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 AZIZ and others vs Mst. SAKINA BIBI1987 CLC 823 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ and 6 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1557 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ and 4 others vs KARIM BUX1987 MLD 642 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-27Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 163 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL Alias ABDALI vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 2195(1) · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL ALEEM vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY LAHORE _1987 SCMR 948 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal as time-barred. The appellant, a former employee of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), challenged his removal from service, which occurred on 4th January 1978. After filing a departmental appeal that remained undecided, the appellant filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal on 25th June 1978, beyond the statutory limitation period. The appellant sought condonation of delay, citing ignorance of the law and alleging the removal order was void ab initio and mala fide. The Tribunal refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal primarily to consider whether the Tribunal should have referred the matter to a larger bench due to a potential difference of opinion among its members. The Supreme Court held that the impugned order was signed by both members, indicating no disagreement, and rejected the claim of discrimination. The Court affirmed that condonation of delay is a question of fact dependent on the circumstances of each case, finding no merit in the appeal.
Questions settled- Is the question of whether there is sufficient cause for condoning a delay in filing an appeal generally considered a question of fact?
- Can an appellate court interfere with a tribunal's order based on an alleged difference of opinion among its members when the written order is signed by all members without indication of dissent?
- Does the fact that other appeals may have been admitted to regular hearing by a tribunal automatically entitle an appellant to similar treatment without proof of similarity in facts?
- ABDUL ALEEM and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2253 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-23Read full judgment →
- ABBAS SHAH vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1114 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-20Read full judgment →
- ABBAS KHAN KHATTAK vs PAKISTAN FOREST INSTITUTE AND 2 OTHERS1987 PLD Peshawar 57 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
- ABBAS KHAN KHATTAK vs PAKISTAN FOREST INSTITUTE AND 2 Other1987 PLD Peshawar 57 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
- ABBAS KHAN And 5 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1951 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-13Read full judgment →
- ABBAS And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2255 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-04Read full judgment →
- ABBAS ALI And Another vs THE STATE And 2 Other1987 SCMR 1855 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two petitions arising from a criminal conviction: a jail petition by the convict, Abbas Ali, challenging his conviction and sentence for murder, and a petition by the complainant, Muhammad Tufail, seeking the restoration of the death penalty. The petitioner was convicted by the trial court under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Abdul Rehman, receiving a death sentence. The High Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment while imposing a compensation order. The core legal question was whether the petitioner acted in self-defence and whether the sentence reduction was appropriate. The Supreme Court rejected the plea of self-defence, finding the medical evidence regarding the injuries sustained by the petitioner's father inconsistent with the defence version, rendering it an afterthought. Regarding the sentence, the Court held that since the murder was not premeditated and occurred following an altercation involving the petitioner's father, the High Court's discretion to reduce the sentence was sound. Both petitions were dismissed, affirming the conviction and the commuted sentence.
Questions settled- Can a plea of self-defence be sustained when medical evidence contradicts the physical circumstances of the alleged struggle?
- Is a sentence of death mandatory for a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the absence of premeditation justify the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- ABBAS ALI and 3 others vs GLAMOUR and another1987 CLC 689 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
- ABBA UMER KASBATI and others vs CHAIRMAN, EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY1987 MLD 1106 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
- ABADAN and others vs Mst. JANNA T and another1987 CLC 1048 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
- AAMER HAYAT KHAN vs Dr. SHER AFGAN and another1987 MLD 37 · Election Tribunal · 1986-10-26Read full judgment →
- A.R. SMITH & CO. Through Zafar Lqbal And Another vs GRINDLAYS BANK LTD1987 SCMR 392(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-16Read full judgment →
- A.R. MUHAMM D SIDDIQ vs EASTERN FEDERAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., KARACHI1987 MLD 1265 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- A.K.KHALID, MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES) PUNJAB, LAHORE And Others vs REHMAT ALI1987 SCMR 1066 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court which had granted proprietary rights in Government land to the respondent. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the petitioners' counsel informed the Court that there had been a change in Government policy regarding the subject matter. Consequently, the petitioners indicated they would no longer object to the grant of the excess land, provided that specific conditions were fulfilled. The respondent's counsel agreed that his client would comply with these conditions. Both parties, along with a representative from the Board of Revenue, presented a signed compromise agreement to the Court. The Supreme Court accepted this compromise and disposed of the petition in terms of the agreement, with no order as to costs. The judgment essentially records the settlement reached between the parties based on the revised Government policy, thereby resolving the dispute regarding the proprietary rights without a contested adjudication on the merits.
