges fraud and non-payment of consideration but fails to appear in the witness box?
- Whether the High Court in a second appeal is justified in re-examining evidence when the courts below have recorded conflicting findings on questions of fact?
- Does the appearance of persons other than the executants before the Sub-Registrar during registration necessarily prove fraud and impersonation by the beneficiary?
- FEROZ And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 504 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-07Read full judgment →
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN vs MUHAMMAD SADIQ1987 CLC 1429 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN vs MUHAMMAD IRFAN And Other1987 SCMR 90 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Federation of Pakistan sought leave to appeal against a Central Service Tribunal judgment that allowed respondent No.1's departmental appeal. The respondent, having qualified in the 1982 Section Officers' Promotional Examination, was not considered for one of 105 vacancies, despite being placed at merit position No.105. The Tribunal had found that a statement by the Minister Incharge of Establishment Division on the floor of the Majlis-e-Shoora, committing to fill 105 vacancies, constituted a binding commitment that the Government could not renege on. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine, primarily, the legal effect of a Minister's statement on the floor of the Majlis-e-Shoora regarding government service policy and whether the government can lawfully change such a decision and its impact on affected individuals.
Questions settled- What is the effect of a Minister's statement on the floor of the Majlis-e-Shoora regarding government service structure?
- Does a Minister's statement on the floor of the Majlis-e-Shoora represent a binding government decision in service matters?
- Can the Government lawfully change a service policy decision once announced by a Minister on the floor of the Majlis-e-Shoora?
- What is the effect of a change in government service policy on individuals who fell within the original policy's scope?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN vs Capt. ANWAR KHAN and anothers1987 PLD Karachi 563 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN vs Capt. ANWAR KHAN And Another1987 PLD Karachi 563 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through the General Manager, Pakistan Railways1987 CLC 1631 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arose from a suit challenging the removal of a railway employee from service, where the Federation of Pakistan sought to challenge the concurrent findings of lower courts. The core legal questions were whether the revision petition was properly constituted given the failure to file mandatory certified copies of exhibited documents, and whether the petition suffered from fatal laches due to excessive, unexplained delay in filing and re-filing. The Court dismissed the revision petition in limine. It held that the petition was not properly constituted because the petitioner failed to comply with mandatory filing requirements under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Furthermore, the Court found the petitioner guilty of gross negligence and contumacy, noting that no cogent explanation was provided for the substantial delay in pursuing the remedy. The principle laid down is that while no specific limitation period is prescribed for civil revisions, the doctrine of laches applies, and a petition filed after the standard 90-day period without a plausible explanation for the delay, or one that fails to meet mandatory procedural filing requirements, is liable to be dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a civil revision petition be dismissed on the ground of laches if filed after the standard 90-day period without a plausible explanation?
- Is a civil revision petition considered properly constituted if it fails to include certified copies of all exhibited documents as required by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements for filing documents render a civil revision petition liable to dismissal in limine?
- GHULAM and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1759 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN And Others vs MUHAMMAD MUBARRAK1987 SCMR 1782 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had granted a former employee of the Telephone and Telegraphs Department the benefit of counting his past service towards pension despite his resignation. The respondent had resigned citing domestic circumstances and subsequently joined the Provincial Education Department without disclosing his intent to his parent department. The core legal question was whether an employee who tenders an unconditional resignation without disclosing an intent to join another service can claim the benefit of Article 418(b) of the Civil Service Rules (CSR), which allows for the continuity of service when resigning to take up another appointment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the respondent's resignation was unconditional and that he had failed to follow proper procedure by not applying through his parent department. The Court found merit in the petitioner's arguments regarding the respondent's conduct, the potential inapplicability of the CSR provisions, and the significant delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which had been condoned without sufficient justification.
Questions settled- Does an unconditional resignation tendered for personal reasons qualify for the protection of Article 418(b) of the Civil Service Rules?
- Can an employee claim the benefit of continuous service if they failed to disclose their intent to join another department at the time of resignation?
