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.
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHURSHID AND Other vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF1987 PLD Supreme Court 60 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over whether various properties associated with the Shrine of Hazrat Shah Sadiq Nihang constitute Waqf properties or the personal property of the Sajjadahnashin. The appellants challenged a notification by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf, which assumed control of these properties under the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether historical revenue records and previous administrative orders established the properties as personal assets, thereby precluding their classification as Waqf. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the classification of the properties as Waqf. The Court established that entries in revenue records designating a Sajjadahnashin as owner do not conclusively prove personal ownership, as the Sajjadahnashin often functions merely as a trustee or custodian. Furthermore, the Court held that previous administrative orders or revenue proceedings do not foreclose the exclusive jurisdiction of the forum designated under the Ordinance to determine the nature of the property. The judgment emphasizes that the nature of property as Waqf is a matter of substance, not merely formal revenue entries.
Questions settled- Does an entry in the revenue record describing a Sajjadahnashin as an owner conclusively prove that the property is personal and not Waqf?
- Can previous administrative orders or revenue proceedings regarding property status foreclose a determination of title under the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1959?
- What is the effect of non-compliance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872, when using previous admissions as evidence?
- Is an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent competent against a decision rendered under the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1959?
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 963 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-27Read full judgment →
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD and others vs JUMA KHAN and others1987 CLC 872 · Peshawar High Court · 1974-02-28Read full judgment →
- FALAK SHER vs The STATE1987 MLD 1156 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant Falak Sher challenged his conviction and sentence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965, passed by an Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the Court of Session had jurisdiction to try an offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965 following the amendments introduced by the Pakistan Arms (Amendment) Ordinance 1976. The court held that pursuant to section 14-A of the Arms Ordinance 1965, offences under section 13 are exclusively triable by a Magistrate of the First Class, rendering the trial conducted by the Additional Sessions Judge coram non judice and a nullity in the eye of law. Rather than remanding the case for re-trial given the passage of time and the agony of protracted proceedings, the court accepted the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence. The key principle laid down is that trials for offences under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965 conducted by a Court of Session instead of a Magistrate of the First Class are without jurisdiction and void ab initio.
Questions settled- Which court has jurisdiction to try an offence punishable under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965?
- What is the legal effect of a trial conducted by an Additional Sessions Judge for an offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965?
- Whether an appellate court should remand a case for retrial when the occurrence took place long ago and the accused has suffered a protracted trial?
- FALAK SHER vs THE STATE-1987 MLD 1087 · Board of Revenue · 1985-08-11Read full judgment →
- FALAK SHER And Others vs GHIAS UD DIN And Other1987 SCMR 231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These five appeals by leave arose out of a consolidated order of the Lahore High Court dismissing civil revisions filed by the appellants. The dispute related to units of property located within Khasra No. 610 in Multan, which the appellants claimed belonged to their predecessor-in-interest, A.I Muhammad. The core legal question was whether the previous declarations by Custodian Authorities regarding a portion of Khasra No. 610 extended to the entire Khasra number, thereby establishing the appellants' title against the respondents who claimed through cancelled settlement transfers. The Supreme Court held that the Custodian and revenue records established that Khasra No. 610 as a whole belonged to A.I Muhammad, and since the respondents' transfer documents had been lawfully cancelled on the basis that the property was non-evacuee, the respondents had no better title to remain in possession. The key principle laid down is that where property is determined to be non-evacuee and belonging to a private owner, and transfer documents issued to third parties through the settlement department stand cancelled, the true owners are entitled to a decree for possession against those in wrongful possession.
Questions settled- Whether a declaration of non-evacuee status given by the Custodian Authorities in respect of a specific property unit extends to the entire Khasra number of which it forms a part?
- Can a defendant resist a suit for possession on the basis of transfer documents that have already been cancelled by the Settlement Authorities?
- Is a civil court precluded from granting a decree for possession to the true owner when the property has been validly determined to be non-evacuee?