Questions settled- Can a petition regarding the grant of proprietary rights in government land be disposed of based on a compromise between the parties?
- Does a change in government policy regarding land grants constitute a valid basis for settling a pending dispute before the Supreme Court?
- A.A. ZUBERI vs THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, RAWALPINDI And 3 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 705 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1987-05-12Read full judgment →
- A.A. FERNANDES vs A.L. FAROOKI & COMPANY1987 PLC 75 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-08-05Read full judgment →
- A.A. BURNEY vs THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF SIND And 26 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 860 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-06-18Read full judgment →
- A. RAZZAQUE KHAN And 2 Other vs Messrs ALLIED SYNTHETIC MILLS1987 PLC 403 · Labour Court · 1986-03-13Read full judgment →
- A. R. KHAN vs P. N. BOGA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR1987 PLD Supreme Court 107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute over the transfer of an evacuee property, Bungalow No. 1, Canal Bank, Lahore. The core legal question was whether a party to a compromise order, which had been sanctified by the Custodian of Evacuee Property, could subsequently challenge the transfer of the property in constitutional jurisdiction, and whether the appellant had acquired valid possession entitling him to such transfer. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the transfer. The Court ruled that the compromise order was a binding, lawful settlement that the respondent was estopped from repudiating after having accepted its benefits, specifically the continued occupation of the property. The Court emphasized that a party cannot approbate and reprobate by accepting the advantages of a compromise while challenging its obligations. Furthermore, the Court clarified that symbolic possession, when recognized by a valid compromise and the relevant authorities, suffices for the purpose of transfer under the settlement scheme. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, recalled the writ, and restored the orders of the Settlement Authorities.
Questions settled- Can a party to a compromise order, after accepting its benefits, subsequently challenge the validity of that order in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does symbolic possession of an evacuee property, established through a valid compromise, satisfy the requirement of possession for the purpose of property transfer?
- Is a party permitted to approbate and reprobate by accepting the advantages of a court-sanctioned compromise while repudiating its obligations?
- Does the doctrine of election apply when a party is not confronted with two mutually exclusive courses of action?
- A. HAMID SIAL vs THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1987 SCMR 1480 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by way of a petition for special leave to appeal against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 12-5-1982. The petitioner, an Assistant Soil Survey Research Officer in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, sought the upgradation of his post to N.P.S.-17 with effect from 28-8-1972, parity with certain other posts in the Ministry, rather than from the later date of 21-10-1978 granted by the authorities. The Federal Service Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's appeal, holding that the determination of the date for upgrading appointments lies within the discretion of the Government, while making a recommendation for the Government to examine the grievance. The core legal question concerns whether the Service Tribunal or the Court can interfere with the Government's executive discretion regarding the effective date of upgrading a civil servant's post. The Supreme Court held that no substantial question of law of public importance arises in the matter, and accordingly dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that the timing of upgradation is a matter for the Government to determine.
Questions settled- Whether the Government has the discretion to determine the effective date for upgrading various appointments in public service?
- Does the refusal of the Federal Service Tribunal to interfere with the executive date of a post's upgradation raise a substantial question of law of public importance?
- A. HAI USMANI vs QAMAR JEHAN1987 MLD 2110 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-10Read full judgment →
- A. HABIB AHMAD vs THE HONG KONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION1987 CLC 1919 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-02Read full judgment →
- A SH IQ H U SS AIN vs Mst. PATHANI and 2 others1987 CLC 1705 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-22Read full judgment →
- A LIM KHAN vs MUHAMMAD YASEEN KHAN1987 CLC 2305 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
- A BD UR RA HIM vs SHER GUL and 5 others1987 CLC 1602 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-05Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) SHAMMO MAI vs THE STATEK.L.R. 1987 Shariat Cases 17 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's order rejecting the bail application of the petitioner, Mst. Shammo Mai, who was accused of offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979, alongside an absconding co-accused, Shana. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner's release would facilitate the absconding co-accused in seeking bail. The Supreme Court rejected the State's contention, reasoning that any future bail application by the absconding co-accused would be adjudicated on its own merits, specifically considering the fact of his abscondence. Finding the case fit for the grant of bail, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and ordered the petitioner's release on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds. The decision reinforces the principle that the bail application of an accused should be decided on its own merits, independent of the potential tactical advantages it might offer to an absconding co-accused.