- Is the Service Tribunal justified in condoning a significant delay in filing an appeal where the representation was made years after the cause of action arose?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN And Another vs HASHIM SHAH QURESHI1987 SCMR 156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by the Federation of Pakistan challenged a Service Tribunal decision that had reinstated a civil servant, Hashim Shah Qureshi, whose services were terminated. The core legal questions were whether a civil servant becomes automatically confirmed upon the expiry of a probationary period, and whether the termination of a temporary employee under Section 11(3) of the Civil Servants Act 1973 requires an explicit finding of public interest. The Supreme Court held that the completion of probation merely renders a civil servant eligible for confirmation, which remains at the discretion of the employer and is contingent upon the availability of a permanent vacancy. The Court further held that the respondent remained a temporary employee despite his length of service, as no automatic conversion to permanent status occurs by operation of law. Consequently, the termination, executed in accordance with the terms of employment and the relevant statutory provisions, was upheld as valid. The key principle laid down is that confirmation is not a legal right enforceable without a permanent post, and public power exercised within the terms of employment is valid absent proof of malice or arbitrariness.
Questions settled- Does the successful completion of a probationary period by a civil servant result in automatic confirmation?
- Can a civil servant be considered permanent solely based on the length of service without an express order of confirmation?
- Is the termination of a temporary civil servant under Section 11(3) of the Civil Servants Act 1973 valid if the order does not explicitly state it is in the public interest?
- Does the availability of a permanent post constitute a prerequisite for the confirmation of a civil servant?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN And 2 Others vs Major (Rtd.) MUHAMMAD SABIR1987 SCMR 1347 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondent filed a constitutional petition in the Baluchistan High Court challenging his dispossession from agricultural land, claiming ownership through various sale-deeds executed between 1965 and 1971. The petition was resisted by the Government, which asserted that the land belonged to the government and was procured for the establishment of Corps Scouts, and that possession remained with the Scouts. The High Court rejected the objection regarding the maintainability of the petition involving disputed facts and granted relief to the respondent. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the contention that a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 does not lie in matters requiring the determination of factual controversies and detailed inquiry involving the recording of evidence. Finding these contentions worthy of examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and ordered that the interim order suspending the impugned judgment shall continue.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 lies in matters requiring the determination of factual controversies and detailed inquiry involving recording of evidence?
- Can disputed questions of fact be adjudicated within the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION vs ABDUL MAJID KHAN and another1987 CLC 1773 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-13Read full judgment →
- FAZLUR REHMAN through Legal Heirs vs KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION1987 MLD 2078 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-23Read full judgment →
- FAZAL SHAH And Another vs The STATE1987 SCMR 86 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court which reversed the acquittal of the appellants by the trial court under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and convicted them for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question concerned the evaluation of ocular testimony in light of material contradictions with medical evidence regarding the situs of injuries and whether the High Court was justified in interfering with a well-reasoned judgment of acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to properly address the critical finding of the trial court that the medical evidence contradicted the manner of occurrence stated by the eyewitnesses. The Court reaffirmed that in appeals against acquittal, findings of the trial court based on an assessment of evidence should not be lightly set aside unless perverse or unreasonable. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction by the High Court, and restored the acquittal granted by the trial court.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in reversing an acquittal based on a superficial treatment of the trial court's findings regarding medical contradictions?
- Does an entry wound on the back of the deceased discredit eyewitness testimony stating that the victims were facing the assailants when fired upon?
- Is abscondence by itself sufficient corroboration to sustain a conviction when the primary ocular testimony is found unreliable?
- FAZAL RAHIM And Others vs FAQIR MUHAMMAD And Other1987 SCMR 1667 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal concerns a dispute over the ownership of Shamilat (common land) attached to specific Khasra numbers. The core legal questions were whether the transfer of Malkiyyat (ownership) land inherently includes Shamilat rights when not explicitly stated, and whether courts may consider evidence outside the scope of the pleadings. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the transfer of Malkiyyat land without explicit mention of Shamilat does not convey Shamilat rights. The Court held that a transferor cannot convey more rights than they possess; thus, where a mutation is silent regarding Shamilat, the transfer is restricted to Malkiyyat land only. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that trial and appellate courts erred by traversing beyond the pleadings to consider historical revenue records that were not part of the case. The key principle laid down is that courts are strictly bound by the pleadings, and in the absence of explicit inclusion, the transfer of land ownership does not automatically encompass Shamilat rights, consistent with statutory provisions regarding land dispositions.