- FALAK SHER And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 610 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-03Read full judgment →
- FALAK SHER AND 5 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD HANIF AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Lahore 91 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-23Read full judgment →
- FALAK SHER AND 5 Other vs MUHAMMAD HANIF AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Lahore 91 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-23Read full judgment →
- FALAK SHER And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1518 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-19Read full judgment →
- FAKIR MUHAMMAD vs KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION and another1987 MLD 511 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
- FAKIR IMDAD ALI vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE and 2 OTHERS1987 PLD Karachi 530 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
- FAKIR IMDAD ALI vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE And 2 Other1987 PLD Karachi 530 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
- FAKHRUDDIN vs Shaikh MUHAMMAD KHALID1987 MLD 448 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-25Read full judgment →
- FAIZULLAH KHAN AND Other vs ABDUL RAZZAQ1987 PLD Supreme Court 130 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over immovable property where the true owners obtained a decree for possession against an adverse possessor but failed to execute it within the statutory period. The core legal question was whether a decree for possession in favor of the true owner, without actual execution, operates to interrupt the continuity of adverse possession. The Supreme Court held that such a decree, by itself, does not interrupt the running of adverse possession. The Court reasoned that the adverse possessor's hostile possession continues until actual dispossession occurs. Consequently, if the true owner fails to execute the decree and the adverse possessor remains in possession for the requisite statutory period, the adverse possessor perfects their title. The key principle laid down is that a decree for possession merely emphasizes the plaintiff's claim to ownership but does not, in the absence of execution or actual disturbance of possession, stop the clock of limitation against the true owner, thereby allowing the adverse possessor to mature their title.
Questions settled- Does an unexecuted decree for possession in favor of the true owner interrupt the continuity of adverse possession?
- Can a party perfect title by adverse possession if the true owner obtained a decree for possession but failed to execute it?
- Does a declaratory decree regarding title interrupt the running of adverse possession?
- FAIZOO And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 2427 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-29Read full judgment →
- FAIZ BAKHSH vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1005 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-01Read full judgment →
- FAIZ AHMAD And 4 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 246 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-08Read full judgment →
- F.J. RAMBARTS (PAKISTAN) LTD. vs PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION1987 CLC 2198 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from objections filed by the defendants against an arbitration award dated December 2, 1984, which had awarded the plaintiffs Rs. 34,65,527 plus costs for work done, damages, and interest under a contract for installing process equipment. The defendants challenged the arbitrator's jurisdiction to value the work and contested specific heads of damages and interest. The High Court of Sindh held that because the defendants participated in the arbitration proceedings without raising jurisdictional objections, they were estopped from doing so at a later stage. On the merits, the Court ruled that an award cannot be set aside unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record. However, findings based on mere conjecture, assumption, or lack of evidence cannot stand. The Court further held that while interest on outstanding dues for work done is permissible under the Interest Act following a formal notice, interest on damages for breach of contract cannot be awarded in the absence of an express agreement or statutory provision. Consequently, the Court modified the award by excluding unsupported damages and interest on damages, making the modified award the rule of the court.
Questions settled- Can a party who participates in arbitration proceedings without objection later challenge the arbitrator's jurisdiction?
- Under what circumstances can a court set aside or modify an arbitrator's award under the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Can an arbitrator award interest on damages for breach of contract in the absence of an express agreement or statutory authority?
- Is an arbitrator's finding valid if it is based on mere presumption and conjecture rather than concrete evidence?
- F AR 00Q HAYA T vs PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, BAHAWALPUR and others1987 CLC 890 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
- F A Z AL DIN vs REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER (LANDS) and 2 others1987 CLC 1053 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil miscellaneous applications filed under Sections 151, 152, and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to amend a 1971 High Court judgment regarding land allotment. The applicant claimed that the original judgment contained a factual error regarding the extent of the land entitlement, citing 'Kanals' instead of 'Bighas,' and sought correction after over a decade. The core legal question was whether these provisions allow for the material alteration of a final judgment due to alleged factual errors long after the limitation period for review or appeal has expired. The court dismissed the applications, holding that Sections 152 and 153 are strictly limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical mistakes and cannot be used to re-open substantive issues or alter the judgment's merits. Furthermore, the court ruled that inherent powers under Section 151 cannot be invoked to bypass statutory remedies like review or appeal. The principle established is that a judgment attains finality if not challenged timely, and parties cannot use procedural amendments to cure their own negligence or laches after a decade.
