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.
- ALLAH DITTA vs BASHIR AHMED and 2 others1987 CLC 2326 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-07Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 704 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-16Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA and others vs ALLAH DAD1987 MLD 2538 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-20Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA And Another vs THE STATE and another1987 P Cr. L J 1916 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-22Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA and 3 others vs THE S.H.O., P.S. BASIRPUR, DISTRICT OKARA and 31987 PLD Lahore 300 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-04Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA And 3 Other vs THE S.H.O., P.S. BASIRPUR, DISTRICT OKARA And 31987 PLD Lahore 300 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-04Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DAD vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others1987 MLD 24 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-14Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BUX vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1564 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-06Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BUX vs Mst. SARWARI BEGUM1987 CLC 1714 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-02Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1937 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-26Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs THE STATE and another1987 P Cr. L J 1353 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-27Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER And Other1987 SCMR 118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute over the transfer of an evacuee house in Lahore under settlement laws. The core legal question was whether the appellant was correctly declared ineligible for the transfer of a share in the property due to an alleged lack of possession at the relevant time. The Settlement Commissioner had reversed concurrent findings of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the Additional Settlement Commissioner, concluding the appellant was not in possession based on a voters' list entry and the appellant's C.H. Form. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner’s finding was based on a misreading of evidence. The Court found that the appellant's residence elsewhere and his C.H. Form did not negate his possession of the disputed property, especially given the Settlement Inspector's earlier inquiry confirming his occupation. The Court established that a finding of fact by a quasi-judicial authority cannot be overturned on the basis of non-existent or misread evidence. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, restoring the appellant's entitlement to a share of the property.
Questions settled- Can a Settlement Commissioner overturn a concurrent finding of fact regarding possession based on a misreading of evidence?
- Does an entry in a voters' list conclusively prove a lack of possession of an evacuee property?
- Is a party permitted to challenge the possession status of a co-allottee when they did not raise such an objection during the initial settlement proceedings?
- ALLAH BAKHSH And Another vs THE STATE And Other1987 SCMR 185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court whereby the appellants were convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and under section 307 read with section 34 for a murderous assault on an eye-witness, and sentenced to imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment respectively, alongside a petition for enhancement of sentences. The core legal questions involved the assessment of eyewitness testimony, discrepancies in the initial report regarding weapons used, and the sufficiency of motive as a mitigating circumstance against the death penalty. The Supreme Court held that despite minor discrepancies and improvements in the eyewitness account, the presence of the injured witness and the recovery of blood-stained weapons conclusively established the guilt of the appellants. The Court affirmed the convictions and declined to interfere with the sentence of imprisonment for life, recognizing that the motive arising from the deceased contracting a marriage with the appellants' relative generated sudden resentment. The key principle laid down is that minor exaggerations or discrepancies in an injured eyewitness's testimony do not discredit the core of the testimony when presence at the scene is undeniable and corroborated by prompt medical evidence and weapon recoveries.
Questions settled- Whether minor discrepancies and improvements in the testimony of an injured eyewitness are sufficient to discard their evidence in a murder trial?
- Does the recovery of blood-stained weapons from the possession of the accused provide sufficient corroboration of their participation in the crime?
- Whether deep-rooted motive and family resentment arising from an unapproved marriage can constitute a mitigating circumstance to withhold the death penalty?
- Can a conviction under section 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained when an assault results in a stab wound inflicted during the course of the same transaction?
- ALLAH BAKHSH And Another vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL And Other1987 SCMR 810 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a decision of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition filed by the vendee-petitioners. Respondent No.1 had successfully decreed a pre-emption suit as a tenant of the land before the Revenue Courts. The petitioners appealed to the Additional Commissioner, who affirmed the decree, and subsequently filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed as time-barred. The petitioners then invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, which dismissed their writ petition. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court rightly declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction regarding a time-barred revision and concurrent findings of fact. The Supreme Court held that failure to avail an adequate remedy within the prescribed period is a sufficient ground for dismissing a constitutional petition. Furthermore, whether sufficient cause exists for condoning delay is a matter for the Board of Revenue to decide and cannot ordinarily be challenged via writ jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to file a revision petition within the prescribed period of limitation constitutes a sufficient ground for dismissing a subsequent constitutional petition?