Questions settled- Does the transfer of Malkiyyat land include Shamilat rights if the transfer document is silent on the matter?
- Can a court base its decision on evidence regarding historical transactions that were not included in the pleadings?
- Is a transferor legally capable of transferring Shamilat rights that they did not acquire in the original transaction?
- FAZAL RABBI vs KHADI KHAN1987 PLD Peshawar 40 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
- FAZAL MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SUBDIVISION1987 PLD Lahore 89 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-15Read full judgment →
- FAZAL MUHAMMAD AND Other vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SUB DIVISION1987 PLD Lahore 89 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-15Read full judgment →
- FAZAL KARIM vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 651 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-08Read full judgment →
- FAZAL KARIM vs MUHAMMAD DAUD and another1987 MLD 2741 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-29Read full judgment →
- FAZAL HUSSAIN vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION AND HOUSING1987 PLC (C.S.) 563 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-29Read full judgment →
- FAZAL HUSSAIN vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION AND HOUSING1987 CLC 1502 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-29Read full judgment →
- FAZAL GHANI vs Messrs LEVER BROTHERS PAKISTAN Ltd., KARACHI1987 PLC 886 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-01-11Read full judgment →
- FAZAL GHAFOOR vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1136 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the appellant's appeal against a conviction for murder and accepted a criminal revision petition to enhance the appellant's sentence from life imprisonment to death. The appellant was convicted for the murder of a shopkeeper, Niamat Ali, who was shot dead while standing outside his shop. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the sentence of death was appropriate given the uncertainty surrounding the motive for the crime and the appellant's contention that the deceased may have provoked him. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and the death sentence, affirming the High Court's decision. The Court held that where the ocular evidence is of sufficient quality to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the uncertainty or absence of a proven motive does not mitigate the liability for the crime. The Court emphasized that the murder was a wanton act against an innocent victim without extenuating circumstances, thereby justifying the capital sentence.
Questions settled- Does the absence of a proven motive for murder mitigate the liability for the crime when the ocular evidence is sufficient to establish guilt?
- Can a sentence of life imprisonment be enhanced to death by the High Court in a criminal revision petition?
- Is the death penalty justified in a case of wanton murder where no extenuating circumstances are present?
- FAZAL ELAHI vs SARFRAZ KHAN1987 SCMR 312 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts in favor of the respondent. The core legal question concerned whether an ex parte decree obtained by the petitioner declaring him the owner of a disputed evacuee house was vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below regarding the presence of fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining the ex parte decree were based on a proper appreciation of evidence and warranted no interference. The petition for special leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in not interfering with concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence?
- Does an ex parte decree obtained through fraud and misrepresentation affect the rights of a lawfully transferred property holder?
- FAZAL ELAHI vs CHAIRMAN,EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD and another1987 CLC 1010 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-08-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a displaced person, challenged an order cancelling the transfer of an evacuee property previously allotted and transferred to him under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether an urban evacuee trust property, fully paid for and transferred to a displaced person prior to the critical cutoff date, could be lawfully cancelled under Section 10 of the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 based on the date of issuance of the Permanent Transfer Deed. The Balochistan High Court held that since the petitioner had made full payment and fulfilled all obligations, and the property had effectively ceased to be evacuee property, the cancellation order was illegal and without lawful authority. The court laid down the principle that where a property is validly transferred and the full price is paid by the transferee, subsequent delays by authorities in issuing formal deeds do not render the transaction vulnerable to cancellation under the Evacuee Trust Property laws.
Questions settled- Whether an evacuee property fully paid for and transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 can be classified as evacuee trust property under the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975?
- Does the delayed issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed affect the validity of a property transfer where the entire price has been paid by the transferee?
- Whether provisions introduced into section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 regarding evacuee trust properties have retrospective effect?
- Can a constitutional petition be entertained despite the availability of an alternate remedy when the impugned order is patently illegal and without lawful authority?