Questions settled- Can Sections 151, 152, and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be used to materially alter a judgment after the limitation period for review has expired?
- Does a clerical or arithmetical mistake under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 include substantive errors regarding the factual basis of a claim?
- Can inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be exercised to bypass statutory remedies such as appeal or review?
- Does a delay of over a decade in seeking the amendment of a judgment constitute laches sufficient to bar relief?
- EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING AND MECHANICAL1987 PLC 523 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-18Read full judgment →
- EXECUTIVE ENGINEER E & M DIVISION, EAST KHAIRPUR And 2 Other vs ALL1987 PLC 979 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-03-11Read full judgment →
- EVERLAST INDUSTRIES through its Proprietor Muhammad Shafique vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLA MA BAD and others1987 MLD 2239(2) · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
- EUROPEAN ASIAN BANK vs K K MOIDEEN1987 MLD 2845 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-01Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs Messrs SEARLE (PAKISTAN) Ltd.1987 PLC 9 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-01-15Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs Messrs FIRDOUS TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED And 2 Others1987 PLC 230 · Labour Court · 1986-05-10Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs Messrs A.E.G. TELEFUNKEN (PAK.) LTD.1987 PLC 407 · Labour Court · 1986-01-07Read full judgment →
- Election Tribunal, N.-W.F.P. HAQ NAWAZ KHAN vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF1987 MLD 2254 · Election Tribunal · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
- EJAZ HUSSAIN vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1754 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal arising from a criminal case. The core legal question for consideration is whether, under the specific circumstances of the case, the petitioner possessed the full right of self-defence to cause the death of the deceased. The Court held that leave to appeal is granted to examine this question regarding the right of self-defence. The appeal is ordered to be heard on the existing record during the current session, with permission granted to the parties to file additional documents if necessary.
Questions settled- Whether the petitioner had the full right of self-defence to cause the death of the deceased in the circumstances of the case?
- EJAZ AHMAD KHAN vs CHAHAT And Other1987 SCMR 192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a judgment of a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court regarding the cancellation of land allotted under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958. Land originally allotted to an evacuee was exchanged, gifted, and ultimately purchased by the petitioner. Upon a Mukhbari application alleging that the original allottee was an impersonator and never migrated to Pakistan, the Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelled the entire allotment. The petitioner challenged this cancellation via a writ petition, asserting his status as a bona fide purchaser for value who was entitled to notice before cancellation, and also claiming protection under Act XIV of 1975. The High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to approach the relevant authorities regarding his claim under Act XIV of 1975. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that a bona fide purchaser cannot claim immunity or entitlement to notice against the cancellation of an allotment obtained by fraud, following settled precedents.
Questions settled- Whether a bona fide purchaser for value is entitled to notice before the cancellation of an allotment obtained fraudulently in the name of an impersonator?
- Can a subsequent purchaser of land protect his title if the original allotment was secured through fraud and impersonation?
- EID MUHAMMAD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SIND and another1987 CLC 387 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-29Read full judgment →
- EHSANULLAH vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1120(2) · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-12Read full judgment →
- EHSANULLAH SARDAR And Another vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT And Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 144 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-05-18Read full judgment →
- EHSAN ULLAH and 4 others vs The STATE1987 MLD 1125 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-11Read full judgment →
- EHSAN ELLA HI vs AKHTAR ALI And Other1987 SCMR 692(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's suit for pre-emption. The core legal question was whether the petitioner possessed a superior right of pre-emption regarding the urban immovable property in dispute. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to prove the existence of the right of pre-emption in the relevant locality under the applicable statute when it came into force, and furthermore, a son of the vendor is not among the persons entitled to pre-emption under the governing provisions for urban immovable property. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a claim for pre-emption regarding urban immovable property must strictly satisfy the statutory requirements and prove the existence of the custom where required by law, and familial relationship alone without statutory backing does not suffice.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff can claim a superior right of pre-emption without proving its existence in the locality when the Pre-emption Act, 1913 came into force?
- Does a son of the vendor possess a right of pre-emption in respect of urban immovable property under section 16 of the Pre-emption Act, 1913?
