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.
- BAHAWAL and three others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 991 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
- BAHAUD DIN vs SHAHID HUSSAIN MALIK1987 MLD 284 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-26Read full judgment →
- BAHAR SHAH vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1228 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-02Read full judgment →
- BAHAR KHAN vs INSPECTORGENERAL, FRONTIER CORPS AT QUETTA AND 31987 PLD Quetta 13 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-10-27Read full judgment →
- BAHADUR vs MUHAMMAD LATIF And Other1987 SCMR 788 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's judgment granting bail to respondents charged with murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in granting bail based on a plea of alibi and the nature of injuries attributed to the accused, despite a prompt FIR naming the accused and the subsequent submission of a challan against them. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was unsustainable. The Court reasoned that the respondent Muhammad Latif was directly charged in a promptly lodged FIR for a fatal shooting, and the plea of alibi required evidentiary scrutiny at trial rather than at the bail stage. Furthermore, regarding respondent Muhammad Naveed, the Court determined that because the case was registered under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, his case could not be separated for bail purposes. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and cancelled the bail granted to the respondents.
Questions settled- Can a plea of alibi be accepted at the bail stage when the accused is directly charged in a promptly lodged FIR?
- Should the bail of an accused charged under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be separated from co-accused based on the nature of individual injuries?
- Does the submission of a challan against the accused impact the validity of a bail plea based on alibi?
- BAHADUR KHAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1549 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-25Read full judgment →
- BAHADUR KHAN vs Mst. NIAMAT KHATOON And Another1987 SCMR 1492 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute regarding the revocation of a gift of land made by Mst. Niamat Khatoon to her step-son, Bahadur Khan. The core legal questions were whether the parties stood within the prohibited degree of relationship under Mahomedan Law, thereby rendering the gift irrevocable, and whether the lower courts erred in finding that the relationship did not preclude revocation. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts misdirected themselves by failing to recognize that a step-mother and step-son relationship falls within the prohibited degree, and further, that the parties shared a blood relationship as first cousins through a common ancestor. Consequently, the Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts and dismissed the respondent's suit. The key principle laid down is that under Mahomedan Law, a gift made to a relative within the prohibited degree—including a step-son—is irrevocable, as the purpose of such a gift is to strengthen ties of affinity, and the term 'prohibited degree' in this context is construed broadly to include such familial bonds.
Questions settled- Is a gift made by a step-mother to her step-son revocable under Mahomedan Law?
- Does the relationship of step-mother and step-son fall within the prohibited degree for the purposes of gift revocation?
- Can a gift be revoked when the donor and donee are related within the prohibited degree?
- BAHADUR and others vs ZAFARULLAH and others1987 MLD 776 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-02Read full judgment →
- BAHADUR And Another vs SALEH MUHAMMAD1987 SCMR 891 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' second appeal in a pre-emption matter. The respondent had instituted a suit for pre-emption on the ground of being an owner in the estate, which was initially dismissed by the trial court. However, the first appellate court decreed the suit based on a concession made by the petitioners' counsel regarding the respondent's status, a position subsequently affirmed in second appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that an admission of fact by counsel should not override trial court findings based on documentary evidence, and that the principle of sinker should not apply because the purchase involved two independent divisible transactions, with one petitioner also being an owner in the estate. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' counsel's admission of fact was validly relied upon and that the lower courts' finding of fact regarding the indivisibility of the transaction was supported by the mutation entries. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court can rely on an admission of fact made by a counsel against findings of fact reached by the trial court?
- Does the principle of sinker apply when a transaction of sale is found to be indivisible and the purchase money is paid jointly?
- Can findings of fact regarding the divisibility of a transaction and joint payment be successfully challenged when supported by mutation entries?