- FAZAL DIN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA And Other1987 SCMR 1355 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority, which established the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the respondent, Nasir Abbas, and the petitioner, Fazal Din. The petitioner sought to challenge these findings, which were upheld by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings regarding the landlord-tenant relationship warranted interference, particularly in light of parallel litigation pending in the civil court concerning the title of the property. The Supreme Court held that no case for interference was made out, affirming the lower courts' findings. The Court emphasized that the Rent Controller had correctly noted that the petitioner could seek necessary relief in the civil court proceedings if he successfully challenged the document relied upon by the legal heirs of Nasir Abbas to prove the transfer of the house. The judgment reinforces the principle that concurrent findings of fact by lower forums regarding the existence of a tenancy will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court where adequate alternative remedies exist in civil litigation.
Questions settled- Does the existence of pending civil litigation regarding property title automatically invalidate concurrent findings of a landlord-tenant relationship by a Rent Controller?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by the Rent Controller and the appellate authority regarding the existence of a tenancy?
- FAZAL AHMAD KHAN SALEEMI vs Mrs. ANWAR IQBAL1987 CLC 1638 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-28Read full judgment →
- FAYYAZ KHAN vs Mst. AMNA BIBI1987 MLD 2807 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-19Read full judgment →
- FAYYAZ ASHRAF vs THE STATEK.L.R. 1987 Shariat Cases 66 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-23Read full judgment →
- FAYYAZ ASHRAF vs THE STATE and another1987 PLD Lahore 413 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-23Read full judgment →
- FAYYAZ ALI SHAH vs AMIR FATIMA and others1987 CLC 1960 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-07Read full judgment →
- FAYYAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1624 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
- FAYYAZ AHMAD KHAN vs Dr. AQEEL AHMED1987 CLC 364 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This first rent appeal arises from an order passed by the Rent Controller allowing an eviction application against the appellant tenant on the grounds of invalidity of tenancy and default in rent payment. The core legal questions involved whether the tenancy had ceased to be valid and whether the appellant committed a default in the payment of rent under the relevant rent restriction laws. The court held that while the ground regarding the validity of tenancy was not pressed, the finding of default was fully established as the tenant failed to pay the rent for the month of February within the statutory period of fifteen days from the due date, and subsequent payment could not cure the default. The key principle laid down is that under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the timely payment of rent by the statutory date is mandatory to avoid eviction, and any subsequent payment of arrears does not absolve the tenant from the liability of eviction once default has occurred.
Questions settled- Does the subsequent payment of rent arrears cure a default once the statutory time period for payment has expired?
- What is the time limit for payment of rent under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Whether failure to pay rent by the specified date renders a tenant liable to eviction under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- FAUJI SUGAR MILLS Ltd. vs NOOR HUSSAIN And Another1987 PLC 237 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-06Read full judgment →
- Fauji Foundation. vs Central Board of Revenue, etc.PTCL 1987 CL. 233 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-29Read full judgment →
- FAUJI FOUNDATION vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others1987 ML D 106 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-29Read full judgment →
- FATEHUL QADEER vs Messrs JAMIA SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS, KARACHI1987 PLC 410 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-09-04Read full judgment →
- FATEH SHER vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 981 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-21Read full judgment →
- FATEH SHER and 3 others vs Mst.AZIZ BEGUM1987 MLD 391 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-06Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD DIN (deceased) represented by his1987 MLD 2891 · Lahore High Court · 1987-11-01Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD vs Mst.ZUBEDA and another1987 MLD 2931 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-31Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD vs Mst. SAKINA BIBI And Other1987 SCMR 1146 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a father, sought special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld a gift of land made to his daughters. The petitioner had originally filed a suit for a declaration that the mutation of the land in favour of his daughters was fraudulent and that no gift had been made. While the trial court initially decreed the suit in his favour, the Additional District Judge reversed this decision on appeal, finding that the gift was valid and that the petitioner had perfected it by transferring possession. The High Court subsequently declined to interfere with these findings in revision. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged the validity of the gift. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, noting that the local patwari and Naib-Tehsildar confirmed the petitioner's presence and participation in the mutation process. Furthermore, evidence regarding the payment of Batai by tenants to the donees established that possession had been transferred. Finding no infirmity in the lower appellate court's conclusions, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the validity of the gift.
