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.
- DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD1987 PLC 152 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-02-13Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD1987 PLC 62 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-02-02Read full judgment →
- DIRECTOR, TELEGRAPH STORES AND WORKSHOP, KARACHI And Another vs MUHAMMAD YAQOOB And Another1987 PLC 807 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-02-18Read full judgment →
- DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ And Another1987 PLC 526 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
- DIRECTOR (OPERATIONS), P.R.T.C. vs MUHAMMAD SARWAR1987 PLC 352 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-10-26Read full judgment →
- DIRECTOR (OPERATIONS), P.R.T.C. And Another vs ABDUL RAZZAQUB And 21987 PLC 349 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-10-27Read full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD through Legal Heirs vs UMAR DIN alias KAKU through Legal1987 MLD 2076 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-14Read full judgment →
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD Alias FAQIR ALI vs The STATE1987 SCMR 293 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner acted in self-defence and whether his plea of private defence and mitigation of sentence could be sustained where he was apprehended inside a house during a nocturnal intrusion connected with an illicit liaison. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's plea of self-defence was falsified by the recovery of blood-stained earth from inside the courtyard rather than the street, and that a trespasser who enters a house to commit an unlawful act cannot claim the right of self-defence against an occupant lawfully attempting to apprehend him. The court laid down the principle that a person who creates a situation by committing house trespass for an illicit purpose cannot plead self-defence resulting from his own unlawful aggression, nor can he claim a lenient sentence.
Questions settled- Can a trespasser who enters a house for an unlawful purpose plead self-defence when apprehended by the occupant?
- Whether injuries sustained by an accused during a criminal trespass negate the prosecution's case when physical evidence contradicts the accused's version?
- Is a plea for a lenient sentence maintainable when a murder is committed during the course of a nocturnal house trespass for an illicit liaison?
- DIN MUHAMMAD And Another vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1953 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a High Court judgment maintaining the appellants' convictions for murder. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in determining that the appellants exceeded their right of private defense regarding the deaths of two individuals during a land dispute. The Supreme Court observed that while the appellant, Ghulam Yasin, initially possessed a right of private defense against his person and property due to trespass and an unprovoked attack by the complainants, this right was not absolute. The Court held that the appellants exceeded the permissible limits of self-defense by inflicting disproportionate harm, particularly against individuals who were not part of the initial aggression. The Court affirmed that the right of private defense is strictly limited to inflicting only the harm necessary for the purpose of defense. Consequently, because the violence escalated beyond what was required to repel the initial threat, the plea of private defense could not justify the taking of lives. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.
Questions settled- Does the right of private defense extend to inflicting more harm than is necessary for the purpose of defense?
- Can a person claim the right of private defense against individuals who were not part of the initial aggression?
- Does the existence of a right of private defense justify the taking of life when the force used is disproportionate to the threat?
- DIN MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs Mst. BIBI AND 124 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 176 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-12Read full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD and another vs MARRIAM KHATHRY and another1987 MLD 907 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-07Read full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD And 7 Others vs NOOR MUHAMMAD And 2 Other1987 SCMR 399 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal concerns a dispute over the limitation period for a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the suit, filed on 1-9-1972 before an Additional District Judge, was barred by time, given the petitioner's argument that the plaint should have been presented to an Administrative Civil Judge, who only received it on 9-9-1972, after the limitation period had expired. The Supreme Court held that the suit was filed within time. The Court found that due to the unavailability of a Civil Judge at the time, the District Judge had validly authorized the Additional District Judge to receive plaints. The Court reasoned that since the District Judge possessed the original jurisdiction to receive plaints, they were empowered under the relevant statutory framework to delegate this specific function to the Additional District Judge. Consequently, the presentation of the plaint to the Additional District Judge on 1-9-1972 constituted a valid and timely institution of the suit. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Can a District Judge delegate the function of receiving plaints to an Additional District Judge?
- Does the presentation of a plaint to an Additional District Judge authorized by the District Judge constitute a valid institution of a suit?
- Is a suit for pre-emption barred by time if the plaint is presented to an authorized Additional District Judge within the limitation period?
