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.
- ABDUL SHAKOOR vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Collector District1987 CLC 2107 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SHAKOOR vs GHULAM RASOOL AND OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 225 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SHAKOOR vs GHULAM RASOOL AND Other1987 PLD Lahore 225 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3179 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 344 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Through ADDITIONAL1987 SCMR 745 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his dismissal from service as time-barred. The petitioner, a police official, was dismissed from service in 1978 following allegations of intoxication. After his initial departmental appeal and revision were dismissed in 1979, the petitioner filed multiple subsequent mercy petitions and representations to the Inspector-General of Police, all of which were rejected. The core legal question was whether these repeated, unauthorized representations could extend the statutory period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that the petitioner had exhausted his statutory right of appeal and revision in 1979. The Court affirmed the principle that filing repeated, unauthorized representations or mercy petitions does not extend the period of limitation for seeking legal remedies, as such actions are futile exercises that cannot legally toll the limitation period prescribed by law.
Questions settled- Does the filing of repeated mercy petitions or representations extend the period of limitation for filing an appeal before a Service Tribunal?
- Can a litigant extend the limitation period by pursuing remedies not provided for in the governing service rules?
- ABDUL SATTAR SOOMRO vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND And 151987 PLC (C.S.) 168 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1986-07-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR And Others vs KHUDA E DAD1987 SCMR 1753(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns the propriety of the High Court's exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The core legal question addressed is whether the High Court was legally justified in interfering with the judgment and order of the trial court in a revision application when those specific trial court orders had not been challenged by the parties. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this procedural and jurisdictional issue. The Court directed that the appeal be heard on the existing record during the current session, while granting liberty to the parties to file any additional documents deemed necessary. The matter essentially centers on the scope of the High Court's authority to revise orders that remain unchallenged by the litigants, highlighting the principle that appellate or revisional interference generally requires a proper challenge to the underlying order being reviewed.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere in a revision application with a judgment or order of the trial court that was not challenged by the parties?
- Is the High Court's revisional jurisdiction limited to the specific orders challenged by the petitioners?
- ABDUL SATTAR And Others vs HASSAN DIN And Other1987 SCMR 1426 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which had declared the allotment of a specific plot of land in favour of the petitioners to be illegal and without lawful authority. The core legal question was whether the subject plot constituted agricultural land or land used for purposes subservient to agriculture within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Scheme, thereby rendering its allotment valid. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to establish that the plot was used for agricultural purposes, noting that the revenue record demonstrated otherwise. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's finding that the allotment was unlawful because the land did not qualify as agricultural land.
Questions settled- Whether a plot classified otherwise in the revenue record can be deemed agricultural land under the Rehabilitation Scheme without supporting evidence?
- Does the occupation of a plot by multiple families preclude its classification as agricultural land for allotment purposes?
- ABDUL SATTAR And Another vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1424 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against an order of the Lahore High Court whereby bail previously allowed to the petitioners was cancelled. A criminal case was registered against the petitioners under sections 307, 325, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly attacking the complainants with sotas, resulting in multiple injuries including fractures. The Magistrate had initially granted bail on the ground that injuries were on non-vital parts and the prosecution story was doubtful. However, the High Court set aside the bail order, holding that the Magistrate improperly exercised discretion given the active involvement and presence of armed accomplices which prevented the victim from using his firearm. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the bail granted by the Magistrate. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exercised its discretion properly and declined to interfere, affirming the cancellation of bail. The key principle laid down is that appellate or revisional courts will not interfere with the proper exercise of discretion by a High Court in cancelling bail when reasonable grounds exist to connect the accused with the crime.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in cancelling bail granted by a Magistrate based on an improper exercise of discretion?
- Does the presence of armed accomplices during an assault constitute reasonable grounds to believe the accused are connected with the offense for bail purposes?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the proper exercise of discretion by the High Court in cancelling bail?
- ABDUL SAMAD vs CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COUNCIL and, another1987 MLD 3204 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SAMAD SIRAJUDDIN vs MUHAMMAD KHAWAJA1987 SCMR 378 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a landlord's petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Sind High Court, which had allowed the tenant's appeal and set aside an order of eviction. The core legal question concerns whether the initiation of distress warrant proceedings and a subsequent compromise order regarding arrears of rent amount to a waiver of the landlord's right to seek eviction on the ground of default, and whether inconsistent pleas regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant can be raised. The Supreme Court held that the contentions advanced raise substantial questions of law of general importance and accordingly granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the effect of distress warrant proceedings and compromises on a landlord's right to evict for default, along with the permissibility of inconsistent pleas, constitute substantial questions requiring formal appellate determination.
Questions settled- Does the filing of distress warrant proceedings and a compromise on arrears amount to a waiver of the landlord's right of eviction for default?
- Can a tenant simultaneously deny the relationship of landlord and tenant and plead that no default in rent has been committed?
- What constitutes a proper tender of rent by a tenant to escape the consequences of ejectment?
- ABDUL SALAM vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1248 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SALAM And Another vs THE STATE And Other1987 SCMR 2053 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal matter arises from cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a conviction and sentence for murder and murderous assault. The core legal questions involved the propriety of maintaining the murder conviction of the principal accused, the alteration of co-accused convictions from murderous assault and unlawful assembly charges to lesser offences, and whether grounds existed for the enhancement of sentences or the setting aside of acquittals. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly maintained the conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the principal offender who inflicted the single fatal blow, and correctly found that individual liability applied rather than constructive liability under section 149, reducing the convictions of the co-accused to section 324 given the sudden nature of the fight and lack of specific attribution for the sole grievous injury. The petitions for leave to appeal by both the convict and the complainant were dismissed, affirming the principle of individual criminal responsibility in sudden affrays and upholding the appellate court's discretion regarding lesser penalties and modified convictions.
Questions settled- Whether individual liability applies instead of constructive liability when a sudden fight occurs without proof of a common object?
- Can a conviction under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to section 324 where injuries are simple or not specifically attributed?
- Is a fatal stab wound attributed specifically to a single accused sufficient to maintain a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court decline to interfere with an appellate court's reduction of sentence or modification of conviction?
- ABDUL SAEED And Another vs KHALILUR REHMAN And Another1987 SCMR 410 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a property dispute involving the appellants and the late Mst. Khijani. Throughout the initial litigation, the respondent acted as Mst. Khijani's attorney, never asserting any personal claim to the property despite allegedly possessing a gift/will-deed executed in his favor during the pendency of those proceedings. Following Mst. Khijani's death, the property rights were adjudicated in favor of the appellants as her legal heirs. The respondent subsequently introduced his claim based on the gift/will-deed for the first time during a revision petition before the Deputy Secretary. The Supreme Court held that the respondent could not introduce a new, independent claim as a 'second dispute' within the existing proceedings. The Court ruled that the respondent's conduct, having acted as an attorney without disclosing his interest, precluded him from interfering in the concluded dispute between the original parties. The Court set aside the orders of the Deputy Secretary, affirming that the respondent must pursue any independent claim through separate, appropriate legal proceedings rather than by intervening in the settled matter.
Questions settled- Can a person who acted as an attorney for a party in litigation introduce a personal claim to the subject property for the first time in a revision petition?
- Is it permissible to raise a new, independent claim as a second dispute within the scope of an existing, concluded dispute?
- Does the failure to disclose a claim during original proceedings preclude a party from asserting that claim in subsequent appellate or revisional stages?
- ABDUL REHMAN vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1517 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SARGODHA AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Lahore 260 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 79 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1979-04-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs FAZAL DAD and another1987 MLD 2956 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs CHAIRMAN, EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD and others1987 CLC 2220 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN THROUGH HIS LBGAC HEIRES vs PROF. GHULAM RASOOL TANVIR AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Supreme Court 45 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court concerning the ejectment of a statutory tenant under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. The core legal question was whether a transferee landlord's demand for enhanced rent based on the latest municipal assessment under Section 30(1)(a) operates prospectively from the date of service of notice or retrospectively from the date of transfer/antecedent period. The Supreme Court held that the demand for enhanced rent operates prospectively from the date the landlord serves a lawful notice of demand. The statutory relationship of landlord and tenant initially comes into existence on the terms and conditions previously applicable, including the previous rate of rent. The landlord's right to alter this rate by demanding enhanced rent based on municipal assessments takes effect only upon exercising that right via notice. Consequently, arrears of rent prior to the notice remain payable at the old rate. The Court concluded that the tenant's tender exceeded the lawfully due arrears, setting aside the ejectment order.
Questions settled- Does a landlord's demand for enhanced rent under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 take effect prospectively from the date of notice or retrospectively?
- Can a tenant be declared a defaulter in rent where the landlord demands enhanced rent for a period prior to the notice of demand?
- Does the statutory relationship created under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 initially bind the transferee to the previous terms of rent?
- ABDUL REHMAN SHAH. vs KHURSHID AHMAD SHAH And Other1987 SCMR 662 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court acquitting the respondents of the charge of murder of an Advocate, Mubarik A.I Shah, who succumbed to twenty-four lathi injuries after making a dying declaration naming the respondents as his assailants. The trial court had convicted the respondents under sections 302/149 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but the High Court set aside the convictions, holding that the testimony of related eye-witnesses could not be relied upon due to strained relations and that the dying declaration was likely influenced by others. The core legal question concerns the proper appreciation of evidence, particularly the reliability and evidentiary value of a dying declaration and related eye-witness testimony in a criminal murder trial. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions regarding the credibility of the dying declaration and its sufficiency as a basis for conviction or corroboration carried weight, necessitating a reappraisal of the evidence. The key principle laid down is that a dying declaration made by an injured person who was in his senses, supported by adequate opportunity to identify his assailants, requires careful judicial evaluation and can serve as a basis for conviction or independent corroboration.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be based solely on a dying declaration in a murder case?
- Whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses should be discarded solely on the ground of strained relations between the parties?
- Does a dying declaration lose its credibility merely because the deceased had time to be influenced by other persons?
- When can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the High Court?
- ABDUL REHMAN KHAN AND ANOTHER vs Haji MEHR ALI AND 7 OTHERS1987 PLD Quetta 65 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-11-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN KHAN AND Another vs Haji MEHR ALI AND 7 Other1987 PLD Quetta 65 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-11-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN and others vs PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN and others1987 CLC 670 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAQ vs SALEEM HIDAYAT AND 4 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 47 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAQ vs SALEEM HIDAYAT AND 4 Other1987 PLD Lahore 47 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAQ and 2 others vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD and 3 OTHERS1987 PLD Karachi 350 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAQ And 2 Other vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD And 3 Other1987 PLD Karachi 350 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAK vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2218 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAK vs Messrs HABIB BANK Ltd. and 7 others1987 MLD 1420 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZAQ TAHIR vs MUHAMMAD SABIR BUTT And 2 Others1987 P Cr. L J 2276 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAUF vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1355(1) · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAUF vs THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT,1987 PLC 194 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-05-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAUF vs Mst.AFSARI BEGUM1987 MLD 2966 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAUF vs ABDUL RAZZAK And Another1987 SCMR 1632 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Sind High Court in a second appeal, which decreed the respondent's suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The petitioner, a director of a company, had lodged a criminal report against the respondent, which subsequently resulted in an order of discharge under the Code of Criminal Procedure due to the non-availability of witnesses. The respondent then filed a suit for damages for malicious prosecution, which was dismissed by the trial court and the first appellate court, but decreed by the High Court in second appeal. The core legal question involves whether an order of discharge constitutes complete exoneration and satisfies the legal ingredients of malicious prosecution, and whether damages were properly proved. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised involved substantial questions of law requiring detailed consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, stayed the execution of the decree, and laid down that questions regarding the nature of an order of discharge and proof of damages in malicious prosecution suits warrant a full hearing on appeal.
Questions settled- Does an order of discharge under Section 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 amount to an acquittal or complete exoneration for the purposes of a suit for malicious prosecution?
- Can a complainant be held liable for malicious prosecution when the accused is discharged due to the non-availability of police witnesses?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts can be set aside in second appeal without establishing proper legal grounds?
- ABDUL RAUF And Others vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL And Others1987 P Cr. L J 1072 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs THE STATE1987 MLD 849 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 563 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs NIMRO And Other1987 SCMR 1602 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding a property dispute in Karachi. The petitioner sought to challenge an order of the High Court that quashed criminal proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions concern whether the High Court erred in relying upon pleadings from a separate civil suit as evidence in criminal proceedings and whether the High Court should have exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 561-A when the respondents had already unsuccessfully pursued revision applications and possessed an alternative remedy under Section 145(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the petitioner's submissions regarding the High Court's reliance on civil pleadings and the propriety of invoking Section 561-A despite the availability of alternative statutory remedies warranted further consideration. The Court established that the availability of alternative remedies and the evidentiary value of civil pleadings in criminal quashment proceedings are significant legal issues requiring appellate review.
Questions settled- Can the High Court rely on pleadings from a civil suit as evidence when quashing criminal proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 appropriate when an alternative remedy exists under Section 145(5) of the same Code?
- Does the dismissal of prior revision applications limit the High Court's scope for interference under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- ABDUL RASHID vs KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Ltd.1987 PLC 134 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs ISLAMUDDIN And Another1987 P Cr. L J 534 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 468 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-01-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR1987 PLC (C.S.) 132 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1986-07-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID SHAH And Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE1987 SCMR 705 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenges an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition regarding the transfer of an evacuee property. The petitioners, heirs of the original occupant, contended that the entire Khata measuring 4 Kanals and 4 Marlas had been transferred to their father, A.I. Haider Shah, and therefore, the subsequent transfer of a portion of this property to respondents Nos. 3 to 6 was illegal. The core legal question was whether the entire Khata was indeed transferred to the petitioners' predecessor, thereby precluding any further transfer to other parties. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the transfer order issued in favor of the petitioners explicitly limited the transfer to 2 Kanals and 2 Marlas, rather than the entire Khata. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners' claim of full ownership was factually unsupported by the transfer documents. The petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that transfer entitlements are strictly governed by the specific area and rights recorded in the official transfer orders.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner claim ownership of an entire property when the official transfer order explicitly limits the transfer to a specific portion of that property?
- Does the loss of an original file preclude the court from determining the extent of a property transfer based on the available schedule attached to the transfer order?
- ABDUL RASHID KHAN And Others vs SWAT TEXTILE MILLS LTD. HARIPUR1987 SCMR 1913 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order passed by the Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court, which transferred a pending writ petition from the Abbottabad Bench to the principal seat at Peshawar. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Chief Justice possessed the authority to transfer proceedings between different Benches of the High Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the impugned transfer order was legally valid and fully justified. The Court relied on Rule 7 of the Peshawar High Court (Establishment of Benches) Rules, 1982, which explicitly empowers the Chief Justice to transfer any proceedings pending at the principal seat or a Bench to another Bench or the principal seat of the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that the Chief Justice's administrative power to manage the distribution of cases and transfer proceedings between Benches is clearly established by the relevant rules governing the establishment of Benches within the High Court.
Questions settled- Does the Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court have the authority to transfer a pending writ petition from one Bench to another?
- Is an order transferring a case between Benches of the High Court covered by the Peshawar High Court (Establishment of Benches) Rules, 1982?
- ABDUL RASHID KHALID and others vs PROVINCE OF SIND and another1987 PLD Karachi 394 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID KHALID And Other vs PROVINCE OF SIND And Another1987 PLD Karachi 394 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID IQBAL vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 118 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-09-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID and another vs MUHAMMAD YUSUF1987 CLC 2423 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID And 2 Others vs THE STATE and another1987 P Cr. L J 1380 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant alleged that the applicants purchased buffaloes, paid only a fraction of the agreed price, and subsequently admitted they had no intention of paying the balance. The core legal question was whether a dispute arising from a sale transaction involving non-payment of price constitutes a criminal offence of cheating or misappropriation, or if it is purely a civil liability. The Court held that the dispute was essentially of a civil nature, noting the absence of criminal intent at the inception of the transaction and the mala fide nature of the complaint, which was filed after significant delay and appeared to be motivated by ulterior motives. Consequently, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings, ruling that the appropriate remedy for the recovery of the outstanding balance was a civil suit rather than criminal prosecution.
Questions settled- Does the mere failure to pay the balance price in a sale transaction constitute the offence of cheating under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can criminal proceedings be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the underlying dispute is essentially of a civil nature?
- Is a complaint alleging criminal intent at the inception of a contract maintainable when the transaction is purely commercial and lacks evidence of initial dishonesty?
- ABDUL RASHID And 7 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2313 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHMAN vs Messrs ESSOEASTERN INCORPORATION And 2 Others1987 PLC 386 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHMAN vs Messrs ESSO EASTERN Inc. And Other1987 SCMR 1483 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his service termination grievance by the Sind Labour Court, the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, and the Sind High Court. The core legal question involved whether an employee governed by the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 could invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for reinstatement. The Supreme Court held that where an emergency legislation provides a specific forum for resolving disputes and excludes the application of other laws, no other authority can act as a substitute. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Does section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 apply to an establishment governed by the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952?
- Can another authority act as a substitute forum when an emergency statute provides a specific forum for dealing with violations?
- Whether the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 bar proceedings for reinstatement under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- ABDUL RAHMAN vs GHULAM NABI1987 SCMR 1656 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Sind High Court dismissing the petitioner's appeal against a decree for specific performance, or alternatively damages, passed in favor of the respondent. The core legal question concerned whether the Additional Registrar was justified in debarring the petitioner from filing a written statement and whether the subsequent decree was sustainable without considering the belatedly filed written statement. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner failed to legally challenge or seek the setting aside of the Additional Registrar's order debarring him from filing a written statement, the subsequently filed written statement could not be considered, and the trial court's proceedings were proper. The Court laid down the principle that a party aggrieved by an order debarring them from filing a written statement must take appropriate legal steps to have that order set aside, failing which such a defense cannot be belatedly revived, and fresh pleas not raised in the lower courts cannot be urged for the first time before the apex court.
Questions settled- Can a written statement filed after a party has been validly debarred from filing it be taken into consideration without the debarment order being set aside?
- Whether a plea not raised before the Single Judge and the Division Bench can be urged for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- What is the effect of failing to seek the setting aside of an order passed by an Additional Registrar debarring a defendant from filing a written statement?
- ABDUL RAHIM vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1344 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHIM vs THE STATE and others1987 P Cr. L J 588 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHIM vs S . A . S ALIM1987 CLC 359 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHIM vs Messrs. GENERAL MARINE SERVICE and 2 others1987 MLD 2935 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHIM vs MEHARBAN ALI1987 MLD 657 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHIM vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and another1987 CLC 1039 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHIM and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1011 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHEEM vs NOOR KHAN1987 PLD Lahore 558 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RA A ZIQ vs Mst. SHAHIDA NASREEN and 2 others1987 CLC 1530 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QUDOOS vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1140 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QAYYUM- vs THE STATE Opponent1987 PLD Karachi 384 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QAYYUM vs THE STATE1987 PLD Karachi 384 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QAYYUM vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 628 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QAYYUM vs MUHAMMAD IKRAMUL HAQUE1987 MLD 325 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QAYYUM NIAZI vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 690 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QAYYUM NIAZI vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, MULTAN REGION And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 487 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABDUL QAYUM vs JEHANDAD And Other1987 SCMR 1280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a property dispute regarding the inheritance of occupancy tenancy land originally held by one Mali, who died in 1930. The core legal question was whether the respondents, who had been in possession of the disputed land since 1945, had matured their title through adverse possession, and whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact made by the trial and appellate courts. The Supreme Court held that the respondents' possession from 1945 to 1954 was based on a bona fide, albeit mistaken, belief of being rightful heirs, and therefore could not be characterized as adverse possession during that period. Adverse possession could only be reckoned from 1954, when their claim to inheritance was judicially rejected. Consequently, the suit filed in 1962 was within the 12-year limitation period. The Court affirmed that the High Court erred in disturbing the concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature and commencement of the respondents' possession in a regular second appeal. The key principle laid down is that possession held under a bona fide belief of entitlement as an heir does not constitute adverse possession.
Questions settled- Does possession held under a bona fide belief of being a rightful heir constitute adverse possession?
- From what date does adverse possession commence when a party in possession mistakenly believes they are the lawful heir?
- Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of possession in a regular second appeal?
- ABDUL QADIR vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1644 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QADIR vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2271 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QADIR SHEIKH vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Through Secretary, Irrigation And Power Department, Lahore1987 PLC (C.S.) 51 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-09-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QADIR And Others vs CHAIRMAN, ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE And Other1987 SCMR 2104 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute over the allotment of land in Sahiwal District, originally held by the appellants' predecessor-in-interest. The appellants challenged the confirmation of allotments made to the respondents in 1951, arguing they were entitled to the benefit of a 1956 order by the Rehabilitation Commissioner, which had cancelled various allotments. Although that 1956 order was initially set aside by the High Court in 1957, the Supreme Court later reversed that High Court decision in a separate case (Abdul Hafiz v. Rehabilitation Commissioner). The appellants sought to leverage this Supreme Court judgment to challenge the respondents' 1951 allotments. The core legal question was whether the appellants, who were not parties to the 1957 High Court proceedings and had not challenged the resulting finality of the respondents' allotments, could now claim the benefit of the Supreme Court's reversal of that 1957 decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that because the appellants failed to challenge the 1957 High Court decision, the respondents' allotments became final. The Court affirmed that a party cannot challenge final allotments based on a judgment to which they were not a party.
Questions settled- Can a party claim the benefit of a Supreme Court judgment to challenge an allotment if they were not a party to the proceedings that established the finality of that allotment?
- Does the failure to challenge a High Court decision regarding land allotment render the allotment final and immune to subsequent collateral challenges?
- Does a party have locus standi to reopen settled allotment disputes based on a subsequent judicial reversal of a decision to which they were not a party?
- ABDUL QADIR and another vs KHAN MUHAMMAD1987 MLD 2100 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QADIR and 6 others vs Haji SHAKAR KHAN BARECH1987 CLC 1816 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QADIR AND 5 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD UMAR AND OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 232 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QADIR AND 5 Other vs MUHAMMAD UMAR AND Other1987 PLD Lahore 232 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QADEER vs S. AZEEMUDDIN AHMAD1987 CLC 2347 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This First Rent Appeal arises from an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, allowing the respondent landlord's eviction application against the appellant tenant on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. The appellant challenged the eviction order, contending that the respondent failed to establish his bona fide requirement and had suppressed material facts regarding the ownership of other properties. The core legal questions revolved around whether the landlord successfully proved his personal requirement and whether alleged suppression of material facts vitiated the eviction proceedings. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the landlord's oath regarding his personal requirement, supported by consistent pleadings and unshakeable cross-examination, must be accepted as bona fide. The court laid down the principle that a landlord's assertion on oath for personal requirement is accepted if consistent and unshaken, and mere ownership of other property in the same urban area does not automatically disentitle a landlord from seeking eviction on personal grounds unless lack of bona fides is affirmatively established.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord's unshakeable statement on oath regarding personal requirement is sufficient to establish bona fide need?
- Does mere ownership of property in the same urban area bar a landlord from seeking eviction on the ground of personal requirement?
- What is the legal effect of the suppression of a material fact in an eviction application based on personal requirement?
- ABDUL MATIN vs TAJ MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHSRS1987 PLD Peshawar 45 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-12-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MATIN vs TAJ MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS1987 PLD Peshawar 45 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-12-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MATEEN vs Dr.GUL BANO and others1987 MLD 870 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MANNA N UMAR vs INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN1987 CLC 1214 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MALIK vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 883 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-11-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MALIK vs NATIONAL EDUCATION SOCIETY1987 PLC 224 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-05-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2002 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs S.H.O. POLICE STATION SHUJABAD And Other1987 SCMR 282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner sought the recovery of a young girl, whom he claimed was his wife and was being illegally detained by her father. The respondent father had previously initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner, registering a case under the Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, alleging offenses under sections 10 and 11 of the Ordinance. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition warranted interference by the apex court. Upon hearing the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court found no valid grounds to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The judgment affirms the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with discretionary orders in habeas corpus matters absent compelling legal grounds or manifest error in the lower court's reasoning.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court order dismissing a habeas corpus petition where no valid grounds for interference are shown?
- Is a habeas corpus petition maintainable when criminal proceedings under the Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance are pending against the petitioner?
- ABDUL MAJID vs MUHAMMAD MUJAHID And Other1987 SCMR 1594 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comprises two criminal petitions arising from a violent clash between rival parties over a dispute regarding warabandi, resulting in multiple deaths and injuries on both sides. The trial court had convicted Muhammad Mujahid and Muhammad Shahid under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while acquitting other co-accused. The High Court altered the judgment, prompting cross-petitions before the Supreme Court: one by the convict against his conviction and sentence, and another by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence and challenging the acquittal of Muhammad Shahid. The core legal question involved the determination of criminal liability, the applicability of the right of private defense, and whether the incident constituted a sudden fight attracting Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the grave injuries sustained by the accused and the existence of a sudden fight required deeper examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to the convict for re-appraisal of his case under Section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, granted leave to the complainant solely on the question of sentence enhancement, and dismissed the petition against the acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether the plea of sudden fight under Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is attracted in a cross-clash arising from a warabandi dispute?
- Can a person who has sustained multiple grievous injuries during an attack claim the right of private defence even if the deceased arrived subsequently?
- Whether leave to appeal against acquittal should be maintained when the High Court has rightly appreciated the evidence regarding a co-accused?
- Whether the sentence of a convict should be enhanced when leave to appeal has been granted to examine the mitigation of his criminal liability?
- ABDUL MAJID vs ABDUL NASIR And Another1987 SCMR 1246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by special leave examines whether the accused-respondent's case fell under any exception to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, whether the alteration of his conviction from section 302 to section 304 Part I was legal, and the legality of the sentence regarding fine. The prosecution alleged that the accused waylaid the deceased, a school-mate, and inflicted fatal stab wounds with a Chhuri following a property dispute between their families. The trial court convicted the accused under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, holding that no exception applied. The High Court altered the conviction to section 304 Part I. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in altering the conviction, as the pre-meditated attack, the weapon used, and the force applied clearly established intentional murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without attracting any exceptions. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the conviction and sentence under section 302, and modified the default sentence for non-payment of the enhanced fine.
Questions settled- Whether the act of carrying a concealed weapon to waylaid a victim constitutes pre-meditation excluding the application of exceptions to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an appellate court alter a conviction under Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without evidence of a sudden fight or grave and sudden provocation?
- Whether a default sentence of imprisonment must be awarded when enhancing a fine payable as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased?
- ABDUL MAJID MIRZA And 8 Other vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT, LAHORE1987 PLC (C.S.) 543 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-10-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID KHAN vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE1987 PLC 335 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-06-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID KHALID and others vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and others1987 MLD 2494 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID JAVED vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB And 3 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 522 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-11-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID And Others vs MUHAMMAD WALAYAT KHAN Through His Legal Heirs1987 SCMR 1139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a pre-emption suit regarding agricultural land where the plaintiff valued the suit for court-fee and jurisdiction at Rs.24,300. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the plaintiff's legal representatives successfully appealed to the High Court. The vendees appealed to the Supreme Court, raising the question of whether the first appeal should have been filed in the High Court or the District Court. The core legal question examined was the determination of the forum of appeal based on the value given in the original plaint and the applicability of section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887. The Supreme Court held that the value given in the original plaint controls the forum of appeal, and since the suit was valued at Rs.24,300, the appeal lay before the District Court and not the High Court. The Court further held that section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act cures defects of jurisdiction arising from under or over-valuation in lower courts, but does not apply where an appeal is presented to an entirely wrong appellate forum.
Questions settled- Does the value given in the original plaint control the forum of appeal in pre-emption matters?
- Does section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 apply when a memorandum of appeal is presented to a court that is not the appropriate appellate forum?
- Does an improper valuation of a suit render a decree passed by a competent court a nullity in the absence of prejudice?
- ABDUL MAJID And Another vs SARDAR ALI1987 SCMR 1145(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the concurrent findings of three lower courts which had rejected the petitioners' claim of a preferential right of pre-emption. The matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, where the petitioners' counsel repeatedly sought adjournments over several months, specifically to obtain a copy of the plaint. Despite the Court granting multiple adjournments and explicitly warning that no further time would be allowed, the counsel again requested an adjournment on the final hearing date, citing an inability to contact the petitioners. The Court held that in light of the persistent failure to proceed with the case despite clear warnings and multiple opportunities, no further indulgence could be granted. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution, emphasizing the necessity of diligence in pursuing litigation and the finality of court orders regarding scheduling and adjournments.
Questions settled- Can a petition be dismissed for non-prosecution when counsel repeatedly fails to proceed after being granted multiple adjournments?
- Is a court justified in refusing further adjournments after explicitly warning that no further time will be granted?
- ABDUL MAJEED vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE And Other1987 SCMR 111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJEED represented by Legal Heirs vs LUTFI SIDDIQUI and 2 others1987 CLC 455 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJEED And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2200 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-11Read full judgment →