- Can a decision of the Board of Revenue refusing to condone delay in filing a revision petition ordinarily be challenged in writ jurisdiction?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by revenue courts regarding tenancy status can be re-agitated in constitutional jurisdiction?
- ALLAH BAKHSH and 3 others vs AMIR and another1987 MLD 2873 · Board of Revenue · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH Alias BAKHU vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 995 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-31Read full judgment →
- ALL PAKISTAN RAILWAY EMPLOYERS SUPREME UNION vs REGISTRAR, N.I.R.C.1987 PLC 356 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-06-16Read full judgment →
- ALIMUDDIN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 73 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-21Read full judgment →
- ALIDINO AND Other vs THE STATE1987 PLD Karachi 280 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
- ALI SHER vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1129 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-31Read full judgment →
- ALI SHER vs REHMA And Other1987 SCMR 1499 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Ali Sher against the High Court order dated 10-11-1980, which altered the conviction of the respondents and maintained a reduced sentence. The core legal question involves the evaluation of a conviction based on an accused person's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and whether the inculpatory and exculpatory parts of such a statement must be accepted in their entirety when it forms the sole basis of conviction. The Supreme Court held that the acquittal of respondent Mannu was justified due to lack of proof, and that since respondent Rehma's conviction was based on his own statement admitting to the killing under grave and sudden provocation, that statement had to be accepted in its entirety, justifying the reduction of sentence to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The court laid down the principle that when a conviction is based on the statement of the accused, that statement must be believed in its entirety.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction based on the statement of the accused requires accepting that statement in its entirety?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of grave and sudden provocation when convicted on his own statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- When will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's reduction of a sentence based on the appreciation of the accused's statement?
- ALI SHER And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1148 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-19Read full judgment →
- ALI NAWAZ vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1373 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-10Read full judgment →
- ALI NAWAZ vs MUHAMMAD MURAD1987 MLD 2596 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-08Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD. USMAN vs SAEEDA BANO1987 MLD 462 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-04Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1987 PLD Peshawar 48 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-12-23Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs Syed AHSAN ALI1987 MLD 926 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-01Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs SHERA And Another1987 SCMR 207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose out of a pre-emption suit filed by the appellant claiming a superior right of pre-emption as an alleged co-sharer in the Khata against the respondents-vendees. The trial court dismissed the suit finding the appellant failed to establish co-ownership, but the first appellate court reversed this decree. On second appeal, the Lahore High Court set aside the first appellate judgment and restored the trial court's decision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a purchaser who buys specific Killa numbers or defined fields from a sole proprietor becomes a co-sharer in the vendor's Khata for the purpose of asserting a superior pre-emption right. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's finding and dismissed the appeal. The Court laid down the principle that purchasing specific Killa numbers rather than an undivided fractional share of the holding does not constitute the buyer a co-sharer or co-owner with the original proprietor in the Khata.
Questions settled- Does the purchase of specific Killa numbers from a sole proprietor make the purchaser a co-sharer in the Khata for pre-emption purposes?
- Whether a pre-emptor who buys a specific portion of land rather than an undivided share acquires a superior right of pre-emption as a co-sharer?
- Can a buyer be deemed a co-owner in a joint holding without purchasing an unspecified or definite fractional share?
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs SHAH MOHAMMAD and others1987 PLD Lahore 607 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-08Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs SHAH MOHAMMAD And Other,1987 PLD Lahore 607 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-08Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs Sardar GHULAM AHMAD and another1987 CLC 311 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-10Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs RASOOLAN BIBI and others1987 CLC 745 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-06Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other1987 SCMR 314 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the dismissal of an Intra-Court Appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld a Single Judge's decision regarding the transfer of a disputed property. The petitioner, a non-claimant, sought the transfer of a house previously transferred to the respondents in 1960. The core legal questions concerned the eligibility of a non-allottee for property transfer without payment of rent arrears and the impact of significant delay in challenging a transfer order after vested rights had been created. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's findings, noting that the petitioner failed to pay required public dues and arrears of rent, rendering him ineligible for transfer. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the petitioner's thirteen-year delay in challenging the original transfer order, coupled with the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) to the respondents, precluded the grant of relief. The Court held that vested rights cannot be disturbed after such extensive delay and that the Intra-Court Appeal was correctly dismissed as not maintainable under the relevant statutory framework.