- DILSHAD ABBAS vs AHMAD ABBAS and 6 others1987 CLC 2479 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-22Read full judgment →
- DILMURAD vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1515 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-23Read full judgment →
- DILDAR vs THE STATE1987 MLD 968 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-31Read full judgment →
- DILBER HUSSAIN And Another vs AHMAD ALI And Other1987 SCMR 1498 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition for special leave to appeal filed against the acquittal of a respondent and enhancement of sentences, alongside a jail petition filed against a conviction and sentence, both directed against the same judgment of the High Court. The core legal question involves the propriety of the High Court's judgment regarding conviction, sentence, and acquittal, and whether grounds exist for interference by the Supreme Court through reappraisal of evidence. The Supreme Court held that no legal flaw exists in the impugned judgment and declined to reappraise the evidence, as the High Court had adequately dealt with all aspects of the case. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused in both petitions. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings or reappraise evidence in the absence of a substantial legal flaw in the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will reappraise evidence to interfere with a High Court judgment when no legal flaw is pointed out?
- Is leave to appeal granted against a High Court judgment that has already dealt with all aspects of the case?
- Can sentences be enhanced or an acquittal overturned without demonstrating a substantial error in the impugned judgment?
- DILBAR HUSSAIN vs MUHMOODUL HASSAN And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1987 Revenue Cases 8 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-04-26Read full judgment →
- DILBAR HUSSAIN vs MAHMOODUL HASAN1987 SCMR 1628 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a consolidated judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which dismissed two Regular First Appeals filed by the petitioner. The underlying dispute concerned a suit for possession of property filed by the respondents against the petitioner, and a cross-suit filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that the respondents' sale deed was unlawful. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner occupied the property as a licensee and whether he possessed the legal standing to challenge the validity of the sale deed executed between the previous owner and the respondents. The High Court, upon re-appraisal of the evidence, concluded that the petitioner was merely a licensee and, as a stranger to the transaction, lacked the standing to challenge the sale, particularly when the vendor supported the transaction. The Supreme Court affirmed these findings, holding that the High Court's factual determinations were supported by the evidence on record and that the legal position regarding the petitioner's status as a licensee and his lack of standing was correct. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is a licensee in possession of property entitled to challenge the validity of a sale deed executed between the owner and a third party?
- Does a person occupying property as a licensee have the legal standing to contest the title of the purchaser?
- Can a court dismiss a suit for declaration against a sale deed if the petitioner is a stranger to the transaction and the vendor supports the sale?
- DILAWAR KHAN vs CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF PAKISTAN And Other1987 PLD Supreme Court 442 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an order of the Chief Election Commissioner dismissing an election petition for non-compliance with statutory requirements under the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The core legal question was whether an appeal lies to the Supreme Court against an order of the Chief Election Commissioner dismissing an election petition under Section 56(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was incompetent. The Court established that the Chief Election Commissioner, when dismissing a petition under Section 56(1) for failing to comply with Sections 52, 53, or 54, does not act as an 'Election Tribunal.' The right of appeal provided under Section 67(3) of the Act is restricted exclusively to the 'decision of the Tribunal' rendered upon the conclusion of a trial. Because the Commissioner's dismissal under Section 56(1) occurs at a preliminary stage before any referral to a Tribunal, it does not constitute an appealable decision. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Act explicitly excludes orders made under Article 13 of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977, from the definition of appealable Tribunal decisions.
Questions settled- Does an appeal lie to the Supreme Court against an order of the Chief Election Commissioner dismissing an election petition under Section 56(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
- Does the Chief Election Commissioner act as an 'Election Tribunal' when dismissing an election petition for non-compliance under Section 56(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
- Is an order passed by the Election Commission under Article 13 of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977, appealable under Section 67(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
- DILAWAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1306 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-04Read full judgment →
- DEPUTY REGISTRAR, JOINT STOCK COMPANIES vs MADINA TEXTILE MILLS1987 MLD 1110 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-28Read full judgment →
- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/REGISTRAR, SIALKOT and 2 others vs HAMID KHALDI1987 CLC 2360 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KACHHI And Others vs ABDUL KARIM1987 SCMR 1757(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question addressed by the Court was whether the petition, which was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, could be entertained. Upon review, the Court observed that the petition was time-barred by a period of eight days. Furthermore, the Court determined that the petitioners failed to provide any valid or sufficient grounds to justify the condonation of this delay. Consequently, the Court held that the petition could not be admitted for hearing. The ratio of the decision reinforces the principle that strict adherence to limitation periods is mandatory for the filing of legal proceedings and that a petition filed out of time without a valid, substantiated explanation for the delay must be dismissed. The Court accordingly dismissed the petition on the grounds of limitation.