- BAHADUR ALI ZAIDI vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 412 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
- BAH AWAL and 2 others vs MUHAMMAD QAMAR KHAN and others1987 CLC 1218 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-07Read full judgment →
- BAGO vs NARAINDAS and others1987 MLD 285 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-23Read full judgment →
- BAGO Alias ABBAS And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1322 · Sindh High Court · 1987-12-16Read full judgment →
- BAGH MALL vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI1987 SCMR 27 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from two miscellaneous applications filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan: a contempt application filed by the petitioner alleging that the respondents had violated a stay order regarding the possession of disputed land, and an application by the respondents seeking the vacation of the said stay order. The respondents contended that the petitioner had obtained the stay order by concealing material facts, specifically that the petitioner had taken possession of the land forcibly. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that if the true facts had been disclosed by the petitioner at the time of the hearing, the stay order would not have been granted. Consequently, the Court vacated the stay order and declined to proceed against the respondents for contempt of court. The case establishes the principle that interim relief or stay orders obtained through the non-disclosure or concealment of material facts are liable to be vacated, and subsequent allegations of contempt for violating such orders may not be entertained.
Questions settled- Whether a stay order obtained by a party through the non-disclosure of material facts is liable to be vacated?
- Can a party be held liable for contempt of court for violating a stay order that was obtained by the other party through misrepresentation or concealment of facts?
- BADSHAH KHAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 335 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
- BADRUDDIN vs Messrs MADINA TEXTILE MILLS, KARACHI1987 PLC 121 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-08-26Read full judgment →
- BADAR MUNIR vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 558 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-23Read full judgment →
- BADAR DIN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1961 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-06-02Read full judgment →
- BADAL and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1228 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-04Read full judgment →
- BACHHAN KHAN vs FASAHAT ALI and another1987 MLD 727 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-25Read full judgment →
- BACHAN SOAP vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1456 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
- BACHAL vs THE STATE and another-1987 P Cr. L J 2070 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-23Read full judgment →
- BACHA KHAN vs Messrs BUXLY PAINTS LTD.. KARACHI1987 PLC 50 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-08-10Read full judgment →
- BABU vs ARSHAD JAVID And Another1987 SCMR 432 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court improperly exercised its discretion in granting bail where prosecution witnesses delayed disclosing material facts for over four months. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's discretion in granting bail was rightly exercised and that provisions concerning further inquiry were inapplicable to the reasoning employed. Consequently, the petition for bail cancellation was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that where bail is granted based on the overall assessment of the circumstances, particularly delayed disclosure by eyewitnesses, and does not rest on the grounds of further inquiry under Section 497(2), interference by the apex court is unwarranted unless the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or incorrectly.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the grant of bail by the High Court when discretion has been rightly exercised?
- Does a delay of more than four months by eyewitnesses in disclosing material facts to the Investigating Officer justify the grant of bail?
- Are rulings related to further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 relevant when bail is granted on other discretionary grounds?
- BABOO ALAM And 5 Other vs Messrs SHAMSUDDIN BINDING WORKS, KARACHI1987 PLC 885 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-01-13Read full judgment →
- BABAR ALI vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1512 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-20Read full judgment →
- BABAR ALI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1855 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-24Read full judgment →
- B.O./P.P.L. EMPLOYEES' UNION vs Messrs PAKISTAN PETROLEUM LIMITED,1987 PLC 124 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-09-23Read full judgment →
- B ALA A p pellant vs ABDUL SATTAR and 5 others1987 CLC 326 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-07Read full judgment →
- AZMAT and 2 others vs REHMAT KHAN and 3 others1987 MLD 2500 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-20Read full judgment →
- AZIZUR RAHMAN vs THE KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION1987 PLC 154 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-03-20Read full judgment →
- AZIZUR RAHMAN alias AJJO QAL-AI-GAR vs Mst.SARWAT JEHAN and 5 others1987 MLD 2950 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-26Read full judgment →
- AZIZ-UR-REHMAN vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 245 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition arose from the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, who refused to supply the accused with copies of police statements of witnesses recorded in a State challan case and directed that a subsequently filed private complaint case based on the same occurrence be tried first. The petitioner sought consolidation of both cases and the supply of the police statements under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court observed that where the prosecution version is identical but the private complaint names more accused, the private complaint case is to be tried first, with any remaining witnesses from the State challan case examined as Court witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. On the second issue, the Court held that although Section 265-C(2) does not explicitly provide for the supply of police statements in private complaints, Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allows accused persons to confront witnesses with their prior police statements. To prevent delay and ensure a fair trial, such copies can and should be supplied to the accused before the trial begins. The revision petitions were accepted accordingly.
Questions settled- Whether a private complaint case and a State challan case arising from the same occurrence can be consolidated, and which case should be tried first if the private complaint names more accused?