Questions settled- Is a non-allottee eligible for property transfer if they have failed to pay arrears of rent and public dues?
- Does a significant delay in challenging a transfer order bar relief when vested rights have been created in favour of third parties?
- Is an Intra-Court Appeal maintainable against a judgment of a Single Judge in a writ petition under the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972?
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD and 2 others1987 MLD 536 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-27Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD SHAHANI vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE,SIND And Another1987 PLC (C. S.) 205 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1986-11-25Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD SHAHANI Versus INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE SIND, KARACAI And Other ALI MUHAMMAD SHAHANI vs INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE SINDH, KARACAI And OtherK.L.R. 1987 Labour and Service Cases 47 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1493 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD Alias ALI AHMAD And Others vs MAHBUB AHMAD And Other1987 SCMR 1263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a civil suit for declaration and perpetual injunction valued at five rupees for court-fee and jurisdiction, which was decreed in favor of the plaintiff and upheld in the first appeal by the Additional District Judge. The defendant filed a second appeal in the High Court, which was barred under section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to the valuation. Upon realizing the maintainability issue, the appellant sought to convert the appeal into a revision petition at a belated stage. The High Court refused to exercise its discretion to allow the conversion, leading to the present appeal by leave before the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the High Court's refusal to allow the conversion of a second appeal into a revision. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court normally should allow such conversion, it may refuse to do so in the proper exercise of judicial discretion based on the circumstances of the case, and found no perversity in the High Court's order. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a second appeal barred by law be converted into a revision petition?
- Whether the High Court is bound in every case to allow the conversion of a second appeal into a revision?
- Under what circumstances can the High Court refuse to exercise its discretion to allow the conversion of an incompetent second appeal into a revision?
- ALI MOHTARAM NAQVI vs HABIB BANK Ltd. and 7 others1987 CLC 1139 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-30Read full judgment →
- ALI KHAN vs Mst.HAMEEDA and others1987 MLD 1423(1) · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
- ALI HUSSAIN vs MIR ZAMAN1987 CLC 127 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land. The plaintiff sought pre-emption based on his relationship to the vendor and as a co-sharer. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. In the second appeal, the vendee contended that, following the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah, pre-emption based on relationship had become repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam and was no longer available, and that this decision operated retrospectively. The Lahore High Court examined the provisions of Article 203-D of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913. The Court held that the decision of the Shariat Appellate Bench does not operate retroactively to destroy or impair rights already enforced and recognized by valid court decrees prior to the date the decision took effect, and that a pre-emptor who maintained his superior right of co-ownership and relationship at the relevant crucial dates is entitled to succeed. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the decision of the Shariat Appellate Bench declaring certain pre-emption grounds repugnant to Islam operates retroactively to destroy past and closed transactions or decrees?
- What are the crucial dates on which a pre-emptor must maintain his superior right of qualifications?
- Does a pre-emptor lose his right of pre-emption if one of the grounds of superiority is declared repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam while he also qualifies as a co-owner?
- ALI HAIDER vs Messrs DAWOOD COTTON MILLS Ltd.1987 PLC 832 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-02-01Read full judgment →
- ALI GOHAR vs AHMAD ALI and 5 others1987 MLD 131 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-07Read full judgment →
- ALI GOHAR And Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against their conviction for murder arising from a family dispute and illicit relations. According to the prosecution, the petitioners attacked the deceased, resulting in fatal injuries. The trial court and the appellate court accepted the ocular testimony of eye-witnesses, who were brothers of the deceased, without seeking corroboration for individual participation, despite admitted enmity between the parties. Before the Supreme Court, it was contended that the number and location of injuries on the deceased did not correspond with the multiple assailants alleged, that the F.I.R. suffered from discrepancies regarding the nature and placement of injuries compared to the medical evidence, and that the lower courts failed to properly evaluate the safe dispensation of justice regarding individual attribution. Finding force in these submissions, the Supreme Court held that re-examination of the evidence was necessary to determine the sustainability of the conviction and accordingly granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the ocular account of interested witnesses requires independent corroboration as to the individual participation of accused persons in a murder trial?