Questions settled- Can a petition be entertained if it is filed beyond the statutory period of limitation without valid grounds for condonation?
- Is a delay of eight days in filing a petition sufficient to warrant dismissal if no valid explanation is provided?
- Department. vs Assessee.PTCL 1987 CL. 247 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1986-08-28Read full judgment →
- Department vs AssesseePTCL 1987 CL. 136 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1986-01-29Read full judgment →
- DEENU alias ALIM Din vs GHULAM RASUL AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Lahore 25 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-15Read full judgment →
- DAWOOD COTTON MILLS vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS and others1987 MLD 2109 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-30Read full judgment →
- DAWOOD COTTON MILLS LTD. vs THE COMMISSIONER, WORKMEN's1987 PLC 552 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-12Read full judgment →
- DAWOOD AHMAD vs THE STATE1987 MLD 931 · Sindh High Court · 1983-07-31Read full judgment →
- DAULAT KHAN and 3 others vs CHANDAR KHAN1987 CLC 1866 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-17Read full judgment →
- DAULAT BIBI and 5 others vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF, PUNJAB, LAHORE1987 CLC 2035 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-29Read full judgment →
- DARWESH AND ANOTHER vs KHUDA DAD THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS1987 PLD Lahore 123 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-13Read full judgment →
- DARSHAN MASIH vs AMAN ULLAH KHAN1987 PLD Lahore 486 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-20Read full judgment →
- DARSHAN LAL vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SUKKUR and 2 others1987 MLD 1158 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-29Read full judgment →
- DAR00 vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENTPAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR1987 PLC 148 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-01-13Read full judgment →
- DANDOMAL and others vs GHULAM NABI and 6 others1987 CLC 415 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-08Read full judgment →
- DAL CARRIER vs Messrs ALEXANDER G. TSAVLIRIS and Sons1987 MLD 674 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-31Read full judgment →
- Dada Soap Factory Ltd. vs Commissioner of Sales Tax, Central Zone 'B', KarachiPTCL 1987 CL. 569 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- COTTON EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs NOOR MUHAMMAD1987 PLC 977 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-03-19Read full judgment →
- CORPORATION, GARDEN TOWN DEPOT, LAHORE Versus SULEMAN KHANK.L.R. 1987 Laboar and Service Cases 97 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- CONSOLIDATED SUGAR MILLS. LTD. and another vs UNITED BANK LIMITED1987 MLD 186 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-17Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Calcutta. vs Mrs. O.M.M. Kinnison (dead)PTCL 1987 FC.343 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- Commissioner of Sales Tax. vs Makran Fishries, Limited.PTCL 1987 CL. 346 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-27Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. vs M/s. Auriaya Chamber of Commerce,PTCL 1987 FC. 75 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- Commissioner of Sales Tax, East Zone, Karachi. vs Muhammadi Re-RollingPTCL 1987 CL. 149 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner of Sales Tax (Central), Karachi vs M/s. Karachi Oil SeedPTCL 1987 CL. 413 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAWALPINDI vs Messrs LYALLPUR COLD STORAGE, LAHORE ROAD, LYALLPUR And Other1987 PLD Supreme Court 436 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the interpretation of Section 26-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, specifically regarding the registration of a partnership firm for tax purposes following the 1965 amendment. The core legal question was whether a partnership firm, initially established via an oral agreement, could be validly registered under Section 26-A if the written partnership deed was executed subsequently, but before the end of the relevant accounting year. The Income Tax Department contended that registration required the firm to be constituted by the deed itself during the accounting year, relying on previous Supreme Court precedents. The Supreme Court held that the 1965 amendment, which introduced the requirement for an instrument of partnership to be executed before the end of the previous year, effectively permitted registration even where a prior oral agreement existed. The Court affirmed that such a deed could have retrospective effect, provided it was executed within the specified timeframe. Consequently, the Court upheld the registration of the respondent firm, ruling that the statutory amendment allowed for the formalization of pre-existing oral partnerships for tax registration purposes.