- Can an accused in a private complaint case demand copies of statements recorded by the police under Section 161 or 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the corresponding State challan case?
- Is there a legal bar to supplying copies of police statements to the accused under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prior to the actual cross-examination of witnesses to prevent trial delay?
- AZIZ-UR-REHMAN vs Syed WADOOD AHMED JILANI and another1987 MLD 3286 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-26Read full judgment →
- AZIZ-UR-RBHMAN vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE KHAN And Other1987 KLR Revenue Cases 49 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1986-09-10Read full judgment →
- AZIZ UR REHMAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1543 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-14Read full judgment →
- AZIZ UR REHMAN vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GUJRANWALA EXERCISING THE POWERS OF ELECTION TRIBUNAL, And Another1987 SCMR 1072 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order that dismissed a constitutional petition challenging an Election Tribunal's decision. The dispute arose from a local body election where the petitioner and respondent No. 2 contested a Union Council seat. Following a recount of ballot papers, the Election Tribunal declared respondent No. 2 the winner after excluding several votes cast for the petitioner, specifically those lacking the Presiding Officer's signature and ward number details. The petitioner challenged the exclusion of these votes, arguing that the relevant election rules were merely directory rather than mandatory. The High Court initially remanded the matter for clarification regarding the missing signatures, and upon the Tribunal's subsequent confirmation that the votes lacked necessary signatures, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's constitutional challenge. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the requirement for a Presiding Officer's signature on ballot papers under the Punjab Local Body Election Rules, 1979, is mandatory or directory, and to address the propriety of the High Court's dismissal based on the potential for future elections.
Questions settled- Is the requirement for a Presiding Officer's signature on a ballot paper under the Punjab Local Body Election Rules, 1979, mandatory or directory?
- Can a constitutional petition be dismissed solely on the ground that a fresh election is likely to be held in the near future?
- AZIZ UR REHMAN And Others vs CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, JHANG And Other1987 SCMR 893 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed constitutional petitions challenging orders passed by Consolidation Authorities regarding the allotment of evacuee land. The core legal question was whether the Consolidation Authorities possessed the jurisdiction to ratably reduce the allotted area of evacuee land when the actual land available at the site was less than the area recorded in official papers. The Supreme Court held that the authorities faced an impossible situation where the recorded land did not exist at the site. Faced with the choice of excluding certain allottees or applying a ratable reduction to accommodate all displaced persons, the authorities chose the latter, which was deemed fair and consistent with the wishes of the affected parties. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that the reduction was a practical necessity rather than an infringement of title, and thus declined to interfere with the discretionary exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can Consolidation Authorities ratably reduce the area of allotted evacuee land when the actual land available at the site is less than the recorded area?
- Does the ratable reduction of allotted land by Consolidation Authorities to match actual site availability constitute an infringement of title?
- Is the High Court's refusal to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction justified when Consolidation Authorities adopt a fair and practical solution to an impossible allotment situation?
- AZIZ KHAN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3023 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-14Read full judgment →
- AZIZ KASHIGAR vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 882(2) · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-09Read full judgment →
- AZIZ DIN AND ANOTHER vs QADIR BAKHSH AND 2 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 119 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
- AZIZ DIN AND Another vs QADIR BAKHSH AND 2 Other1987 PLD Lahore 119 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
- AZIZ AHMAD SIDDIQUI vs MALIK MUHAMMAD ZAFAR NAWAB1987 MLD 1426 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-04Read full judgment →
- AZIZ AHMAD And Others vs Mst. HAJRAN BIBI And Another1987 SCMR 527 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a civil suit for a declaration of heirship regarding the estate of a deceased individual. The core legal questions were whether the High Court could interfere with a trial court's factual finding in revision, and whether a second suit filed before the dismissal of a prior suit on the same cause of action is maintainable. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction to correct a material irregularity in the trial court's factual assessment. The Court held that while Rule 9, Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 might not technically bar a suit filed before the dismissal of a previous one, the principle that no person should be twice vexed for the same cause of action renders such a suit unsustainable. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that omitting to claim relief for specific properties in an earlier suit constitutes a bar under Rule 2(2), Order II of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as the cause of action remains identical.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with a trial court's finding of fact in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction?