- Does a discrepancy between the F.I.R. version of injuries and the medical evidence warrant a re-examination of the evidence for safe dispensation of justice?
- Whether the conviction can be sustained when the number and location of injuries cast doubt on the alleged participation of multiple accused persons?
- ALI GOHAR ABRO vs CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 720 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-03-09Read full judgment →
- ALI DINO AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1987 PLD Karachi 280 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
- ALI BAHADUR TARAR And Another vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT1987 PLC (C.S.) 609 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-04-07Read full judgment →
- ALI ASHRAF PIRZADA vs Messrs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN1987 PLC 358 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-05-21Read full judgment →
- ALI ASGHAR vs DADU SUGAR MILLS, PIARO GOTH1987 PLC 167 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-06Read full judgment →
- ALI ASGHAR And Another vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN And Other1987 SCMR 1481 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed a suit for pre-emption which was decreed by the trial court on 21-10-1978, requiring the deposit of the purchase money by 19-11-1978, failing which the suit would stand dismissed. The petitioners challenged the decretal amount in appeal before the Additional District Judge, who extended the time for depositing the purchase money and subsequently ordered that the deposit might be withheld until further orders. Although the petitioners eventually deposited the money, they later withdrew their appeal due to a deficiently stamped memorandum. When they subsequently sought to execute the pre-emption decree, the executing court, the appellate court, and the High Court in revisional jurisdiction all held that the suit stood dismissed due to non-compliance with the original deposit deadline. The petitioners sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The core legal question is whether the time for depositing pre-emption money can be validly extended by an appellate court and whether non-compliance with the original deadline results in the dismissal of the suit. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contention regarding compliance with the extended time period requires formal examination.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court extend the time for depositing the purchase money in a pre-emption decree?
- Does failure to deposit pre-emption money within the original trial court deadline result in the automatic dismissal of the suit?
- Is an executing court justified in refusing to execute a pre-emption decree when deposit timelines were modified during appellate proceedings?
- ALI and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1799 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-05Read full judgment →
- ALI AHMED vs Mst. GHULAM ZOHRA1987 PLD Quetta 189 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from an order passed by the Additional District Judge-II, Quetta, which dismissed the defendant's application seeking the dismissal of a partition and possession suit on the ground of limitation. The core legal question was whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on limitation when the determination requires recording evidence and probing factual controversies. The Balochistan High Court held that the power to reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(d) can only be exercised if it appears manifestly from the bare reading of the plaint contents alone, without any further inquiry or evidence, that the suit is barred by law. Where limitation depends on disputed facts—such as the date of accrual of the cause of action or the nature of co-sharer possession—evidence must be recorded by the trial court. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that premature interference in such matters is unwarranted.
Questions settled- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when determining the question of limitation requires recording evidence?
- Does the word 'appears' in Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 restrict the court's consideration strictly to the face of the plaint without a factual probe?
- Whether the question of limitation can be decided prematurely in revision proceedings when an issue regarding it is already sub judice before the trial court?
- ALI AHMAD vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1001 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
- ALI AHMAD Etc. vs THE STATEK.LR. 1987 Shariat Cases 29 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
- ALI AHMAD And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1021 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
- Alhaj RAEES AHMAD QURESHI vs Pir SHUJAAT HUSSAIN QURESHI and others1987 MLD 1384 · Election Commission of Pakistan · 1987-06-09Read full judgment →
- AlHaj MIAN GHULAM YASIN vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.K.L.A.S.C., MUZAFFARABAD and another1987 CLC 1307 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1987-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Sub-Judge Ist Class Athmuqam, which partially decreed the appellant's suit for recovery. The core legal question concerns whether the delay in filing the appeal before the High Court due to pursuing an appeal in the wrong forum on the mistaken advice of counsel can be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The High Court held that where a mistake of law or wrong advice by a counsel is bona fide and not the result of gross negligence or lack of reasonable skill, and the litigant acts with due diligence—promptly refiling the appeal upon its return—the delay is condonable under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The key principle laid down is that mistaken legal advice given without negligence constitutes sufficient cause for condoning delay in prosecuting a remedy in the wrong forum.