Questions settled- Can a partnership firm be registered under Section 26-A of the Income-tax Act 1922 if the written deed is executed after a prior oral agreement?
- Does the amendment to Section 26-A of the Income-tax Act 1922 by the Finance Act 1965 allow for the registration of a firm based on a deed executed at any time before the end of the relevant accounting year?
- Is it necessary for a partnership to be created exclusively by the written instrument of partnership to qualify for registration under Section 26-A of the Income-tax Act 1922?
- Commissioner of Income vs Rawat Singh and sons. Tax, Rajasthan-II.PTCL 1987 FC.417 · Rajasthan High Court · 1977-02-18Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income vs Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Tax, Delhi Company, LimitedPTCL 1987 FC. 255 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal-II, Calutta vs HindustanPTCL 1987 FC. 281 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa vs Orissa Corporation (Pvt.). Limited.PTCL 1987 FC. 389 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-03-19Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow. vs N/APTCL 1987 FC. 299 · Allahabad High Court · 1987-09-07Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi vs M/s. Sultan (Sargodha) TextilePTCL 1987 CL. 325 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar, Patna. vs Amar Singh Gowamal and Sons, Jharia, DhanbadPTCL 1987 FC. 412 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax Central Zone, B, Karachi vs Soomer SalehPTCL 1987 CL. 350 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX And Others vs Mst. SURRIYA FAROOQ And Other1987 SCMR 1297 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax against a High Court judgment regarding the taxability of dividend income received by shareholders from a company enjoying a tax holiday. The core legal question was whether dividend income distributed out of profits from an industrial undertaking, which itself is exempt from tax under Section 15BB of the Income-tax Act, remains exempt from tax in the hands of the individual shareholders. The Income Tax Department contended that once the exempt income was distributed as dividends, it became taxable for the recipients. The Supreme Court, upholding the High Court's decision, ruled against the Department. Relying on the precedent established in Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, NWFP and Bahawalpur versus Mst. E.V. Miller (PLD 1959 SC 219), the Court held that the exemption granted to the company's profits under the statute extends to the dividends distributed to shareholders. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that such dividend income is not taxable in the hands of the shareholders, thereby maintaining the principle that the tax-exempt nature of the source income persists upon distribution.
Questions settled- Is dividend income distributed from the profits of an industrial undertaking exempt under Section 15BB of the Income-tax Act taxable in the hands of the shareholders?
- Does the tax exemption granted to a company's profits under Section 15BB of the Income-tax Act extend to the dividends received by its shareholders?
- COMMERCE BANK LTD. vs Mst. SUGHRAN BAI AND 3 OTHERS1987 PLD Karachi 136 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-04Read full judgment →
- COMMERCE BANK LTD. vs Mst. SUGHRAN BAI AND 3 Other1987 PLD Karachi 136 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-04Read full judgment →
- ISRAR AHMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1057 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-18Read full judgment →
- COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, TARBELA DAM and 2 others vs ABDUR RAUF1987 CLC 225 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-09-30Read full judgment →
- COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, TARBELA DAM vs ABDUR RAUF And 43 OtherK.L.R. 1987 Revenue Cases 45 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Col. (Retd.) SADIQ HASSAN SHEIKH vs Lt. Col. FAROOQ AHMAD1987 SCMR 1887 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an order of ejectment passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Lahore Cantonment. The core legal question was whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and whether the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to produce his evidence before the Rent Controller. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of the tenancy—supported by the petitioner's own letters admitting his status as a tenant—were unexceptionable, and that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunities to lead evidence before the Rent Controller rightly closed the same for prolonging proceedings. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that concurrent factual findings based on record will not be interfered with absent any infirmity.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant can be disturbed by the Supreme Court?
- Can a Rent Controller close the evidence of a party if it is found that the party is purposely prolonging the proceedings?