Questions settled- Does the grant of bail to one accused automatically entitle an absconding co-accused to bail?
- Should a bail application be denied based on the apprehension that it might assist an absconding co-accused in seeking bail?
- (Mst) SHEEMA vs THE STATEK.L.R. 1987 Shariat Cases 42 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
- (MESSRS) SHAMSHI CLOTH & GENERAL MILLS LTD. vs SHAMSHI CLOTH &K.L.R. 1987 Labour and Services Cases 26 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-08Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2283 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-04Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR vs MUHAMMAD ILYAS AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Lahore 16 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR and others vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KHANEWAL and others1986 MLD 2272 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-25Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1443 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-12Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR ALI vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2627 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-13Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR ALI vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1241 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-15Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR ALI vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1986 PLC 625 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-12-20Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR ALI Alias KAKA vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1013 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-11Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR AHMED And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1798 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-02-08Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR AHMAD vs THE STATE1986 PLD Supreme Court 477 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal concerning a murder conviction and connected acquittals stemming from an old blood feud between two families. The core legal question revolves around the proper appreciation of ocular testimony, specifically whether the principle that an eyewitness's credibility is indivisible applies—requiring independent corroboration against remaining accused when disbelieved regarding the majority—and whether the conviction of the sole remaining appellant could be sustained in the absence of such corroboration. The Supreme Court held that there was considerable force in the contentions that the High Court failed to properly apply well-established principles of evidence appreciation after rejecting the core of the eyewitness testimony and disbelieving the motive and abscondance evidence qua the co-accused. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to both the convict and the State to examine whether settled evidentiary standards were correctly observed.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of an eyewitness can be relied upon against a remaining accused without independent corroboration when it has been disbelieved regarding the majority of the co-accused?
- Does the existence of a deep-rooted blood feud necessitate a stricter application of the rule of caution in assessing interested or partisan witness testimony?
- Whether the acquittal of co-accused based on discredited ocular and abscondance evidence warrants the grant of leave to appeal by the State?
- ZULEFQAR ALI vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB1986 SCMR 974 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises out of suit proceedings instituted by the petitioner for rendition of accounts against the respondent. The trial court framed a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the suit and dismissed it without going into evidence. The appellate court dismissed the petitioner's appeal, and the High Court in revisional jurisdiction refused to allow an amendment of the plaint to convert the claim into one for payment of money, holding that it would set up a new case after inordinate delay. The core legal question is whether an amendment of the plaint seeking to change the nature of the suit from rendition of accounts to payment of money can be permitted at the revisional stage after prolonged litigation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings were unexceptionable as the petitioner persisted with the original form of the suit for years and attempted to set up a new case at a belated stage. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff can be permitted to amend the plaint at the revisional stage to convert a suit for rendition of accounts into one for payment of money?
- Does seeking a specific amount at the revisional stage amount to setting up a new case after inordinate delay?
- ZOYAB vs Hakeem MUHAMMAD FAZAL HAQUE1986 SCMR 1864 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an application for the summary dismissal of an appeal filed by a tenant challenging his eviction from a shop, on the ground that the appellant did not sign the power of attorney in favour of the Advocate-on-Record and that the petition was filed by a third party through forgery. The core legal question concerns whether an appeal should be summarily dismissed due to alleged forgery and discrepancies in the appellant's signatures on the power of attorney. The Supreme Court held that the application lacks merit and dismissed it, ruling that since the appellant himself and the Advocate-on-Record both unequivocally affirmed and owned the signatures and the filing of the petition, minor spelling differences or variations in signatures of a poorly literate person do not invalidate the proceedings or establish forgery. The key principle laid down is that a litigant is entitled in law to own and ratify a power of attorney and the acts done thereunder, and visible or spelling differences in signatures alone do not constitute sufficient grounds to dismiss an appeal when the purported principal expressly owns them.
Questions settled- Can an appeal be summarily dismissed on the ground that the appellant's signatures on the power of attorney differ from those on previous judicial records?
- Whether a litigant can own and ratify a power of attorney and the legal actions taken on their behalf notwithstanding formal defects?
- Does a visible difference or variation in the spellings of a litigant's signatures by itself establish forgery?