- EHSAN AHMED vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB SGA & I1987 PLC (C. S.) 4 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-03-19Read full judgment →
- EBRAHIM FIKREE and others vs TAUFIQ FIKREE and others1987 CLC 2224 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-30Read full judgment →
- EASTERN PUBLICATION LTD. vs GHULAM MOINUD DIN and another1987 CLC 2252 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-03Read full judgment →
- EASTERN FEDERAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY and others vs BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF ABANDONED PROPERTY and others1987 CLC 1962 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
- DUR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD QASIM1987 PLD Karachi 273 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-02Read full judgment →
- DUR MUHAMMAD AND Other vs MUHAMMAD QASIM1987 PLD Karachi 273 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-02Read full judgment →
- DUMAR COAL COMPANY vs AKBAR KHAN1987 SCMR 1821 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which dismissed an appeal and upheld the Additional District Judge's order. The lower court had rejected the petitioner's application for the restoration of a previous application seeking to set aside the dismissal of their suit, which had been dismissed due to the petitioner's failure to attend the court on the date of hearing. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court properly exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in upholding the dismissal of the restoration application. The Supreme Court held that the impugned judgment was passed in the legitimate exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by the High Court, involved no point of law, violated no principle of law, and warranted no interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed on its merits.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court exercised in refusing to restore a dismissed application?
- Does the dismissal of a suit for non-appearance give rise to a substantial point of law warranting leave to appeal?
- Dr.ZUBAIDA HAMID ALI KHAN TRUST vs M. M. JADOON1987 MLD 2791 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-21Read full judgment →
- Dr.TARIQ SANDHU vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1442 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
- Dr.Syed INAM-UR-RAHMAN vs PROVINCE OF SIND And 12 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 834 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-06-30Read full judgment →
- Dr.SAEED AHMAD KHAN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, HEALTH DEPARTMENT And Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 725 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
- Dr.L. HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD NAWAB and 3 others1987 MLD 2038 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-16Read full judgment →
- Dr.KAMRAN JAMSHAID and 2 others vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, Islamabad and 5 others1987 MLD 570 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-19Read full judgment →
- Dr. Syed ALI SAJJAD BUKHARI and 6 others vs SABIR ALI SHAH and 4 others1987 CLC 229 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the judgments and orders of the lower courts dismissing the plaintiff's suit for perpetual injunction restraining interference in the possession of a vacant site and shrine. The plaintiff claimed exclusive ownership and possession through ancestors, while the defendants denied ownership and asserted their own continuous possession. The trial court and the appellate court dismissed the suit as incompetent in its present form without seeking a declaration of ownership and without recording findings on the specific evidence or on issue No. 4 framed regarding ownership and possession. The High Court held that the lower courts erred in deciding the suit without judicially scrutinizing the voluminous oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties and failing to give findings on material issues. The court set aside the judgments of both lower courts, remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh decision in accordance with law, and allowed the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint to include a prayer for declaration of ownership, subject to payment of costs.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for simple injunction under Section 54 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 is competent without seeking a declaration of ownership when the plaintiff's title is specifically denied by the defendants?
- Do the provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding abatement apply to a revision petition?
- Is it incumbent upon the trial and appellate courts to give findings on all material issues and judicially scrutinize the evidence produced by the parties?
- To what extent should an application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be liberally allowed to avoid multiplicity of suits?
- Dr. SHER AFGHAN vs AAMAR HAYAT KHAN And 2 Other1987 SCMR 1987 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under section 67 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 arose from the judgment of the Election Tribunal Punjab declaring the election of the appellant from National Assembly Constituency No. NA-61 Mianwali-cum-Bhakkar as void and declaring respondent No. 1 as the returned candidate. The controversy centered on the validity of 3,553 disputed ballot-papers where voters affixed the prescribed mark either entirely in blank column No. 4 immediately below the candidate's space or partly in column No. 3 and partly in column No. 4. The core legal question was whether the provisions regarding the manner and location of marking ballot-papers under section 33(5)(b) and rule 17 are mandatory or directory, and whether votes marked outside the designated space are automatically invalid. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the provisions governing the manner of marking ballot-papers are directory rather than mandatory. The ratio decidendi is that a ballot-paper cannot be rejected merely because the prescribed mark is placed outside the designated space, provided the voter's intention to vote for a particular candidate is clearly and reasonably ascertainable, and the mark does not violate the exhaustive statutory grounds for rejection.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of section 33(5)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 regarding the manner and location of marking a ballot-paper are mandatory or directory?