- Whether the admission of tenancy status in letters is relevant to establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Col. (Retd.) S.M.AFZAL through Legal Heirs vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL1987 MLD 486 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-03Read full judgment →
- CHUTTAN And Another vs SUFAID KHAN And Another1987 SCMR 503 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside an administrative order of the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, which had directed fresh consolidation operations in a village. Historically, the right-holders' plea for fresh consolidation had been judicially rejected three times by the Board of Revenue in revision and review proceedings, which attained finality. Subsequently, the Board of Revenue issued an administrative letter directing fresh consolidation on the ground that the reconstructed record was dubious and unreliable. The High Court declared this administrative order to be of no legal effect. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the Board of Revenue cannot exercise its administrative or executive authority to nullify, override, or set at naught judicial orders that have already attained finality. The Court affirmed that the concept of an administrative order superseding or revoking a judicial order is unknown to Pakistani jurisprudence.
Questions settled- Can the Board of Revenue exercise its administrative or executive powers to nullify or override final judicial orders passed by its members?
- Whether a judicial order that has attained finality can be revoked or set aside through an administrative process?
- Does the unsatisfactory nature of reconstructed consolidation records justify an administrative direction for fresh consolidation when judicial forums have repeatedly rejected such a plea?
- Chowdhry ASHRAF ABID vs Mst. SHABNAM NASEEM1987 CLC 1979 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-03Read full judgment →
- CHIRAGH DIN And Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 101 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court convicting the appellants under sections 325/34 and 201/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for voluntarily causing grievous hurt and causing disappearance of evidence. The core legal question was whether a conviction under section 201 for disappearance of evidence is sustainable when the removal of the dead body was successfully resisted and prevented. The Supreme Court held that since the dead body was not actually removed, the substantive offense under section 201 was not complete, altering the conviction to an attempt under section 201 read with section 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code, and further granted the benefit of doubt to one appellant while directing that sentences run concurrently rather than consecutively. The key principles laid down include that an unexecuted act of concealing evidence constitutes only an attempt under section 201 read with section 511, and that multiple sentences for connected offenses in the same transaction should generally run concurrently.
Questions settled- Can a person be convicted of the substantive offense under section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code when the attempt to remove and conceal the dead body was successfully resisted and prevented?
- Whether an unexecuted attempt to cause the disappearance of evidence falls under section 201 read with section 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Are sentences awarded for multiple offenses arising out of the same transaction to run concurrently or consecutively?
- CHIRAGH DIN And Others vs The STATE (Copy)1987 SCMR 37 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment that maintained the appellants' convictions for murder and assault. The core legal questions concerned whether the appellants acted in self-defence, whether the incident constituted a sudden fight, and the reliability of ocular testimony from injured witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the appellants were the aggressors who invaded the deceased's property, thereby negating any claim of self-defence or the application of Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court affirmed that the presence of injuries on prosecution witnesses conclusively established their presence at the scene, rendering their testimony reliable despite discrepancies regarding weapon usage. The Court further held that when an accused party initiates an attack at the victim's residence, the plea of a sudden fight is untenable. Consequently, the convictions were upheld, as the evidence sufficiently demonstrated the appellants' role as aggressors, and the injuries sustained by the prosecution witnesses provided strong corroboration for the ocular account, overriding the defence's version of events.
Questions settled- Does the presence of injuries on prosecution witnesses establish their presence at the scene of the crime?
- Can the plea of self-defence be sustained when the accused party initiates an attack at the victim's residence?
- Does the benefit of Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply to a situation where the accused party are the aggressors?