- ZOHR ALI KHAN vs MUHAMMAD YUSUF1986 CLC 1301 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-01-29Read full judgment →
- ZIMPEX LIMITED vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE And Other1986 SCMR 1988 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arose from a dispute regarding the eligibility of the petitioner for assessment under the self-assessment scheme for the income tax assessment year 1983-84. The petitioner initially filed an income tax return but subsequently filed a document captioned as a 'revised return'. The Income-tax Officer denied the petitioner's request for self-assessment, determining that the filing of a revised return excluded the case from the scheme's purview. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, relying on the petitioner's own pleadings that the document was filed under Section 57 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979. The Supreme Court addressed whether the mere captioning of a return as 'revised' could be disregarded when the petitioner had explicitly pleaded it as such in the writ petition. The Court held that the High Court's decision was correct, as the petitioner's own admissions precluded them from arguing otherwise. The Court affirmed that a return filed under Section 57 falls outside the scope of the self-assessment scheme pursuant to the explanation to Section 59(1) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979.
Questions settled- Does the filing of a revised return under Section 57 of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979 exclude a taxpayer from the self-assessment scheme?
- Can a petitioner contradict their own pleadings regarding the nature of a filed return during appellate proceedings?
- Does a return of total income furnished under Section 55 of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979 include a return furnished under Section 57?
- ZIAUR REHMAN vs THE STATE1986 PLD Lahore 428 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses a batch of five connected writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Martial Law Regulations, special military court trials, detentions, and convictions handed down during the military regime of General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan. The core legal questions involve the precise scope and effect of the validating provisions (specifically Articles 280, 281, and 295) of the Interim Constitution of Pakistan 1972 in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Miss Asma Jilani v. Government of the Punjab (PLD 1972 SC 139), which declared the Yahya Khan regime illegal and its legislation void ab initio. The court held by majority that while the Interim Constitution and its validating clauses are generally valid as an act of the chosen representatives under the doctrine of necessity, Article 281(2) does not bar judicial review of actions tainted with mala fides, coram non judice, or lack of proper jurisdiction, nor does it protect proceedings of a farcical military trial. Consequently, the convictions and sentences of the petitioners were declared without lawful authority and set aside.
Questions settled- Whether Article 281 of the Interim Constitution of Pakistan 1972 ousts the jurisdiction of superior courts to review mala fide or coram non judice actions taken during the martial law regime?
- Does the validation of laws under Article 281 of the Interim Constitution of Pakistan 1972 protect convictions and sentences rendered by military courts in trials conducted without lawful authority?
- Whether the Interim Constitution of Pakistan 1972 and its validating clauses override the legal principles enunciated in Miss Asma Jilani v. Government of the Punjab regarding the illegality of the Yahya Khan regime?
- Are proceedings conducted by a military court during martial law subject to judicial review after the lifting of martial law and the commencement of the Interim Constitution?
- ZIAUDDIN AND 4 OTHERS vs GHIASUDDIN AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Lahore 284 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-13Read full judgment →
- ZIAFAT PINAH And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1850 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-29Read full judgment →
- ZIA UD DIN AHMAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ELECTION TRIBUNAL, SIALKOT1986 CLC 2535 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-27Read full judgment →
- ZIA MOHIUDDIN KHAN vs SECRETARY GENERAL, FINANCE And 4 Other1986 SCMR 782 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Inspector in the Department of Central Excises and Land Customs, sought leave to appeal against the order of the Services Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal as barred by time. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner was entitled to exclude the time spent on making multiple representations under the Civil Servants Act for the purpose of computing the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the Services Tribunal was correct in dismissing the appeal as time-barred, finding that the statutory provision does not permit a series of successive representations to continuously extend the limitation period. The key principle laid down is that the making of multiple or second representations does not entitle a civil servant to exclude time under the law for the purpose of overcoming limitation delays in service appeals.
Questions settled- Whether multiple representations made by a civil servant extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Can time spent on a second representation be excluded for computing the period of limitation under the Civil Servants Act?
- Whether an appeal filed before the Service Tribunal beyond the prescribed period of one month is liable to be dismissed as time-barred?