Questions settled- Can delay in filing an appeal before the proper forum be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act when the time was lost prosecuting an appeal in the wrong court due to counsel's mistaken advice?
- Does a mistaken advice given by a legal practitioner invariably constitute sufficient cause for extending the period of limitation?
- Is a litigant entitled to the benefit of section 5 of the Limitation Act when the wrong choice of forum resulted from the gross negligence or lack of reasonable skill of the counsel?
- What constitutes due diligence and good faith when a party seeks to exclude the time spent pursuing a proceeding before a court lacking jurisdiction?
- ALEEM NASIR vs The STATE1987 SCMR 71 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given significant evidentiary discrepancies including the substitution of eye-witnesses, the failure to prove the First Information Report, unexplained injuries on the deceased, and substantial lapses in the investigation. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to meet the required standard of proof. The Court observed that the eye-witnesses provided an incomplete account of the incident, failing to explain all injuries sustained by the deceased, and that the official functionaries exhibited unusual conduct in handling the case. Consequently, the Court established the principle that where the First Information Report is not proved, eye-witnesses are substituted, the prosecution version is altered, and significant investigative lapses exist, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused. The conviction and sentence were set aside.
Questions settled- Does the failure to prove the First Information Report and the substitution of eye-witnesses entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's evidence fails to account for all injuries sustained by the deceased?
- Does the failure of official functionaries to properly record injuries and investigate the case constitute grounds for acquittal?
- ALASAW GARDBA Ali and 6 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2247 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-03Read full judgment →
- ALAMDAR HUSSAIN vs EMMANUAL VICTOR K. and 2 others1987 MLD 2240 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
- ALAM SHER vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2645 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
- ALAM SHER vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. LJ 715 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-18Read full judgment →
- ALAM SHER and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1668 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-16Read full judgment →
- ALAM KHAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1677 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-05Read full judgment →
- ALAM And 3 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1495 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-06Read full judgment →
- Al-Samrez Enterprise vs The Federation of PakistanPTCL 1987 CL. 99 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the retrospective application of a government notification withdrawing customs duty exemptions. The appellants challenged the imposition of enhanced customs duties following a 1977 notification, arguing they had acquired a vested right to the previous exemption due to a binding contract and preparatory actions taken before the notification's issuance. The core legal question was whether an executive notification withdrawing a tax exemption could retrospectively affect transactions where binding commitments were already made. The Supreme Court held that the appellants had indeed acquired a vested right to the exemption, as they had acted upon the assurance of the prior notification. The Court ruled that while Section 30 of the Customs Act 1969 determines the applicable duty rate at the time of the Bill of Entry, it does not nullify vested rights to exemptions. The key principle laid down is that executive authorities cannot exercise rule-making powers to retrospectively destroy vested rights or impair contractual obligations already accrued under existing laws, and tax exemptions, once acted upon, create a vested interest that cannot be unilaterally withdrawn to the detriment of the taxpayer.
Questions settled- Can an executive notification withdrawing a tax exemption be applied retrospectively to destroy vested rights?
- Does Section 30 of the Customs Act 1969 override a vested right to a tax exemption?
- At what point does a taxpayer acquire a vested right to a statutory tax exemption?