- Chief Land Commissioner Haji BUX ALI vs MAZAR KHAN1987 CLC 132 · Chief Land Commissioner · 1986-07-14Read full judgment →
- Chief Land Commissioner ALI MUHAMMAD and others vs Mst. SALEH1987 MLD 1082 · Board of Revenue · 1986-05-25Read full judgment →
- CHHOTA alias MEHR DIN alias ABDUL HAMID vs Syed SHABBIR HUSSAIN1987 CLC 2105 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-17Read full judgment →
- Chaudhry HAKIM ALI And Another vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB And 231987 PLC (C.S.) 662 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-25Read full judgment →
- Chaudhry ALI AKBAR vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through COLLECTOR, FAISALABAD and others1987 MLD 358 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-21Read full judgment →
- CHARLES ALBER vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 893 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-04Read full judgment →
- CHANNA N DIN vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ And 2 Others1987 P Cr. L J 848 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-28Read full judgment →
- CHANAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2400 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-03Read full judgment →
- CHAKAR KHAN through his Legal Representatives and 3 others vs DEPUTY1987 CLC 437 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- CHAIRMAN, SIND TRANSPORT CORPORATION HYDERABAD And Another vs KISMAT ALI SHAH And OtherK. L. R. 1987 labour and Service Cases 7 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-03Read full judgment →
- CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE Etc. vs THE GOVERNMENT Of SINDHK.L.R 1987 Labour & Services 220 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
- CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAYBOARD, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD ALI1987 SCMR 638 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by the Chairman, Pakistan Railway Board, examined whether the respondent, a railway employee, was a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, or a workman excluded from it, and whether his retirement under section 13(ii) of the Act was sustainable. The Supreme Court recalled its earlier ex-parte order on review due to sufficient cause shown by the respondent for his non-appearance. On merits, the Court held that even assuming the respondent was a workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act, an identical power to retire employees after completing 25 years of service was available under paragraph 2046 of the Pakistan Railways Establishment Code Volume II, making the misdescription of the enabling provision inconsequential. Furthermore, the Court held that the constitutional petition before the High Court had abated under Article 13(1) of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, as the bar applied broadly to persons 'in the service of Pakistan', which included railway employees, regardless of narrow statutory definitions of civil servants. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the High Court's judgment was set aside.
Questions settled- Whether an order of retirement passed under an incorrect statutory provision is vitiated when an identical power exists under another applicable set of rules?
- Does the bar under Article 13 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, apply to railway employees in the service of Pakistan regardless of whether they qualify as civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Whether a railway employee classified as a workman is nevertheless amenable to retirement powers under the Pakistan Railways Establishment Code Volume II?
- CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, TAXILA vs MOHAMMAD JAN and 4 others1987 CLC 2416 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises from a suit for permanent injunction filed by private respondents to stop the petitioner, Municipal Committee, Taxila, from constructing shops near a new bus stand. The respondents claimed the construction would block the outer view of their existing shops. The trial court rejected their application for a temporary injunction, but the appellate court reversed this decision, relying on a notice issued to the petitioner under the West Pakistan Highways Ordinance 1959. On revision, the Lahore High Court set aside the appellate court's order. The Court held that there is no general right in law, outside of easement, to an unobstructed open view of a building, and the respondents failed to plead or establish a prima facie case of easement. It was further held that a statutory notice issued by a third party under the Highways Ordinance does not create a prima facie case for the plaintiffs, who must succeed on the strength of their own case. Finally, the Court ruled that where construction is substantially complete and involves a work of public utility, the balance of convenience tilts against granting an injunction.
Questions settled- Does a property owner have a legal right to an unobstructed open view of their building in the absence of a pleaded and proved easement?
- Can a statutory notice issued to a defendant under the West Pakistan Highways Ordinance 1959 be used by a private plaintiff to establish a prima facie case for a temporary injunction?
- How does the substantial completion of construction and its nature as a public utility work affect the balance of convenience in temporary injunction applications?
- Can an appellate court reverse a trial court's discretionary refusal of a temporary injunction without finding that the trial court exercised its discretion improperly or arbitrarily?
- CHAHAT vs BORDER ALLOTMENT COMMITTEEK.L.R. 1987 Revenue Cases 71 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-01Read full judgment →
- Ch.Muhammad Sarwar Jaura vs Mian ABDUL RASHID PAGGANWALA and others1987 MLD 1309 · Election TribunalRead full judgment →
- Ch. ZAFFARULLAH KHAN and 2 others vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and 9 others1987 CLC 901 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
- Ch. UMAR DIN vs THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD And 21987 PLC (S.C.) 281 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Ch. SHAFQAT ALI vs Rao ABDUS SATTAR1987 SCMR 1531 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal arising from a dispute over the abatement of a writ petition following the death of a respondent. The core legal question is whether the limitation period prescribed for substitution applications under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applies to constitutional petitions, and whether the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972, which amended substitution procedures, applies retrospectively to pending matters. The petitioner argued that Article 177 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies only to suits or appeals, not constitutional petitions, and that the residual Article 181 should govern. Conversely, the respondent contended that constitutional petitions in civil matters are akin to suits, invoking Article 171. The Court observed that these issues, including the potential for retrospective application of procedural changes to cause injustice to vested rights, merit deeper consideration. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to resolve these substantial questions of law, while maintaining the status quo order until the final disposal of the appeal.