- ZEHRI KHAN vs Syed WARASAT HUSSAIN and 10 others1986 MLD 90 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-08Read full judgment →
- ZEENAT BEGUM And ANOTHER vs JAN MIR KHAN And 8 OTHER1986 CLC 2923 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil miscellaneous appeal challenges an order of the Additional District Judge dismissing the appellants' application for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The appellants, daughters of the first respondent, sought to challenge a power of attorney and subsequent gift mutations executed by their father in favor of a deceased brother's widow during the father's lifetime, alleging fraud, undue influence, and mental incapacity. The core legal question was whether presumptive heirs have a prima facie right during the lifetime of an ancestor to challenge a property transfer or gift made by the ancestor. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under Islamic law and established jurisprudence, an heir apparent or presumptive has no interest in praesent or right of spes successionis during the ancestor's lifetime, and thus cannot maintain a suit to challenge such transfers until succession opens upon the ancestor's death. The key principle laid down is that during the lifetime of an ancestor, an heir has no locus standi or prima facie case to challenge gifts or property dispositions made by the ancestor.
Questions settled- Whether an heir apparent or presumptive has a legal right or interest in praesent in the property of an ancestor during the ancestor's lifetime?
- Can a presumptive legal heir challenge the validity of a gift made by an ancestor during the lifetime of that ancestor?
- Is an interim injunction granted as a matter of course in a suit seeking permanent injunction?
- What are the essential ingredients required for the grant of an ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- ZEAL PAK CEMENT FACTORY Ltd. and another vs FARID ENTERPRISES and 51986 MLD 1882 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-22Read full judgment →
- ZARINA BEGUM And Another vs MANZOOR ELAHI And Other1986 SCMR 790 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of a regular second appeal concerning the partition of a disputed house transferred under settlement laws. The core legal question was whether the petitioners successfully established that the deed of association and affidavit used to secure a Permanent Transfer Deed were forged and fabricated, and whether the civil suit was barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that in the absence of summoning and producing the original documents from the High Court, oral evidence alone was insufficient to prove forgery, making any examination of the res judicata plea a futile exercise. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that failure to produce primary documentary evidence regarding disputed thumb-marks is fatal to a claim of fabrication.
Questions settled- Can the alleged forgery of a settlement deed of association be established solely through oral evidence without producing the original documents?
- Whether the failure to summon original documents from the High Court in a civil suit is fatal to a plea of fabrication?
- ZARIN And Others vs PIR MUHAMMAD And Other1986 SCMR 1021 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a review petition filed against a previous judgment of the Court. The main contention raised by the petitioner was that the judgment contained an apparent error of law by holding that the High Court lacked the power to record additional evidence in its revisional jurisdiction. Upon hearing counsel, the Supreme Court clarified that its earlier judgment did not hold that the High Court had no power to record additional evidence, but rather determined that the High Court was not justified in doing so under the specific circumstances of the case. The Court emphasized that the existence of a power is distinct from the justification for its exercise. Furthermore, the Court noted that the remaining grounds urged by the petitioner merely constituted an impermissible attempt to reargue the appeal at the review stage. Consequently, finding no merit in the contentions, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the power to record additional evidence in revisional jurisdiction?
- Is the justification for exercising a jurisdiction distinct from the existence of that power?
- Can a review petition be used to reargue the original appeal?
- ZARIF AHMAD KHAN AND OTHERS vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS1986 PLD Lahore 327 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-01Read full judgment →
- ZARIF AHMAD KHAN And 3 Others vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB And Another1986 SCMR 684 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their civil revision by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the concurrent rejection of their plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground that the suit was barred under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners had filed a representative suit seeking an injunction against the proposed auction and lease of an adjoining hill for excavating stones under the Regulation of Mines and Oilfields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act, 1948, alleging public and private nuisance. The core legal question was whether the suit was barred under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for lack of requisite sanction and whether a private nuisance was sufficiently disclosed. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the substance of the plaint disclosed a case of public nuisance requiring sanction under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, though clarifying that the rejection of the plaint does not preclude recasting the grievance for personal nuisance, and noting that mining operations remain strictly regulated by the Mining Concession Rules.
Questions settled- Does a suit concerning the excavation of stones near a locality primarily constitute a public nuisance requiring sanction under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the rejection of a plaint for public nuisance preclude plaintiffs from recasting their grievance to establish a private personal nuisance?
- Does the mere leasing of an area for mining authorize the immediate undertaking of offensive mining activities without statutory permissions?