- Can a ballot-paper be rejected as invalid solely on the ground that the prescribed mark has been placed outside the space containing the name and symbol of the contesting candidate?
- What is the test for determining the validity of a ballot-paper where the voter's mark is not placed in the exact designated space?
- Does the placement of a mark outside the reserved space on a ballot-paper automatically constitute a device for identifying the voter and breach the secrecy of the ballot?
- Dr. NAHEED NAZAR vs Mst. FATEH BIBI And Others1987 P Cr. L J 181 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-07Read full judgment →
- Dr. MUHAMMAD SALEEM KHAN vs SECRETARY, LIVESTOCK And DAIRY1987 PLC (C.S.) 704 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1987-06-04Read full judgment →
- DR. MUHAMMAD SAEED vs MESSRS PARVEEN HILALUDDIN AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Karachi 190 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-21Read full judgment →
- Dr. MUHAMMAD ISHAQ CHAUDHRY vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 736 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-20Read full judgment →
- Dr. MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN And Other vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 431 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
- Dr. Mrs. NASIM QURESHI vs DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, EVACUEE TRUST1987 CLC 213 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two constitutional petitions filed by tenants of evacuee trust property challenging ejectment notices issued by the Deputy Administrator, Evacuee Trust. The core legal question was whether the authorities, under Section 25 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975, are required to provide a meaningful hearing and consider representations from occupants before ordering eviction, particularly when the ground for eviction is that the property is required for a public purpose. The Court held that the ejectment notices and subsequent appellate orders were issued without lawful authority. The ratio decidendi is that the statutory requirement of notice under Section 25 is not merely procedural but substantive; it mandates that authorities afford the occupant an opportunity to defend against the proposed action and, crucially, requires the authority to consider any representation filed by the occupant before finalizing the eviction. Failure to do so, or acting mechanically without applying one's mind, renders the eviction order a nullity. The Court further affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction remains available despite alternative remedies when an order is patently illegal or without jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does the requirement of notice under Section 25 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975 imply a duty to consider the occupant's representation before ordering eviction?
- Can a High Court exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when an alternative statutory remedy exists but the impugned order is patently illegal?
- Is an ejectment order passed mechanically without considering the occupant's explanation valid under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975?
- ISRAR AHMAD vs ABDUL AZIZ1987 CLC 336 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an eviction proceeding initiated by a landlord against a tenant on grounds of default and personal bona fide requirement. The core legal questions concerned the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, the applicable rate of rent, whether the tenant committed default, and the validity of the notice of transfer under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Rent Controller's findings. It held that the tenant, having previously admitted the title of the original landlord, was estopped from challenging the successor's title. Furthermore, the Court ruled that even if a formal notice under Section 13-A was not served, the institution of the eviction application itself constitutes sufficient notice of transfer, and the tenant's failure to pay rent thereafter established default. The judgment reinforces the principle that a tenant cannot challenge the title of their landlord once that title has been admitted, and that the filing of an eviction petition can satisfy the notice requirement for transfer of ownership.
Questions settled- Can a tenant challenge the title of a landlord after having previously admitted the title of the original landlord?
- Does the filing of an eviction application constitute sufficient notice of transfer of ownership under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Is a tenant liable for eviction if they fail to pay rent after the institution of an eviction application?
- FAQIR MASIH vs MUBARIK MASIH And Other1987 SCMR 697 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that partially allowed a criminal appeal in a murder case. The High Court had reduced the death sentence of the respondent, Mubarik Masih, to life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while maintaining his conviction under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the High Court erred in reducing the sentence based on the convict's age and the alleged motive, and whether the convict's jail petition, which was time-barred, warranted interference. The Supreme Court dismissed both petitions. It held that there was no justification to interfere with the conviction or the sentence, noting that the trial court had not provided a definitive assessment of the convict's age and that the High Court's appreciation of the evidence regarding motive was sound. The principle established is that the Supreme Court will not re-appraise evidence or interfere with sentencing discretion where the lower court's findings on motive and age are not demonstrably infirm or unsupported by the record.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's sentence reduction if the trial court failed to provide a positive assessment of the convict's age?