- AL-MEHRAN BUILDERS vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others1987 MLD 454 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
- AKMIDC UNITS, MUZAFFARABAD and others vs MOIN-UD-DIN and others1987 MLD 1055 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1987-03-14Read full judgment →
- AKHUNZADA SAEEDUL HASSAN vs Qazi GHULAM DASTGIR Through His Legal Heirs And Other1987 SCMR 446 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerned a long-standing land ownership dispute regarding 11 Chakoram of land in village Broze, Chitral. The core legal question involved the validity of a compromise agreement reached between the parties, which the appellant had challenged after a significant delay of 28 years. The High Court had previously accepted a 1954 compromise, declaring subsequent actions by the Land Inquiry Commission without lawful authority and restraining local authorities from interfering with the respondents' possession. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the parties had entered into a subsequent compromise agreement dated 29th of May, 1980, which settled the dispute. The appellant's son confirmed the appellant's signatures on this document, and the respondent provided a statement to resolve the matter in accordance with the appellant's concerns. Consequently, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal in terms of the 1980 compromise and the respondent's statement. The judgment reinforces the principle that courts will give effect to valid, mutually agreed-upon compromises between parties to resolve litigation, particularly when the parties acknowledge the authenticity of such agreements in open court.
Questions settled- Can a court dispose of an appeal based on a compromise agreement entered into by the parties?
- Is a compromise agreement valid when its execution is challenged after a significant delay of 28 years?
- AKHTAR ZAMAN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1621 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-19Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2423 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of a criminal bail application and a suo motu revision regarding the cancellation of bail in a robbery case. The core legal questions involve whether bail granted to co-accused on the technical ground of unlawful police detention without remand should be cancelled, whether the principle of consistency applies to an accused whose detention was lawful, and whether delay in holding an identification parade and defects in its supervision warrant the grant of bail. The court held that the sessions judge properly exercised discretion in granting bail to the co-accused due to the lack of judicial remand, and thus discharged the suo motu notices. However, the court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant Akhtar Muhammad on merits, finding that an unexplained seven-day delay in holding the identification test while in police custody, coupled with the fact that the identification mashirnama was signed by the investigating officer rather than being properly supervised, made his complicity one requiring further inquiry under the law.
Questions settled- Whether bail granted to an accused on the technical ground of unlawful detention without a proper order of remand is liable to be cancelled?
- Does the principle of consistency apply to grant bail to an accused whose police detention was lawful when co-accused were released solely due to lack of judicial remand?
- Whether an unexplained delay in holding an identification test after an accused's arrest creates sufficient doubt to warrant further inquiry and the grant of bail?
- Does the preparation of an identification test mashirnama by the investigating officer vitiate the validity of the identification parade?
- AKHTAR IQBAL vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1114 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-05Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR HUSSAIN alias QULLA vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3176 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-26Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR ALI and others vs Sh. MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others1987 CLC 2227 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-29Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR ALI and 3 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2005 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-11Read full judgment →
- AKHMAD AHMAD Alias AHMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 523 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-17Read full judgment →
- AKBAR vs SHAH BUX and others1987 P Cr. L J 2337 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
- AKBAR MASIH and 4 others vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 432 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
- AKBAR MASIH And 4 Other vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 432 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
- AKBAR KHAN and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 857 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-14Read full judgment →
- AKBAR and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2293 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-21Read full judgment →
- AKBAR ALI SHAH vs K.A. FAROOQI1987 MLD 1354 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-16Read full judgment →
- AKBAR ALI And Others vs TE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB And Other1987 SCMR 811 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court in a regular first appeal. The petitioners' land was acquired by the Provincial Government for constructing a carriage-way. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector and subsequently enhanced by the Senior Civil Judge, the petitioners filed a regular first appeal in the High Court with deficient court-fee. The High Court dismissed their application under section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure for making up the deficiency and consequently dismissed the appeal. The core legal question is whether the High Court ought to have granted an opportunity to the petitioners to make up the deficient court-fee before dismissing the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the contention raised needs consideration and granted leave to appeal, relying on the principle established in prior jurisprudence regarding the opportunity to rectify court-fee deficiencies.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court should provide an opportunity to make up deficient court-fee before dismissing an appeal?