- ZARIF AHMAD KHAN And 3 Others vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB And Another1986 SCMR 423 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their civil revision by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the concurrent rejection of their plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground that the suit was barred under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners had filed a representative suit seeking an injunction against the proposed auction and lease of a site for excavating stones under the Regulation of Mines and Oilfields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act, 1948, alleging public and private nuisance. The core legal question was whether the suit was barred under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for want of statutory sanction. The Supreme Court held that the substance of the plaint disclosed a case of public nuisance rather than private nuisance, rendering the suit incompetent without the sanction prescribed under Section 91. The Court also observed that the lease of the area did not authorize mining activities without requisite permissions under the Mining Concession Rules. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Whether a suit concerning a public nuisance is barred under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the absence of statutory sanction?
- Does the lease of an area for mining automatically authorize the lessee to carry out offensive mining activities without obtaining prior permission under the Mining Concession Rules?
- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the grievance amounts to a public nuisance rather than a private personal nuisance?
- ZAR SHAH vs FAZAL AHMAD1986 PLD Peshawar 159 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-05-06Read full judgment →
- ZAR GHAFFAR AND ANOTHER vs USMAN AND 2 OTHERS1986 PLD Rev. 25 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1977-11-14Read full judgment →
- ZAPAR AHMAD vs Mst. HAJRAN BIBI1986 PLD Lahore 399 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises from the dismissal of a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction concerning an evacuee property. The petitioner claimed title based on an alleged agreement to sell and adverse possession. The core legal question was whether a suit for declaration of title is maintainable based solely on an agreement to sell, and whether such an agreement creates a legal interest in immovable property. The Court held that an agreement to sell does not create any right, title, or interest in immovable property and, consequently, cannot support a suit for declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. The Court affirmed that the proper legal remedy in such circumstances is a suit for specific performance. Furthermore, the Court rejected the petitioner's claim of adverse possession due to a complete lack of evidence and noted the failure to demonstrate that the suit was filed within the limitation period. The revision was dismissed in limine as the petitioner failed to establish a maintainable cause of action or provide necessary evidentiary support for his claims.
Questions settled- Does an agreement to sell create any right, title, or interest in immovable property?
- Is a suit for declaration of title maintainable based solely on an agreement to sell?
- What is the appropriate legal remedy for a party seeking to enforce an agreement to sell?
- Can a suit for declaration be maintained without the plaintiff establishing a legal character or right to the property?
- ZAMIRUL HASSAN TAQVI and another vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, HYDERABAD1986 MLD 150 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-15Read full judgment →
- ZAMIR AHMAD SIDDIQUI vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN through the Ministry of Labour and Manpower and Overseas Pakistan (Manpower Division), Islamabad and 2 others1986 MLD 200 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-30Read full judgment →
- ZAKIRA BEGUM And Others vs AZIZ AHMAD And OTHER1986 CLC 2410(2) · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-13Read full judgment →
- ZAKIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2742 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-23Read full judgment →
- ZAKAULLAH And Another vs SAFDAR And Other1986 SCMR 1873 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses two connected petitions for leave to appeal filed by landlords against tenants arising from ejectment proceedings. The original landlady sought eviction on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal requirement for her daughter. The Rent Controller ordered eviction for default but rejected the personal requirement ground. On appeal, the High Court set aside the eviction, holding that legal representatives of a deceased tenant are not liable for default committed prior to the tenant's death under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, and further that the personal requirement provision does not extend to the grandchildren of the landlord. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that important questions of law were raised regarding whether successors are liable for a deceased tenant's prior default and whether a child's personal requirement includes the use of their own children under the applicable rent law.
Questions settled- Whether the legal representatives of a deceased tenant are liable for a default in rent committed by the original tenant during his lifetime?
- Does the personal requirement of a landlord's child under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance encompass the requirement of the grandchildren of the landlord?