- Is the Supreme Court required to re-appraise evidence regarding motive if the High Court's findings do not suffer from legal infirmity?
- Should a time-barred jail petition be entertained when there is no justification for interference with the conviction and sentence?
- Dr. Mrs. IQBAL CHAUDHRY vs THE STATE and 2 others1987 P Cr. L J 2406 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-09Read full judgment →
- Dr. Mrs. ASHRAF ABBASI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SOUTH ZONE, KARACHI And Other1987 SCMR 16336 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sind regarding the transfer of an evacuee property previously utilized as a medical clinic. The core legal question concerns whether a property could be validly transferred under the earmarking scheme while an application for its transfer as a converted property and a statutory determination of its character under settlement schemes remained pending. The Supreme Court held that the initial rejection of the appellant's transfer form without mandatory notice and without determining the property's converted status under Para 20 of Settlement Scheme No.I rendered the subsequent earmarking and transfer to another party void and a nullity. The key principle laid down is that a property whose status has been altered and is subject to a pending conversion determination by competent settlement authorities is not available for disposal under general earmarking processes until such determination is lawfully concluded after affording a proper hearing to the affected claimant.
Questions settled- Can an evacuee property be validly transferred under the earmarking scheme while an application for its determination as a converted property remains pending?
- Does the failure to issue mandatory notice before rejecting a transfer application render the resulting order a nullity?
- Whether a property whose character has been altered can be disposed of without a determination by the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Settlement Scheme No.I?
- Dr. MOHOMED AQEEL KHAN and another vs Mst. Dr. SHAHARYAR and 2 others1987 MLD 2809 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-11Read full judgment →
- Dr. KHALID KAMAL KHAN vs Dr. ARSHAD KAMAL KHAN and another1987 CLC 1795 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-12Read full judgment →
- Dr. JUZAR ALI vs Mrs. MANI BAI1987 PLD Karachi 462 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-04Read full judgment →
- Dr. HAKIMULLAH SIDDIQI vs Messrs ALPHACO (PAKISTAN), KARACHI1987 MLD 2569 · Sindh High Court · 1974-10-31Read full judgment →
- Dr. Haji MISAL KHAN vs Maulana GOHAR REHMAN and 7 others1987 MLD 1321 · Election Tribunal · 1987-07-13Read full judgment →
- Dr. GHOUS ALI SHAH vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1370 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-27Read full judgment →
- Dr. AON MUHAMMAD KHAN vs Lt. Gen. (Retd.) SAEED QADIR And Other1987 PLD SC 490 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under section 48(3) of the Senate (Election) Act, 1975, arose from an election petition challenging the election of respondent No. 1, Lt.-Gen. (Retd.) Saeed Qadir, to the Senate on the ground that he did not qualify as a "technocrat" under clause (b) of the Explanation to Article 5(1) of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977. The core legal question was whether respondent No. 1 possessed the requisite nationally or internationally recognized professional competence and at least fifteen years of experience and expertise at a high level for administering or managing an operational or policy-making unit without necessarily holding formal academic or professional degrees. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a person without formal professional qualifications can qualify as a technocrat if they possess nationally or internationally recognized professional competence along with the requisite practical experience. The key principle laid down is that Explanation (b) to Article 5(1) emphasizes practical experience, expertise, and competence in administration and management rather than academic qualifications.
Questions settled- Whether formal academic or professional qualifications are mandatory for a person to qualify as a technocrat under clause (b) of the Explanation to Article 5(1) of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977?
- Can a person without a university degree acquire nationally recognized professional competence through military engineering and logistics experience?
- What constitutes sufficient experience and expertise at a high level for administering or managing an operational or policy-making unit under the electoral laws?