- Does the bar under Rule 9, Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to a second suit instituted before the dismissal of the first suit?
- Does the omission to seek relief for specific properties in an earlier suit bar a subsequent suit under Rule 2(2), Order II of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a second suit maintainable when it constitutes an abuse of the process of the court by vexing the defendant twice for the same cause of action?
- AZHER WALI and others vs BELL HELLICOPTER TEXTRAN INC. and others1987 MLD 1336 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
- AZHAR IQBAL vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1581 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-10Read full judgment →
- AZHAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD1987 CLC 2355 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-19Read full judgment →
- AZEEM BAKHSH vs KHUDA BAKHSH and 7 others1987 MLD 1985 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-21Read full judgment →
- AZEEM And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1958 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-08Read full judgment →
- AZEEM alias Jeema and 8 others vs The STATE1987 MLD 1124 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-24Read full judgment →
- AZAM vs PIR BAKHSH1987 P Cr. L J 1342 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-05Read full judgment →
- AZADAR HUSSAIN ZAIDI vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION1987 PLD Karachi 14 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenged the concurrent judgments of the lower courts which dismissed the petitioner's suit for declaration and damages regarding his dismissal from service by the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation. The core legal question was whether an employee, whose employment is governed by the master-servant principle, can claim damages for wrongful dismissal when the employer fails to adhere to mandatory internal service rules, despite the unavailability of reinstatement. The Court held that while the master-servant doctrine correctly precludes the remedy of reinstatement, it does not absolve the employer from liability for breach of contract. The Court affirmed that where an employer initiates dismissal proceedings based on misconduct, they are strictly bound by the procedural requirements stipulated in their own service rules. Consequently, the failure to issue a mandatory second show-cause notice constitutes a breach of contract, entitling the aggrieved employee to seek damages. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine the claim for salary and damages based on this breach of procedural compliance.
Questions settled- Can an employee governed by the master and servant principle claim damages for wrongful dismissal if the employer fails to follow mandatory service rules?
- Does the failure to issue a mandatory second show-cause notice in a misconduct inquiry constitute a breach of contract?
- Is an employee entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal even if reinstatement is not a permissible remedy under the master and servant doctrine?
- Azad J & Mst. GULAB JAN and others vs UMAR DIN and others1987 CLC 1698 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1987-05-10Read full judgment →
- AURANGZEB vs THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IST CIRCLE (E), WAPDA, LAHORE And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 772 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1987-06-07Read full judgment →
- AUQAF DEPARTMENT through Administrator Auqaf vs RENT CONTROLLER, BAHAWALPUR CANTT. and 3 others1987 CLC 627 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-11Read full judgment →
- ATTIQUE-UR-REHMAN vs Mst. KHURSHID BEGUM and others1987 MLD 344 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-20Read full judgment →
- ATTAULLAH vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 23 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-10-01Read full judgment →
- ATTAULLAH vs THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, GHQ, RAWALPINDI1987 PLC (C.S.) 286 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-12-24Read full judgment →
- ATTAI KHAN And 8 Other vs Messers UNITED SILK MILLS, KARACHI1987 PLC 33 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-05-18Read full judgment →
- ATTA UR RAHMAN Alias LALOO vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1912 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
- ATTA ULLAH KHAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 846 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-27Read full judgment →
- ATTA MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1987 MLD 792 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-13Read full judgment →
- ATTA MUHAMMAD vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE And Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 461 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
- ATTA MUHAMMAD Alias ATTUR And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 331 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-14Read full judgment →
- ATA MUHAMMAD vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER And Other1987 SCMR 140 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court setting aside the transfer of a shop in favour of the appellant, a claimant displaced person, under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The core legal question was whether an auction conducted in contravention of a telegraphic stay order could be sanctified and whether the appellant's pending transfer application under Settlement Scheme No. VIII overrode a conditional auction confirmation in favor of the respondents. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in blindly following a distinguishable precedent, as the appellant was a claimant displaced person with a prior and superior right of preference under the Displaced Persons (Rehabilitation and Compensation) Act, whereas the respondents' auction confirmation was conditional and the permanent transfer deed (P.T.D.) was issued without lawful authority while the appellant's entitlement remained unadjudicated. Furthermore, the settlement authorities had lawfully exercised their discretion in condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was accepted, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the respondents' constitutional petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an auction conducted in violation of a telegraphic stay order issued by competent settlement authorities can be sustained in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does a pending transfer application under Settlement Scheme No. VIII by a claimant displaced person override a conditional auction confirmation and subsequent issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
- Is the exercise of discretion by settlement tribunals in condoning delay open to interference in constitutional jurisdiction merely because another view was possible?