- ZAINUL ZAHIDEEN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1022 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
- ZAHUR BIBI vs KHALIL AHMAD and others1986 MLD 2502 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-09Read full judgment →
- ZAHOOR MUHAMMAD QURESHI vs SADRUDDIN1986 MLD 279 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-22Read full judgment →
- ZAHOOR HUSSAIN SHAH vs ILAHI BUX1986 MLD 678 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-16Read full judgment →
- ZAHOOR DIN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2310 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-03-09Read full judgment →
- ZAHOOR AHMAD vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1384 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-14Read full judgment →
- ZAHOOR AHMAD vs Ch. GHULA.M RASOOL WARRAICH and 6 others1986 MLD 1179 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-27Read full judgment →
- ZAHOOR AHMAD vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL:1986 MLD 1389 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-31Read full judgment →
- ZAHOOR AHMAD And 2 Others vs GHULAM NABI1986 CLC 506 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
- ZAHIR SHAH vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1503 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-03-01Read full judgment →
- ZAHIDA KHANUM and another vs RIFATULLAH KHAN and another1986 MLD 1462 · Sindh High Court · 1955-01-09Read full judgment →
- ZAHID BEG vs THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENTMAYO HOSPITAL, LAHORE And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 685 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-04-23Read full judgment →
- ZAHID ALI KHAN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and 63 others1986 MLD 1568 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-10Read full judgment →
- ZAHEER HAIDER vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD, FAISALABAD And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 469 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-10-28Read full judgment →
- ZAFFAR ALI SHAH vs USMAN1986 PLD Rev. 101 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1975-08-06Read full judgment →
- ZAFFAR ALI KHAN vs Tim STATE1986 PLD Sh. C (A J & K) 74 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-01-20Read full judgment →
- ZAFARULLAH vs MUHAMMAD AKBAR and another1986 MLD 1755 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-20Read full judgment →
- ZAFARULLAH KHAN vs THE STATE1986 PLD Lahore 216 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-16Read full judgment →
- ZAFARULLAH KHAN vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE NAZ and 2 others1986 MLD 1713 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-14Read full judgment →
- ZAFARU DDIN vs Mst. QAISER JAHAN alias NOOR JAHAN1986 MLD 1621 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-04Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR ZAID AHMAD vs ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF KARACHI PORT TRUST, KARACHI And 2 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 730 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- ZAFAR IQBAL vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1904 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-16Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR IQBAL vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1417 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-16Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR IQBAL vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND s1986 PLD Supreme Court 343 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the dismissal of a civil servant for misconduct involving the tampering of official court records. The core legal question was whether, under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, a second show-cause notice must specify the exact major penalty proposed to be imposed, or if a general reference to 'a major penalty' suffices. The Supreme Court held that the requirement for a second show-cause notice is satisfied when the accused is informed that a major penalty is proposed. The Court reasoned that the specific nature and severity of the penalty are matters to be determined after the accused has been afforded an opportunity to be heard, and the authority retains the discretion to modify the proposed penalty based on the hearing. The principle laid down is that the law does not mandate the notification of the specific major penalty in the show-cause notice, provided the accused is given a fair opportunity to be heard regarding the imposition of a major penalty.
Questions settled- Does a second show-cause notice under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975 require the specification of the exact major penalty to be imposed?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with findings of fact made by a Service Tribunal in the absence of a substantial question of law of public importance?
- Is it legally permissible for a disciplinary authority to inform an accused that 'a major penalty' is proposed without specifying which of the major penalties is intended?
- ZAFAR IQBAL vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES) And OTHER1986 CLC 1047 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-29Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR IQBAL vs IMTIAZ HUSSAIN PHULPOTO1986 MLD 2001 · Election Tribunal · 1986-03-29Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR IQBAL Petitioner vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2003 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-12Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR IQBAL And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 717 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-06Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR IQBAL And Others vs BASHIR AHMAD KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 439 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of immovable property instituted on September 4, 1980. During the proceedings, the petitioners filed an application under Order XIII Rule 2 and Order XVIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to produce in evidence a tape-recorded cassette of a conversation between a plaintiff and a defendant. The trial court refused the application, and the High Court declined to interfere in revision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the refusal by the lower courts to admit additional documentary evidence at a late stage warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that the trial court possessed discretionary power under Order XIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which was exercised judiciously in accordance with the High Court Rules and Orders, and the High Court committed no defect in upholding it. The key principle laid down is that the discretionary exercise of power by a trial court in admitting or refusing late documentary evidence, when based on recorded reasons and consistent with procedural rules, will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court has discretion to refuse the production of documentary evidence sought to be introduced at a late stage under Order XIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can the High Court's refusal to interfere with a trial court's discretionary order on evidence be challenged before the Supreme Court?
- Whether failure to file a list of documents in terms of High Court Rules and Orders permits the unrestricted late production of documentary evidence?
- ZAFAR IQBAL Alias BILLA vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 716 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-23Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR IQBAL Alias BADRU vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 891 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-22Read full judgment →