Questions settled- Can a gift of land be considered perfected if the donor has transferred possession to the donees?
- Does the attestation of a mutation by a revenue officer, supported by evidence of possession transfer, constitute sufficient proof of a valid gift?
- Is a finding of fact regarding the existence of a gift, upheld by the High Court in revision, liable to be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- FATEH MUHAMMAD vs Mst. KHUDIJA BIBI and another1987 MLD 2621 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-19Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD KHAN And Others vs THE DEPUTY CLAIMS COMMISSIONER, RAWALPINDI And Other1987 SCMR 692(1) · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition against an order passed by the Deputy Claims Commissioner. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in dismissing the constitutional petition on the grounds of laches. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the Deputy Claims Commissioner's order was passed on 29-1-1977, while the constitutional petition was only filed on 21-11-1979. The Court held that the petitioner failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the delay of nearly three years in approaching the High Court. Consequently, the principle laid down is that a constitutional petition may be dismissed on the grounds of laches when there is an inordinate, unexplained delay in seeking judicial review of an administrative order, thereby justifying the refusal of the High Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a constitutional petition be dismissed on the grounds of laches due to an unexplained delay of nearly three years?
- Is an unexplained delay in filing a constitutional petition a valid basis for a High Court to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction?
- FATEH MUHAMMAD And Other vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR, Etc.K.L.R. 1987 Shariat Caaea 6 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-24Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD and 5 others vs IJAZ HUSSAIN and 9 others1987 CLC 1025 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-08Read full judgment →
- FATEH KHAN represented through his Legal Heirs vs ADALAT KHAN and 31987 CLC 1065 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-06Read full judgment →
- FATEH GUL vs M. ANWARUL HUDA and another1987 CLC 635 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These are two First Rent Appeals directed against an order passed by the Rent Controller ordering the eviction of the appellants from the disputed premises on grounds of default and subletting. The core legal questions involved the validity of the service of notice upon one of the appellants through substituted service and the establishment of the relationship of landlord and tenant based on secondary evidence and official entries. The Sindh High Court held that the mandatory provisions of Order V, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding substituted service, including the affixation of a copy in the courthouse and upon a conspicuous part of the house, were not strictly complied with, rendering the ex parte proceedings illegal and without jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court held that the loss of the alleged written tenancy agreement was not legally proved and excise or taxation entries alone could not establish the landlord-tenant relationship without cogent proof. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the eviction orders were set aside, and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The key principle laid down is that failure to fulfill mandatory procedural requirements for substituted service vitiates the entire ensuing proceedings, and oral assertions of lost documents without establishing secondary evidence cannot substantiate a tenancy.
Questions settled- Are the provisions of Order V, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding substituted service mandatory, and does the failure to comply with any requirement nullify the proceedings?
- Can entries in property tax registers or P.T.I. forms alone establish the relationship of landlord and tenant without proof of a tenancy agreement?
- What are the legal prerequisites for admitting secondary evidence regarding a lost tenancy agreement?
- FARZAND ALI vs MUNIR AHMAD And 5 Others1987 P Cr. L J 1168 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-02Read full judgment →
- FARZAND ALI vs ASHRAF Alias ACHHU And 3 Others1987 P Cr. L J 959(2) · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-07Read full judgment →
- FARZAND ALI SHAH vs The STATE1987 SCMR 427 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal conviction where the petitioner, Farzand Ali Shah, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and Section 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for house trespass, receiving a death sentence. The Lahore High Court maintained the petitioner's conviction while acquitting a co-accused. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony of interested witnesses, closely related to the deceased, was sufficient to sustain the conviction without independent corroboration, and whether the acquittal of a co-accused necessitated the acquittal of the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the ocular testimony of natural inmates of the house was credible and sufficient, noting that the specific act of murder was consistently attributed solely to the petitioner. The Court affirmed that the acquittal of a co-accused based on distinct evidence (Lalkara and indiscriminate firing) does not automatically entitle the petitioner to the same benefit of doubt. The petition was dismissed, upholding the conviction.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of a co-accused based on distinct evidence automatically entitle the remaining accused to the same benefit of doubt?