Questions settled- Does Article 177 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to substitution applications in constitutional petitions?
- Can the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 be applied retrospectively to pending petitions to prevent abatement?
- Does a constitutional petition in a civil matter constitute a suit for the purposes of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Ch. SARDAR MUHAMMAD vs Messrs SCHAZOO LABORATORIES Ltd.1987 MLD 201 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-03Read full judgment →
- Ch. SADAQAT ALI vs AZADGOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR1987 PLC (C.S.) 289 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
- Ch. SAADULLAH KHAN vs ALI AHMAD and 8 others1987 CLC 584 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-23Read full judgment →
- Ch. RAFIQ AHMAD SHAD vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Through Secretary, S&GAD, Lahore1987 PLC (C.S.) 47 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-04-02Read full judgment →
- Ch. NOOR MUHAMMAD vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1987 PLC (C.S.) 40 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-06-17Read full judgment →
- Ch. NAZIR HUSSAIN And 4 Other vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Through Secretary, Education And 2 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 465 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-01-21Read full judgment →
- Ch. NASIRUDDIN vs Maulvi MUHAMMAD MASKIN And Other1987 SCMR 1310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute over the transfer of a residential portion of a composite property under settlement laws. The appellant challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed his constitutional petition, which had been filed after the Settlement Commissioner refused to allow his participation in remand proceedings. The refusal was based on a concession made by the appellant's counsel in an earlier High Court judgment (dated 30-6-1967), wherein the counsel stated the appellant was not interested in the residential portion. The core legal question was whether the appellant could challenge the validity of that concession in the current appeal, given that the earlier judgment had attained finality. The Supreme Court held that since the appellant did not challenge the 1967 judgment through review or appeal, it achieved finality. Consequently, the appellant could not now contest the factual basis of that judgment, including the concession made by his counsel, in subsequent proceedings. The Court affirmed that a party cannot bypass the finality of an unappealed judgment by attempting to relitigate conceded facts in later stages of the same litigation.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge a factual concession made by their counsel in a previous judgment that has already attained finality?
- Does a failure to challenge a High Court judgment via review or appeal preclude a party from contesting the findings of that judgment in subsequent remand proceedings?
- Is a statement made by counsel in open court binding on the client if the client subsequently claims it was made without authority?
- Ch. NABI BUX vs Malik NASIR AHMED and 2 others1987 MLD 442 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-19Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs CHIEF MINISTER, PUNJAB LAHORE And 2 Other1987 PLD Lahore 483 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-17Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD SHAME vs CHIEF MINISTER, PUNJAB LAHORE and 2 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 483 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-17Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others1987 MLD 81 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-30Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs M.B.R, Etc.K.L.R. 1987 Revenue Cases 36 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-30Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD DIN vs ABDUL QAYYUM And 16 Other1987 SCMR 324 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the dismissal of an election petition by the Punjab Election Tribunal regarding the 1985 General Elections. The appellant contested the election result, alleging irregularities in the consolidation of votes and challenging the jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal judge. The core legal questions were whether the judge lacked jurisdiction due to the sequence of appointment notifications and whether the Tribunal erred in refusing a recount. The Supreme Court held that the judge’s appointment remained valid, as the specific notification appointing him was an independent exercise of power under the Representation of the Peoples Act 1976, unaffected by the supersession of earlier notifications. Regarding the recount, the Court held that a recount is not a fishing inquiry. Since the appellant had walked out of the Returning Officer’s recount and failed to demonstrate specific material errors or irregularities, the Tribunal correctly exercised its discretion in denying a further recount. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that a recount is not a matter of right but requires a prima facie case of error.
Questions settled- Does the issuance of a new notification superseding an earlier notification regarding the appointment of Election Tribunals automatically invalidate an independent, intervening notification appointing a specific judge?
- Is a candidate who walks out of a recount conducted by a Returning Officer entitled to demand a fresh recount before the Election Tribunal?
- Does the mere narrow margin of votes between candidates justify a recount by an Election Tribunal?
- Is a recount of ballot papers in an election petition a matter of right or subject to the demonstration of specific grounds?
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs Major MIRZA HASSAN BAIG1987 MLD 3294 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-09Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ASLAM And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2031 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-18Read full judgment →