- Are the rights of a claimant displaced person superior to those of an auction purchaser under the scheme of the Displaced Persons (Rehabilitation and Compensation) Act 1958?
- ATA MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD WILAYAT and 22 others1987 CLC 1930 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-02Read full judgment →
- ATA MUHAMMAD vs ABDUL, AZIZ and others1987 MLD 2913 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-05Read full judgment →
- ATA MUHAMMAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD KHALID KHAN1987 MLD 132 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-28Read full judgment →
- ATA MUHAMMAD And Others vs SETTLEMENT And REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER (LANDS) And 5 Other1987 SCMR 1571 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by leave against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 25-2-1975, which dismissed the appellants' constitutional petition regarding the transfer of land. The facts indicate that land including Khasra No. 2601 was jointly allotted to the appellants and another in 1960 and later partitioned in 1966. A portion of the land was treated as urban residential property by Settlement authorities and subjected to auction and cancellation of allotment. The core legal question was whether 'Ahata Chahi' is subservient to agriculture and whether such land, being partly a garden, could be disposed of as urban property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Supreme Court held that the disputed portion of 'Ahata Chahi' is subservient to agricultural land as it is irrigated through a well, and that the original allotment made in 1960 had attained finality. The Court laid down the principle that an agricultural well enclosure ('Ahata Chahi') that is subservient to agricultural land and forms part of an allotted garden cannot be treated as urban residential property for separate disposal.
Questions settled- Whether Ahata Chahi is subservient to agriculture?
- Can a garden partly consisting of an Ahata Chahi be disposed of as urban property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1958?
- Does an unchallenged settlement allotment attain finality precluding subsequent cancellation?
- ATA HUSSAIN vs RIAZ HUSSAIN And Other1987 SCMR 815 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a civil suit for the partition of a shop, wherein the trial court passed a preliminary decree determining the respective shares of the parties and appointed a Local Commissioner to report on the partibility of the property. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the preliminary decree through a first appeal before the Additional District Judge and subsequently via a second appeal in the High Court. The core legal question concerned the determination of the shares of the parties in the property. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the finding regarding the shares was correctly based upon the clear admission made by the petitioner himself in previous litigation, rendering the matter unfit for interference. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a party's unequivocal admission in prior litigation regarding property shares forms a valid and unassailable basis for concurrent findings in subsequent partition proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge a preliminary decree determining property shares when the finding is based on their own admission in previous litigation?
- Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding property shares supported by an admission?
- Associated Treading Co. Limited vs The Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan and 2 othersPTCL 1987 CL. 115 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- ASSOCIATED TRADING CO. LTD. vs THE CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE1987 PLD Karachi 63 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
- ASSOCIATED TRADING Co. LTD. vs THE CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE1987 PLD Karachi 63 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
- ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTORS Ltd. vs KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION1987 CLC 383 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two connected suits (Suit No. 504 of 1984 and Suit No. 505 of 1984) arising from disputes over construction contracts for the Abasi Shaheed Hospital awarded to the plaintiff by the Karachi Municipal Corporation. The core legal questions involved whether the defendant's objections to the arbitrator's awards were barred by time, whether the arbitrator provided sufficient reasons pursuant to section 26-A of the Arbitration Act 1940, and whether the arbitrator committed legal misconduct by assessing damages based on external government/KDA escalation policies not incorporated into the contract. The court held that the objections were filed within time and that the arbitrator did provide sufficient reasons in compliance with section 26-A. However, the court held that assessing damages by simply applying an external government decision not part of the contract constituted legal misconduct apparent on the face of the award. Consequently, the court set aside the awards in both suits and remitted them back to the arbitrator for fresh determination of damages based on evidence.
Questions settled- Whether constructive notice of the filing of an arbitration award can be presumed when no fixed date for filing has been given by the Court?
- What constitutes reasons in sufficient detail by an arbitrator under Section 26-A of the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Does an arbitrator commit legal misconduct by assessing damages based on external government or authority rules not incorporated into the contract?
- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MIANWALI and another vs MUHAMMAD AMIR and 4 others1987 CLC 2095 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the decision of the Land Acquisition Judge, Mianwali, which enhanced compensation for trees on land acquired by the Provincial Government. The Land Acquisition Collector had initially awarded compensation but subsequently issued a corrigendum drastically reducing the amount based on revised reports from the Agriculture Department. The core legal question was whether the Collector possessed the authority to review or amend the award after its announcement. The High Court held that upon announcing the award, the Collector became functus officio and lacked the power to review or alter it, except for correcting clerical or arithmetical mistakes under Section 12(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court affirmed that the Collector's corrigendum was illegal and that the Land Acquisition Judge correctly relied on the initial, verified assessment reports. Furthermore, the Court clarified that trees fall within the definition of land, entitling owners to compulsory acquisition charges. The appeal was dismissed, subject to a minor adjustment in the compensation calculation regarding maintenance expenditure and purchase price.
Questions settled- Does a Land Acquisition Collector have the authority to review or amend an award after it has been announced?
- Are trees considered part of the land for the purpose of calculating compulsory acquisition charges under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
- Can a Land Acquisition Collector issue a corrigendum to an award to reduce compensation based on subsequent, conflicting reports?
- Assessee. vs Department.PTCL 1987 CL. 194 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1983-05-12Read full judgment →
- Assessee vs DepartmetentPTCL 1987 CL. 87 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1986-02-10Read full judgment →
- Assessee vs Department.PTCL 1987 CL. 331 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1986-07-19Read full judgment →
- Assessee vs DepartmentPTCL 1987 CL. 82 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1986-06-30Read full judgment →
- Assessee Department vs Department AssesseePTCL 1987 CL. 274 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- ASRAR AHMED SAIFIE vs COUNTRY MANAGER, PAKISTAN-- SAUDI AIRLINES And Another1987 PLC 873 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-14Read full judgment →
- Colonies) MEHRAM vs THE STATE1987 CLC 31 · Board of Revenue · 1986-07-22Read full judgment →
- ASMA vs THE DISTRICT JUDGE, SIALKOT AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Lahore 263 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition called in question an appellate order passed by the District Judge, Sialkot, which had set aside the Guardians Judge's order granting the mother's application for the custody of her minor son under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. The core legal question concerned the determination of the welfare of the minor and the scope of constitutional jurisdiction in interfering with findings of fact regarding custody. The Lahore High Court held that the paramount consideration in child custody matters is the welfare of the child alongside personal law, and that a finding on 'welfare' is a question of fact which cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction merely because it is claimed to be incorrect, provided the tribunal acted within its jurisdiction. The Court laid down that a tribunal having jurisdiction is competent to decide a matter rightly or wrongly, and an incorrect decision on a question of fact does not render it without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in deciding an application for custody under the Guardians and Wards Act?
- Can a finding on the question of 'welfare' of a minor, being a question of fact, be disturbed by the High Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does an incorrect decision by a tribunal on a matter within its jurisdiction render its order without lawful authority?
- ASLAM And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 976 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-13Read full judgment →
- ASJID JAVAID vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1744 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-06Read full judgment →
- ASIFULLAH vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1809 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-04-25Read full judgment →
- ASIF MOWJEE vs Mst. FATEMA A. MOWJEE AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Karachi 239 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition moved under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the father seeking physical custody of his minor son from the respondent-wife, who removed the child and stayed back in Pakistan. The core legal questions involve the maintainability of a habeas corpus petition under section 491, Cr.P.C. when a custody dispute exists between parents, the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 and the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, and the determination of the ordinary residence of the minor for jurisdictional purposes. The High Court held that an application under section 491 is not maintainable where the child is in the custody of a parent and such custody is neither illegal nor improper, and the proper remedy is to approach the Family Court/Guardian Judge. The court laid down that a dispute regarding custody between parents does not amount to illegal detention or kidnapping unless the removal is forcible or deceitful, and matters concerning the welfare of the minor and Hizanat must be settled through regular proceedings before the Family Court rather than summary habeas corpus.
Questions settled- Whether an application under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is maintainable for the custody of a minor when a dispute exists between the parents?
- Does the Family Court have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain matters relating to the custody of children and guardianship under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964?
- What constitutes the 'ordinary residence' of a minor under section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 for determining territorial jurisdiction?
- Whether a mother refusing to return the custody of a minor after the expiry of the period of Hizanat can be deemed guilty of illegal detention or kidnapping?
- ASIF ALI vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3152 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-16Read full judgment →
- ASHRAF HUSSAIN And Others vs M.A. HAQUE, C.S.P., CHIEF SETTLEMENT1987 SCMR 1073 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 4-4-1983, which dismissed the petitioners' settlement revision challenging the legality of an order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 12-2-1971 withdrawing an earlier order dated 21-10-1970. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioners are entitled to retain seventeen acres of urban land in Sillanwali against their pending urban and rural units. During the hearing, upon being informed by the caveator's counsel that a civil appeal involving similar points had already been heard by the Supreme Court at Rawalpindi with judgment reserved, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant leave to appeal to await the outcome of the said connected appeal. The Court ordered the petition to be kept pending and placed before the Court upon the delivery of the decision in the referenced civil appeal, subject to furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 2,000.
Questions settled- Are petitioners entitled to retain seventeen acres of urban land in Sillanwali against their pending urban and rural units?
- Can the Chief Settlement Commissioner lawfully withdraw an earlier settlement order?
- ASHRAF HUSSAIN and others vs M.A. HAQ and others1987 CLC 1026 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-04Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ MUHAMMAD vs KHUDA BAKHSH And Another1987 SCMR 1552 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that acquitted the respondent, Khuda Bakhsh, of a murder charge under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had convicted the respondent for the murder of the deceased, attributing the fatal injury to him, while acquitting him of vicarious liability under section 34. On appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction for individual acts but reversed the finding regarding the fatal blow, concluding that the fatal injury was inflicted by a co-accused rather than the respondent, thereby reducing the respondent's conviction to an offence under section 325. The petitioner, the complainant, challenged this acquittal, arguing that the medical evidence regarding the skull fractures indicated the fatal blow was caused by a Dang, which the respondent wielded, rather than the handle of a hatchet used by the co-accused. The Supreme Court found the contentions regarding the nature of the injuries and the adequacy of the sentence worthy of examination and granted leave to appeal, ordering the issuance of bailable warrants for the respondent.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when there is a contention that the High Court misappraised medical evidence regarding the cause of a fatal injury?
- Can a trial court convict an accused for an individual act while rejecting the application of vicarious liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- ASHIQ MIR And 4 Others vs THE STATE- Respondent1987 P Cr. L J 2101 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2306 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-28Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ HUSSAIN vs S. ABDULLAH QURESHI1987 CLC 1146 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-17Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ HUSSAIN vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND And Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 438 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1986-11-20Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ HUSSAIN and others vs THE State1987 MLD 947 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-20Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ HUSSAIN And Another vs The STATE1987 SCMR 818 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from the convictions and sentences of the petitioners, Ashiq Hussain and Talib Hussain, under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and murderous assault, which were upheld by the High Court. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular testimony, the rejection of the plea of self-defence and sudden provocation, and the appropriateness of the death penalty for a youthful offender. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as regards Talib Hussain, finding the prosecution evidence reliable and his conviction well-founded. However, regarding Ashiq Hussain, noting that he was approximately 14 years old at the time of the occurrence, the Court granted leave to appeal solely to consider whether his youth warranted commuting the death sentence. The key principle laid down is that the youth of an offender at the time of the commission of a capital offence is a material factor requiring consideration in determining the appropriate sentence.
Questions settled- Whether the uncontradicted statement of an accused regarding his age at trial can establish his youth at the time of the occurrence?
- Is youth at the time of the commission of the offence a ground for considering the commutation of a death sentence?
- Whether ocular testimony corroborated by injured witnesses and a court witness is sufficient to sustain convictions under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- ASHIQ ALI vs MANAGER, REHMANIA GLASS BANGLE INDUSTRY, HYDERABAD,1987 PLC 291 · Labour Court · 1986-09-17Read full judgment →
- ASHFAQUE AHMAD vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 489 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-26Read full judgment →
- ASHFAQ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1638 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-04-14Read full judgment →