- Can leave to appeal be granted when the lower court dismisses an application under section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- AKBAR ALI And Others vs Mst. RASHIDA BIBI And Other1987 SCMR 1394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the allocation of land units. The petitioners challenged the High Court's interpretation of an order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 20-12-1969. The petitioners contended that the High Court's decision to deprive them of land equivalent to 130 units was based on an untenable, erroneous, and unjustified interpretation of the said Commissioner's order, which had previously remained unchallenged by the respondents through various legal stages. Upon hearing the counsel for the petitioners and reviewing the available record, the Supreme Court found, prima facie, that there was merit in the petitioners' submission regarding the erroneous nature of the High Court's interpretation. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal. Pending the final disposal of the appeal, the Court ordered that the status quo regarding the possession of the land equivalent to 130 units held by the petitioners be maintained. The Court further directed that security in the sum of Rs. 2,500 be furnished and granted the parties liberty to file additional documents.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court grant a status quo order pending the disposal of an appeal regarding land possession?
- Does a prima facie case regarding an erroneous interpretation of a lower authority's order justify the grant of leave to appeal?
- AJMAL HUSSAIN And Others vs Mst. RUQIA BEGUM And Other1987 SCMR 738 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which allowed a regular second appeal and dismissed the petitioners' suit for specific performance. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, an allottee of State land, had executed a power of attorney and an agreement in favour of the petitioners' predecessor to pay government dues, acquire proprietary rights, and subsequently sell the land. The trial court dismissed the suit based on the bar contained in section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. The first appellate court reversed this, decreeing the suit, but the High Court restored the dismissal, holding that section 19 barred specific performance. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether section 19 operated as a bar to the grant of a decree for specific performance under the circumstances and whether relief could be granted.
Questions settled- Does section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 operate as a bar to a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell State land executed by an allottee?
- Whether a power of attorney coupled with an agreement to sell creates an immediate interest in State land prior to the acquisition of proprietary rights?
- AJAB KHAN And 3 Others vs THE STATE and another1987 P Cr. L J 340 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-18Read full judgment →
- Aitazaz Ahsan, Bar-At-Law vs THE STATE1987 PLD Supreme Court 273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This miscellaneous appeal arose from the Assistant Registrar's refusal to entertain an application seeking the re-hearing of a criminal petition for leave to appeal that had previously been dismissed by the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the Office of the Court was justified in rejecting an application for the re-examination of a case that had already reached a final conclusion through a dismissal order, where the application did not constitute a review petition or a request for clerical correction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Office correctly refused the application. The Court affirmed that once a final order dismissing a petition for leave to appeal is passed, it cannot be altered or re-opened except through established procedures, such as a review petition or for the correction of clerical or arithmetical errors under the Supreme Court Rules. The Court established that inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass specific procedural remedies like review, and the Office is empowered to reject any document presented in violation of the Court's Rules.
Questions settled- Can the Office of the Supreme Court refuse to entertain an application that is not in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules?
- Is a final order dismissing a petition for leave to appeal subject to re-examination outside of a review petition or clerical correction?
- Does the Supreme Court's inherent jurisdiction permit the re-opening of a case where a specific remedy, such as a review petition, is available?
- AIRPORT MANAGER vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD1987 PLC 933 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
- AIJAZ MAHMOOD vs Shaikh MUHAMMAD JAMIL and anothers1987 PLD Karachi 546 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-27Read full judgment →
- AIJAZ MAHMOOD vs Shaikh MUHAMMAD JAMIL And Another1987 PLD Karachi 546 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-27Read full judgment →
- AIJAZ HUSSAIN vs Mst.SAFIA BEGUM and others1987 MLD 2994 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-17Read full judgment →
- AHSAN SALEEM vs SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LAHORE And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 909 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-11-05Read full judgment →
- AHSAN SALEEM vs DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, LAHORE And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 883 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-11-05Read full judgment →
- AHSAN ALI vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others1987 CLC 2396 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-01Read full judgment →
- AHMI vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1773 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-07Read full judgment →
- AHMED vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1363 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
- AHMED TANVEER vs HAKIM BAKERS AND CONFECTIONERS1987 MLD 2092 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-14Read full judgment →
- AHMED SHAH vs Haji ABDUL HALEEM and 4 OTHERS1987 PLD Quetta 223 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-06-16Read full judgment →
- AHMED SHAH vs Haji ABDUL HALEEM And 4 Other1987 PLD Quetta 223 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-06-16Read full judgment →
- AHMED KHAN And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2307 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-19Read full judgment →