- Is the ocular testimony of interested witnesses who are natural inmates of the house sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
- Can the Supreme Court refuse to re-appraise evidence when the High Court has already carefully considered and accepted the ocular testimony?
- FARRUKH HAFEEZ And 2 Others vs THE STATE and another1987 P Cr. L J 1858 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
- FAROOQ AHMED MALIK vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 203 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-10-19Read full judgment →
- FAROOQ AHMAD and another vs PUNJAB UNIVERSITY1987 MLD 6 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-21Read full judgment →
- FARMAN ALI vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2601 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-13Read full judgment →
- FARID vs KHAN and others1987 CLC 821 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-28Read full judgment →
- FARID And Others vs ALLAH YAR And Another1987 SCMR 814 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for special leave to appeal filed by vendees challenging a decree passed against them in a pre-emption suit. The respondents had initially asserted a superior right of pre-emption based on their status as owners in the estate and as collaterals of the vendors. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether, in light of the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1986 SC 360), the respondents could still maintain their claim of a superior right of pre-emption based on those specific grounds. The Court found that the contention raised by the petitioners regarding the impact of the Said Kamal Shah decision on the respondents' claim required further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to the petitioners. Additionally, the Court ordered a stay of execution proceedings, conditional upon the petitioners furnishing security for mesne profits to the satisfaction of the Executing Court within one month.
Questions settled- Does the decision in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah preclude a claim of superior right of pre-emption based on being an owner in the estate or a collateral of the vendor?
- Can execution proceedings be stayed pending the final adjudication of a petition for special leave to appeal in a pre-emption suit?
- FARID AHMAD vs PAKISTAN BURMAH SHELL LTD. And Other1987 SCMR 1463 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal addresses whether a petrol pump worker employed by an independent contractor is an employee of the principal oil company (Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd.) and whether the High Court rightly decided this issue under its constitutional jurisdiction. The appellant, whose services were terminated by the contractor, filed a criminal complaint for unfair labour practice before the National Industrial Relations Commission against the principal company. The High Court entertained a writ petition and held that the appellant was not an employee of the company. The Supreme Court held that the question of whether an employer-employee relationship exists goes to the root of the Labour Court's jurisdiction, making it competent for the High Court to determine it under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Court affirmed that workers employed by an independent contractor running a petrol pump do not become employees of the principal company merely because the definition of 'workman' in the Industrial Relations Ordinance includes persons employed through a contractor, unless the contractor is a mere supplier of labour. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can determine the question of an employment relationship in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction when it affects the jurisdiction of the Labour Court?
- Is a worker employed by an independent contractor running a petrol pump an employee of the principal oil company?
- Does the inclusion of persons employed through a contractor in the definition of workman under the Industrial Relations Ordinance make the principal company liable as an employer for the acts of an independent contractor's employees?
- FARHATULLAH KHAN/Tenant vs Mst. BASHEERAN1987 CLC 1728 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-06Read full judgment →
- FAQIR SAIN and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1749 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-24Read full judgment →
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2383 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-22Read full judgment →
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AGRICULTURE1987 SCMR 882 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had decided a seniority dispute in favor of the respondents. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal is competent when the aggrieved party has failed to exhaust departmental remedies, specifically by not filing a representation against a final seniority list issued by the Provincial Government. The Court held that under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, an appeal is barred if a departmental representation, as provided under Section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, has not been filed. The Court observed that even if the order is passed by the Provincial Government, a representation to the next higher authority (the Governor) is required. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the jurisdictional competency of the Tribunal, emphasizing that the failure to exhaust departmental remedies goes to the root of the Tribunal's jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the matter.
Questions settled- Is an appeal before the Service Tribunal competent if the aggrieved party has not filed a departmental representation against a final seniority list?
- Does the requirement to file a departmental representation apply even when the impugned order is issued by the Provincial Government?
- Is a representation to the Governor the appropriate departmental remedy under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, when no other appeal or review is provided?
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs Mst. JHANDO1987 MLD 370 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-11Read full judgment →