- Dr. ANWAR M. BARKAT and 2 others vs GULZAR WAFA CHAUDHRY and another1987 MLD 2204 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-02Read full judgment →
- Dr. ABDUL RAHMAN GORA vs Mst. ASYA SULTANA1987 SCMR 1488 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Sind High Court, which upheld an eviction order issued by a Rent Controller against the petitioner. The core legal dispute concerned whether the respondent-landlady had sufficiently established a bona fide personal requirement for the demised premises to justify the petitioner's eviction. The High Court had previously determined that the landlady's family, consisting of six members, required additional accommodation, as the current available space was insufficient for their needs. Upon reviewing the record and hearing counsel, the Supreme Court found no legal or factual error in the High Court's findings. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the landlady had satisfactorily proven her bona fide personal need for the premises. The judgment reinforces the principle that where a landlord establishes a genuine and bona fide personal requirement for a property, and the existing accommodation is demonstrably insufficient for the family's needs, an eviction order is legally justified and sustainable on appeal.
Questions settled- Can an eviction order be upheld if the landlord proves a bona fide personal need for the premises?
- Is the insufficiency of current accommodation a valid ground for proving a landlord's bona fide personal requirement?
- DOST MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1987 MLD 786 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-31Read full judgment →
- DOST MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 530 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-23Read full judgment →
- DOST MUHAMMAD vs PIR ZAMAN SHAH And 12 Other1987 PLD Peshawar 125 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-07-08Read full judgment →
- DOST MUHAMMAD LALI vs SARDARZADA MUHAMMAD ALI SHAH and others1987 CLC 1159 · Election Tribunal · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
- DOST MUHAMMAD and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1736 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
- DOST MUHAMMAD And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 293 · Lahore High Court · 1987-12-20Read full judgment →
- DOST MUHAMMAD and 2 others vs BAHADAR and another1987 MLD 1240 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-05Read full judgment →
- DOST MUHAMMAD Alias DOSA And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 2490 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-19Read full judgment →
- DOST ALI vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTANKARACHI1987 PLC 800 · Labour Court · 1987-03-11Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL TRANSPORTATION OFFICER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR And 21987 PLC 140 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-05-05Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENTPAKISTAN RAILWAYS And 2 Other vs GUL HASSAN1987 PLC 479 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-16Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, RAILWAYS And Another vs BASHEER AHMAD1987 PLC 483 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-16Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR And 2 Other vs MUSHTAQUE AHMAD And 8 Others1987 PLC 142 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-05-06Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR And 2 Other vs M.A. ANSARI1987 PLC 146 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-05-06Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE1987 PLC 511 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-11-18Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs Mst. ZAREENA SEGUM1987 PLC 301 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT RAILWAYS And 2 Other vs ABDUR RASHIDK.L.R. 1987 Labour and Service Cases 108 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-28Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD1987 PLC 687 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs Mirza1987 PLC 684 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs DHUMMAN1987 PLC 688 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs SIND LABOUR COURT1987 PLC 857 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-19Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL PERSONAL OFFICER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE ;TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and 2 others1987 CLC 1397 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against a decision under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal on the grounds that it was not competently instituted within the limitation period, as the appeal lacked the petitioner's signature and the counsel lacked a valid power of attorney at the time of filing. The High Court found that the delay of over ten months in filing the writ petition was unexplained, amounting to gross negligence. Furthermore, the Court held that the lack of a valid power of attorney at the time of filing was not a mere irregularity but a fundamental defect affecting the competency and maintainability of the appeal. Additionally, the Court criticized the practice of counsel swearing affidavits on behalf of clients without personal knowledge and noted that the specific power of attorney did not authorize the counsel to swear such affidavits, rendering the petition void under the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Does the filing of an appeal without a valid power of attorney constitute a mere irregularity or a fundamental defect?
- Can a counsel swear an affidavit on behalf of a client if the power of attorney does not explicitly authorize such an act?
- Does the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius apply to the interpretation of a special power of attorney?
- DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR1987 PLC 208 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-02-13Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI vs MITHO1987 PLC 37 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-08-25Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs TAJ BAREEN1987 PLC 169 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-02-05Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs Syed ZULFIQAR1987 PLC 5 3 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-08-10Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs SHAMSHAD ALI1987 PLC 48 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-08-10Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs RASHIDULLAH1987 PLC 206 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs MUMTAZ ALI1987 PLC 109 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-02-13Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD1987 PLC 51 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →