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 MAJEED and 6 others vs Mst. HALEEMA and 18 others1987 CLC 2331 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Rahimyar Khan, which dismissed an appeal due to the appellant's failure to append a copy of the decree-sheet to the memorandum of appeal. The core legal question was whether an appellate court is required to grant time for the production of a decree-sheet when it was not initially filed, and whether an appeal is incompetent without such a document. The High Court held that while an appellate court may dispense with the production of a judgment, the filing of a decree-sheet is mandatory under Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court observed that the petitioners were indolent, failing to apply for the decree-sheet's preparation or seek condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 for over four months. Consequently, the Court upheld the dismissal of the appeal, affirming that the appellate court committed no illegality in dismissing an appeal that lacked the mandatory decree-sheet and where no effort was made to rectify the omission.
Questions settled- Is an appeal competent if the memorandum of appeal is not accompanied by a copy of the decree-sheet?
- Can an appellate court dispense with the requirement of filing a copy of the decree-sheet under Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the failure to file a decree-sheet with an appeal justify the dismissal of the appeal if the appellant remains indolent for several months?
- ABDUL MABOOD vs Messrs KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION1987 PLC 899 · Labour Court · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL M AJEED vs M.T. ROMANA and others1987 CLC 2352 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL M AJEED vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SHEIKHUPURA and 2 others1987 CLC 303 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1033 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF vs MUNIR AHMAD1987 PLD Karachi 460 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF vs MUNIR AHMAD Opponent1987 PLD Karachi 460 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF vs ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1987 MLD 2606 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-27Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF QURESHI vs CHAIRMAN,WAPDA1987 PLC (C.S.) 441 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-02-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQ vs Messrs. SHAHID MUNEER FACTORY1987 MLD 126 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQ Through Legal Heirs vs BASHIR AHMAD And Other1987 SCMR 1029 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal concerns the validity of a 1958 relinquishment deed executed by Muslim female heirs regarding agricultural land held under limited interest pursuant to Customary Law. The core legal question was whether such a relinquishment, executed before the enactment of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, constituted a valid transfer of rights or an invalid transfer of spes successionis (a mere chance of succession). The Supreme Court held that the relinquishment deed was void and of no legal effect. The Court reasoned that at the time of the deed's execution, the female heirs possessed no vested interest in the property, only a contingent right to succeed upon the termination of the limited estate. Consequently, the transaction amounted to the transfer of spes successionis, which is prohibited under Muslim Personal Law, regardless of the non-applicability of the Transfer of Property Act in the region. The principle laid down is that a Muslim heir cannot validly relinquish or transfer a mere chance of succession, as such rights do not constitute a vested interest until succession opens.
Questions settled- Is the relinquishment of a mere chance of succession (spes successionis) by a Muslim heir valid under Muslim Personal Law?
- Does the non-applicability of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 in a region validate the transfer of a mere chance of succession?
- Do female heirs holding property as limited owners under Customary Law possess a vested right to transfer their inheritance before succession opens?
- ABDUL KHALIQ QURESHI vs ANIS AHMAD and others1987 MLD 2502 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQ CHAUDHRY, SUB ENGINEER vs CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, SARGODHA And Other1987 SCMR 313 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, filed 81 days after the decision, exceeding the 60-day limitation period by 21 days. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to condonation of delay based on the time taken to receive notice of the order and the time spent obtaining a certified copy. The Supreme Court held that while the petitioner was entitled to credit for the period between the announcement of the order and its intimation, he was not entitled to credit for the 15-day period between applying for and collecting the copy. Evidence showed the copy was ready on the day of application, and the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in collection. The Court established the principle that a litigant cannot claim the benefit of time spent obtaining a copy if they were negligent in collecting it once it was ready, particularly when the established practice of the tribunal is to prepare copies promptly and inform applicants.
Questions settled- Is a petitioner entitled to exclude the time taken to collect a certified copy from the limitation period if the copy was ready for collection on the day of application?
- Does the failure to collect a ready certified copy from a tribunal constitute sufficient grounds for condonation of delay?
- Is the period between the announcement of an order and its intimation to a party excludable when computing the limitation period for filing an appeal?
- ABDUL LATIF vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1452 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQ and others vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others1987 CLC 2375 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1596 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 955 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL And Another1987 PLD Lahore 298 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR1987 PLC 890 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE1987 MLD 2284 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM and 5 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1991 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Kadir Shaikh And Zaffar Hussain Mirza, Dd GHULAM ABBAS vs TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI1987 PLD Supreme Court 393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a construction contract dispute between a contractor and the Trustees of the Port of Karachi (KPT). Following delays and disputes over payments for extra work, the matter was referred to an arbitrator, who awarded the contractor a sum including interest. The High Court, in an intra-court appeal, modified the award, disallowing several claims and interest, citing contractual risks and lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act 1940 by re-evaluating factual findings. The Court held that an arbitrator's findings on facts and interpretation of contract terms are generally final and not subject to judicial review unless an error of law is apparent on the face of the award. The Court reinstated the arbitrator's findings on extra work items (a), (c), and (e), finding no error of law. However, it upheld the disallowance of overhead claims and interest for the pre-award period, affirming that interest cannot be awarded as damages for breach of contract absent specific agreement or statutory entitlement.
Questions settled- Can a court re-evaluate factual findings made by an arbitrator under the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Is an arbitrator competent to award interest as damages for breach of contract in the absence of an express agreement or statutory provision?
- Does an arbitrator have the authority to award interest for the period prior to the reference to arbitration?
- Can an award be modified by the court if only specific portions are found to be illegal?
- ABDUL K A RIM vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and another1987 PLD Lahore 298 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JALIL and 2 others vs GH UL AM S A RWA R1987 CLC 1839 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-05-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JABBAR vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 44 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JABBAR vs MUHAMMAD FAHIM AZHAR1987 MLD 667 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JABBAR KHAN vs CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL OF ISLAMIC IDEOLOGY And 31987 PLC (C.S.) 198 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-12-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JABBAR CHAUDHRY vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2201 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JABBAR and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1839 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HUSSAIN KHAN MUHAMMAD through Legal Heirs vs MUHAMMAD1987 CLC 499 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAQUE vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN And Other1987 SCMR 1735 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Baluchistan Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's claim for pro forma promotion to the post of Horticulturist (Grade-18) with retrospective effect from 28-5-1979. The petitioner, an Agriculture Assistant, had his promotion deferred by the Departmental Selection Board due to a pending criminal case. Following his acquittal, he was promoted in 1982 and subsequently sought retrospective promotion and financial benefits, citing government policy regarding civil servants cleared of charges. The Service Tribunal rejected the claim, reasoning that promotion is not a vested right and that no junior officer had been promoted in supersession of the petitioner. The Supreme Court, noting the petitioner's arguments regarding the existence of specific government policy circulars governing pro forma promotion for employees cleared of criminal charges and the potential error in the Tribunal's assessment of his eligibility, found that the points raised deserved consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the merits of the claim.
Questions settled- Is promotion a vested right of a civil servant?
- Does a government policy allowing pro forma promotion for employees acquitted of criminal charges create an enforceable entitlement?
- Can a civil servant claim pro forma promotion if no junior officer was promoted in their supersession?
- ABDUL HAQUE KHOSO vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN1987 SCMR 1800 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Assistant Agricultural Engineer, challenged his repatriation from the Province of Baluchistan to the Province of Sind following the dissolution of the former Province of West Pakistan. Although initially allocated to Sind under the Province of West Pakistan (Dissolution) Order, 1970, the Governor of Baluchistan had previously accepted the petitioner's representation, confirming his status as a local resident and absorbing him into the Baluchistan provincial service. Years later, the Government of Baluchistan issued a notification repatriating the petitioner to Sind. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition on the grounds of laches, noting a nine-year delay and the petitioner's cessation of service. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. The Court held that the petitioner's contentions—specifically regarding the finality of the Governor's earlier absorption order, the lack of legal authority for the subsequent repatriation after years of service, and the necessity of a departmental inquiry prior to removal—raised substantial questions of law requiring further examination. The matter was admitted for hearing on the merits.
Questions settled- Can a provincial government repatriate a civil servant to another province after having previously absorbed that servant into its own cadre?
- Does the doctrine of laches apply when a civil servant has been actively pursuing representations before the government?
- Is a departmental inquiry mandatory before a government can issue an order effectively removing a civil servant from its provincial service?
- Does the Governor of a province retain the power to re-allocate a civil servant under the Province of West Pakistan (Dissolution) Order, 1970, years after the dissolution of the former Province of West Pakistan?
- ABDUL HAQUE and another vs PAKISTAN RAILWAY TELECOMMUNICATION1987 MLD 898 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAQ vs Mst. GHULAM FATIMA and 3 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 574 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAQ vs Mst. GHULAM FATIMA And 3 Other1987 PLD Lahore 574 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID, P.S.I., ABBOTTABAD vs GOVERNMENT OF N. W.F.P. And 3 Other1987 SCMR 904 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the North-West Frontier Province Service Tribunal regarding adverse remarks in a police officer's confidential report. The core legal question is whether the Service Tribunal erred in retaining specific adverse remarks concerning the petitioner's alleged failure to report for duty and misuse of medical leave, despite evidence showing the petitioner had reported for duty and that his medical leave had been duly sanctioned. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal's order contained a factual inconsistency. While the Tribunal expunged certain remarks, it retained others that contradicted the established record of the petitioner's service history. The Court found that since the petitioner had indeed reported for duty and his medical leave applications were sanctioned by the relevant authorities, the remaining adverse remarks required further judicial scrutiny. The principle laid down is that adverse remarks in a confidential report cannot be sustained when they are factually inconsistent with the official service record, particularly where leave has been sanctioned by competent authority.
Questions settled- Can adverse remarks regarding a failure to report for duty be sustained when official records confirm the officer reported for duty?
- Is an order of a Service Tribunal legally inconsistent if it retains adverse remarks that contradict the factual record of sanctioned medical leave?
- Does the sanctioning of medical leave by a competent authority negate an adverse remark alleging the misuse of such leave to avoid a posting?
- ABDUL HAMID vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY And Another1987 SCMR 1942 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an order of the Federal Service Tribunal which upheld the removal of the appellant, an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), from service. The appellant had a history of disciplinary actions, including multiple charge-sheets and punishments, before being removed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Federal Service Tribunal possessed jurisdiction to interfere with WAPDA's orders regarding its employees, given the ouster of jurisdiction clause under Section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. Relying on the precedent established in WAPDA v. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi (1986 SCMR 18), the Court affirmed that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited. Furthermore, the Court reviewed the appellant's service record, noting numerous allegations and prior disciplinary actions, and concluded that the removal under Section 17(1-A) was fully justified. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal, upholding the appellant's removal from service.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to interfere with orders passed by WAPDA regarding its employees in light of Section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958?
- Is the removal of a WAPDA employee under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, subject to judicial review by the Federal Service Tribunal?
- ABDUL HAMID vs TOWN COMMITTEE, CHAK .JHUMRA1987 CLC 322 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1459 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID vs MUHAMMAD ALI1987 SCMR 1467 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against concurrent judgments of the lower courts and the High Court which decreed a suit for pre-emption regarding agricultural land based on ownership in the estate. The core legal question is whether the lower forums erred in granting pre-emption in light of the judgment rendered by the Shariat Appellate Bench in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah. The Supreme Court held that the contention raised requires detailed examination and consequently granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that petitions raising substantial questions regarding the applicability of pre-emption laws as interpreted by the Shariat Appellate Bench merit a full hearing.
Questions settled- Whether pre-emption decrees passed prior to the judgment in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah are sustainable?
- Does the right of pre-emption based on being an owner in the estate survive the Shariat Appellate Bench ruling?
- ABDUL HAMID Represented By Legal Heirs And Others vs MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR1987 SCMR 694 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a civil revision against the refusal of a temporary injunction in a civil suit alleging nuisance caused by a factory. The High Court had partly allowed the revision by directing the respondents not to operate the factory during night hours after sunset. The core legal question involved the propriety of interfering with the High Court's discretionary order granting a temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that there was no justification to interfere with the impugned interim order of the High Court, noting that the petitioners had not been vigilant regarding the progress of their suit in the trial court. The petition was accordingly dismissed with directions for the trial court to expedite and conclude the proceedings within six months upon receipt of the returned record, establishing the principle that interim orders in nuisance suits will not be disturbed where trial delays are partly attributable to lack of party vigilance and record transmission.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court's discretionary order granting a temporary injunction in a nuisance suit?
- What is the responsibility of parties regarding the progress of a suit when trial court records are summoned to a higher forum?
- ABDUL HAMID and anothers vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (L) and others1987 CLC 924 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID and another vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ CHAUDHRY and 2 OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 599 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID And Another vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ CHAUDHRY And 2 Other1987 PLD Lahore 599 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID And 5 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 700 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-31Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID and 4 others vs KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and 4 others1987 CLC 2398 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1711 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1707 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-03-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED vs MUHAMMAD ISLAM SIDDIQUI1987 SCMR 580 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Sind High Court which upheld an eviction order against the petitioner for failing to comply with a tentative rent deposit order. The central legal controversy concerns whether the petitioner had timely deposited the rent for November 1977, as the High Court had determined that if the payment for that month was regularized, the subsequent payments would also be considered regular. The petitioner contended, supported by the Nazir's report, that he had indeed deposited the rent for November 1977, but the High Court had erroneously attributed the relevant receipt to a separate case between the same parties involving a different shop. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that a thorough examination of the record suggested the eviction order might have been passed in error due to this oversight. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, stayed the eviction of the petitioner subject to continued regular rent deposits, and held that the matter required further consideration on the merits.
Questions settled- Does a failure to properly attribute rent receipts to the correct case constitute sufficient grounds for an eviction order?
- Can a tenant be evicted for non-compliance with a tentative rent order if the record indicates the rent was actually deposited?
- Is a Nazir's report regarding rent deposits a relevant document for determining compliance with a court's tentative rent order?
- ABDUL HAMEED vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD And Other1987 SCMR 1005 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which set aside concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts and dismissed the appellant's suit for specific performance of two agreements of sale. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court could interfere with concurrent findings of fact in revisional jurisdiction without material irregularity, and whether the High Court could non-suit the plaintiff on the ground that time was the essence of the contract without such a plea being raised in the pleadings or issues. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the reliable concurrent findings of fact and in raising the plea of time being the essence of the contract for the first time in revision when it was not pleaded or framed as an issue. The Court laid down that concurrent findings of fact based on reliable oral and documentary evidence cannot be disturbed in revision without a material irregularity or illegality, and a new factual defense not raised in the written statement or issues cannot be entertained for the first time in revisional proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can set aside concurrent findings of fact by the courts below regarding the readiness and willingness of a party in a specific performance suit without showing material irregularity or illegality?
- Can the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction non-suit a plaintiff on the ground that time was the essence of the contract without the plea having been raised in the written statement or framed as an issue?
- Does the failure of lower appellate courts to extensively discuss every piece of defense evidence amount to a material irregularity justifying interference with concurrent findings of fact?
- ABDUL HALEEM vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others1987 MLD 2456 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HALEEM KHAN vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1987 MLD 2598 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAKIM WARSI vs CHIEF EXECUTIVE INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS CORPN.1987 SCMR 1831 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the orders of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner, a former accounts officer who had resigned from his employment, sought financial benefits and filed an application under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The lower forums and the High Court dismissed the claim primarily on the ground that the petitioner was employed in a managerial or supervisory capacity as an Accounts Officer within the meaning of the Newspapers Employees Conditions of Service Act 1973, and was therefore not a workman entitled to maintain the application. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court's factual finding was sustainable. The Court held that since the petitioner failed to controvert or dislodge the factual finding that he worked in a managerial or supervisory capacity, the High Court was justified in dismissing the constitutional petition. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether an employee working in a managerial or supervisory capacity as an Accounts Officer in a newspaper establishment falls within the definition of a workman?
- Can a former employee who has resigned maintain an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent factual findings regarding the nature of an employee's duties when left un-controverted?
- ABDUL HAKIM vs UMRAN KHAN1987 MLD 2378 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAKIM vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE1987 MLD 359 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAI vs Mst. HASEENA KHATOON and 2 others1987 CLC 1765 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAFEEZ vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 409 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAFEEZ PIRZADA vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2415 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HABIB and others vs Mst. ANWAR SULTAN and others1987 CLC 895 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3107 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs BEGUM PARVEEN IQBAL1987 CLC 1670 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI KASHMIRI vs ABDULLAH JAN1987 MLD 456 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI and others vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and another1987 CLC 524 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI and others vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (L) and another1987 CLC 1481 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI alias BODI vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3109 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR. SHAH vs WEST PAKISTAN PROVINCE1987 MLD 334 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs ZAHEER AHMAD And Another1987 SCMR 1601 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant Abdul Ghafoor seeking enhancement of the respondent's sentence from life imprisonment back to death. The respondent Zaheer Ahmad was originally tried and convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Musawar and sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge, which sentence was reduced to life imprisonment by the Sind High Court on the ground of the accused's youthfulness. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in reducing the death sentence to life imprisonment based on the youthfulness of the offender in the circumstances of a calculated daylight murder. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the question of the adequacy of the sentence, finding force in the petitioner's arguments regarding the deliberate and pre-planned nature of the attack and the severity of the injuries inflicted. The principle laid down is that leave to appeal may be granted to examine whether mitigating circumstances such as youthfulness were properly applied by the High Court in heinous murder cases.
Questions settled- Whether youthfulness of an accused is a valid mitigating circumstance for reducing a sentence of death to life imprisonment in a case of deliberate murder?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal for the enhancement of a sentence from life imprisonment to death?
- Whether the infliction of multiple stab wounds to vital organs by design constitutes an extenuating circumstance justifying a lesser penalty?
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs THE STATE.1987 PLD Lahore 307 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs THE STATE1987 P Cr. L J 511 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1146 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs SHAH MUHAMMAD and 4 others1987 MLD 54 · Election Tribunal · 1987-01-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs ABDUS SALAM And Other1987 SCMR 779 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which allowed the respondents' writ petition concerning the transfer of a disputed house originally allotted to their predecessor. The core legal question involved whether the incorrect house number mentioned in the transfer documents could be corrected as a clerical mistake and whether the petitioner, who was inducted as a tenant and acknowledged the tenancy, had a valid claim for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's finding regarding the mistaken house number in the transfer documents was unexceptionable, particularly since the petitioner himself admitted the execution of rent deeds and letters acknowledging tenancy. The Court concluded that the house stood already transferred to the respondents and refused to interfere with the High Court judgment. The key principle laid down is that a tenant who explicitly acknowledges tenancy and whose predecessor's transfer documents contained a genuine typographical or clerical error regarding property numbers cannot claim independent transfer rights to the detriment of the rightful transferees.
Questions settled- Whether an incorrect house number in transfer documents can be treated as a mistake subject to correction?
- Can a tenant who has executed a rent deed and acknowledged tenancy claim transfer of the same property under settlement laws?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court finding of fact based on admissions made by a party and their counsel?
- ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN vs SHAKEEL AHMED SIDDIQUI and 9 others1987 MLD 662 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR GILL vs SENIOR STAFF OFFICER, Office Of The Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Sargodha Zone, Sargodha And Another1987 PLC (C .S .) 125 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1455 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR And Another vs THE STATE And Another1987 SCMR 1761 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR And 9 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 568 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR Alias GHAFOORA And 2 Others vs The STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2447 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1081 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his conviction for murder. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, Abdul Ghaffar, murdered Muhammad Abdullah, a Munshi at the Foodgrain Mandi, Okara, after the deceased refused to pay a demanded 'Jagga tax'. The petitioner was the sole accused in the case. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel raised the sole contention of insanity as a defense. The core legal question before the Court was whether the plea of insanity, having been adjudicated upon by the lower courts, could be re-examined at the stage of a petition for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the plea of insanity constitutes a question of fact. Consequently, the Court affirmed that it would not reconsider findings of fact determined by the lower courts at the leave to appeal stage. The petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court reconsider a plea of insanity during a petition for leave to appeal when it involves a question of fact?
- Is the plea of insanity considered a question of fact in criminal proceedings?
- ABDUL GHAFFAR vs SAKHI SULTAN And 3 Other1987 SCMR 1556 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenges an order of the High Court of Sind disposing of criminal miscellaneous petitions relating to the grant of bail in a case registered under sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the facts as alleged by the prosecution disclosed a case of grave and sudden provocation covered by Exception 1 to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the High Court failed to consider this aspect. The Supreme Court held that the contention raised by the petitioners regarding grave and sudden provocation had force and required further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine this question.
Questions settled- Whether the facts alleged by the prosecution constitute a case of grave and sudden provocation covered by Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Did the High Court fail to advert to the aspect of grave and sudden provocation while dealing with the matter?
- ABDUL GHAFFAR vs NOOR JAHAN MALIK1987 CLC 2182 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an order of the Rent Controller fixing the fair rent of residential premises in Karachi. The central legal question was whether the Rent Controller could rely upon rent agreements of other premises located within the same building to determine the fair rent of the disputed premises under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The High Court dismissed the tenant's appeal, affirming the Rent Controller's decision to fix the rent at Rs. 900 per month. The Court held that evidence of rent for similar premises situated within the same building constitutes the most reliable and evidentiary factor for determining fair rent. Such evidence is superior to comparisons with premises in different buildings, as the same building inherently satisfies the requirement of being in the same locality and circumstances. The Court clarified that the Rent Controller is not restricted from considering such internal evidence when applying the statutory criteria for rent fixation.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller consider rent agreements of other premises located within the same building when fixing fair rent?
- Does the term 'similar premises' under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, exclude premises situated within the same building?
- Is evidence of rent for other units in the same building superior to evidence from adjoining localities for the purpose of fair rent fixation?
- ABDUL GHAFFAR vs KARACHI SHIPYARD AND ENGINEERING WORKS LTD. And Others1987 PLC 697 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had overturned a Labour Court's decision reinstating the petitioner, an Assistant Foreman, after his dismissal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, despite holding a supervisory position, qualified as a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968, thereby entitling him to seek redress for grievance under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The High Court held that the petitioner was indeed a 'workman.' The court reasoned that the definition of 'workman' in the 1968 Ordinance does not exclude employees solely because they perform supervisory functions. Instead, the determination rests on whether the employee performs skilled or manual work. Finding that the petitioner’s duties as an Assistant Foreman required both technical skill and manual labor to guide subordinates, the court concluded he fell within the statutory definition. The principle established is that supervisory status does not preclude 'workman' status if the nature of the duties involves substantial skilled or manual labor.
Questions settled- Does the performance of supervisory duties automatically exclude an employee from the definition of 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Which statutory definition of 'workman' applies when seeking redress for dismissal under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Is an Assistant Foreman who performs technical guidance and manual work considered a 'workman' for the purposes of labour laws?
- ABDUL GHAFFAR vs HUSSAIN BUX and another1987 PLD Karachi 694 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR KHAN vs IKHTIAR AHMED GHAZNAVI1987 CLC 1399 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR KHAN and others vs SAGHIR AHMAD ASLAM and OTHERS1987 PLD Lahore 358 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR KHAN And Other vs SAGHIR AHMAD ASLAM And Other1987 PLD Lahore 358 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR ABDUL REHMAN vs Messrs VOLKART PAKISTAN (Pvt.) Ltd. and 3 others1987 MLD 2085 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GH AFOOR and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2669 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL G H A FOOR vs NAZIR AHMAD and others1987 CLC 826 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL BARI vs Mst. NISHAT AFROZE1987 MLD 1098 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL BAQI and others vs KHUDA BAKHSH and others1987 MLD 2272 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL A:ANAN and others vs SIKANDAR KHAN1987 CLC 1022 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1465 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs THE STATE and another1987 MLD 3187 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs Syed SHAMIM AHMAD1987 CLC 2527 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs RENT CONTROLLER And Other1987 SCMR 2074 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an eviction order passed against the petitioner-tenant on the grounds of reconstruction and default in payment of rent. The Rent Controller and the appellate authority both ordered eviction, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the landlord failed to satisfy the requirement of proving that the premises were 'reasonably and in good faith' required for reconstruction under Section 13(2)(vi) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. Dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts already established the landlord's bona fides and reasonableness. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the settled principle that the production of a sanctioned building plan, coupled with the landlord's willingness to incur substantial reconstruction costs and risk the penal consequences of Section 13(5) of the Ordinance, sufficiently establishes bona fide intent and reasonableness.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord seeking eviction for reconstruction must independently prove reasonableness and good faith if they have produced a sanctioned building plan?
- What is the legal effect of the penal provisions in Section 13(5) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 on proving a landlord's bona fides?
- Does a landlord's desire to substantially develop and improve a property to make it commercially more beneficial satisfy the requirement of reasonable and bona fide reconstruction?
- ABDUL AZIZ vs NOOR MUHAMMAD and others1987 MLD 2343 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs MUHAMMAD SARWAR and 5 others1987 MLD 2219 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs Messrs HOECHST (PAKISTAN) Ltd.1987 PLC 766 · Labour Court · 1987-02-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ TAYEB vs JAWAID GARMENTS INDUSTRIES1987 CLC 2282 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-19Read full judgment →