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.
- ZAFAR ILYAS vs DIRECTOR, NORTHERN CIRCLE, SURVEY OF PAKISTAN, RAWALPINDI And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 109 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-11-07Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR HUSSAIN vs PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI1986 PLC 234 · Labour Court · 1985-01-27Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR HAYAT And Another vs The STATE1986 SCMR 239 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- ZAFAR AND ASSOCIATES vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ And 6 Others1986 PLC 1048 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-07Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR AND ASSOCIATES vs Mian KARAM ELLAHI And 2 Others1986 PLC 396 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-27Read full judgment →
- ZAAB DIN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1986 PLD Peshawar 188 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal and revision petition arose from the conviction of the appellants under Sections 148, 302/149, and 307/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for forming an unlawful assembly, committing rioting, and launching a firearm attack that resulted in one death and injuries to four others. The prosecution's case rested primarily on the testimony of two injured eyewitnesses. However, the High Court observed critical discrepancies: the absence of blood at the alleged points of firing, the unnatural conduct of the witnesses, and the physical impossibility of identifying one appellant from the designated firing points as per the site plan. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer failed to properly record statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, instead destroying original notes and reconstructing statements in the witnesses' absence, which severely prejudiced the defense. Applying the principle that the dishonest implication of innocent persons casts doubt on the entire prosecution case, and noting that abscondence alone cannot substitute for reliable evidence, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants.
Questions settled- What is the legal effect of an investigating officer destroying original notes of oral examinations and reconstructing statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the site plan demonstrates that the accused's firing position was physically invisible to the eyewitnesses?
- Does the dishonest implication of one innocent person in a crime cast a doubt on the credibility of the prosecution's case against the remaining co-accused?
- Is the abscondence of an accused person, by itself, sufficient to establish guilt in the absence of other reliable direct or circumstantial evidence?
- Z AMA N vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1115 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-10Read full judgment →
- Z AFAR SALEEM and 2 others vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SIALKOT1986 MLD 1945 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-18Read full judgment →
- YOUSUF ALI vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 2 others1986 MLD 970 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-11Read full judgment →
- YOUSIF vs STATEPLD 1986 Rev. 49(1) · Sindh Revenue Board · 1978-02-20Read full judgment →
- YOUSIF ALI vs STATE1986 PLD Rev. 56 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1978-03-06Read full judgment →
- YOUSAF JAVAID vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2000 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-14Read full judgment →
- YOUSAF AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Supreme Court 154 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This order disposes of two petitions for leave to appeal filed by tenants against a High Court judgment dismissing their First Rent Appeals against eviction orders issued under Section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. The landlords, acting as Mutwallis (trustees) of a Wakf property, sought eviction of the tenants on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. The primary legal question raised by the petitioners was whether Mutwallis, who do not own the property since ownership of Wakf property vests in the Almighty under Islamic law, qualify as 'landlords' under the Ordinance. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the statutory definition of 'landlord' under Section 2(f) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 includes any person authorized or entitled to receive rent. Furthermore, since the tenants had admitted paying rent to the Mutwallis, they were estopped from challenging their title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act 1872.
Questions settled- Does a Mutwalli or trustee of a Wakf property qualify as a landlord under Section 2(f) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Can a tenant who has paid rent to a Mutwalli challenge the Mutwalli's title or locus standi as a landlord in eviction proceedings under Section 116 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- YOUNUS KHAN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1693 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- YOUNIS MASIH vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2416 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-13Read full judgment →
- YOUNIS HENRY MARCK vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MULTAN And 2 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 940 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-07-30Read full judgment →
- YASIN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1094 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-01Read full judgment →
- YASIN vs CENTRAL GOVERNMENT and others1986 MLD 777 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-02Read full judgment →
- YASIN And Another vs The STATE1986 SCMR 512 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether a criminal conviction for sodomy could be sustained solely upon the solitary statement of the victim and an unproved chemical analyser report, particularly when medical examination occurred twenty-six hours after the incident. The core legal question involved the sufficiency and credibility of the victim's testimony and corroborative evidence in sexual assault cases. The Court held that the conviction of the appellants was well-founded, finding that the victim's testimony was trustworthy and corroborated by eyewitness accounts and medical evidence indicating the use of force and physical trauma. The Supreme Court established that there is no absolute rule of law or prudence requiring corroboration of a victim's testimony if it possesses the requisite quality for conviction, and that the absence of semen detection is not decisive when other medical indicators confirm the commission of the offense. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a conviction rest solely on the solitary statement of the victim in a sodomy case?
- Is corroboration of a victim's testimony strictly required by any rule of law or prudence?
- Does the absence of semen traces alone negate the proof of carnal intercourse when other medical evidence establishes physical trauma?
- YASEEN AHMED vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 729 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
- YAROO vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2206 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-02Read full judgment →
- YAR MUHAMMAD and others vs ABDUL SHAKOOR1986 MLD 2361 · Board of Revenue · 1986-02-05Read full judgment →
- YAQUB KHAN vs THE STATE1986 PLD Peshawar 137 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-04-13Read full judgment →
- YAQUB KHAN and others vs ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (C) and others1986 MLD 420 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-19Read full judgment →
- YAQOOB vs Mst. ZAMMARUD BANO1986 MLD 1398 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-26Read full judgment →
- YAQOOB KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB And Other1986 SCMR 1224 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal challenging the decision of the High Court regarding the price demanded by the Government for the return of land acquired through an oversight and no longer required for the construction of a dam in Tehsil and District Attock. The core legal question was whether the Government could demand the prevalent market price from the original owner for returning land mistakenly acquired, rather than the original acquisition price. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding based on the statement of the Law Officer under Rule 14(2)(ii) of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, that the Government must return the land at the original acquisition price minus the additional 15% given for compulsory acquisition. The key principle laid down is that surplus land erroneously acquired and subsequently returned to the original owner must be priced in accordance with the applicable land acquisition rules governing reconveyance or return.
Questions settled- Whether land acquired through an oversight and no longer required by the Government should be returned at the prevalent market price or the original acquisition price?
- What is the applicable rule governing the price at which mistakenly acquired land must be returned to its original owner in Punjab?
- YAQEEN UD DIN And Others vs ABDUL MAJID And Other1986 SCMR 1198 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a property dispute regarding the Malawa Ram Cotton Factory, which was sold by public auction in 1956. The core legal question is whether the auction sale included Khasra No. 792 in addition to Khasra Nos. 793 and 794. The High Court had previously accepted the respondent's claim, relying on a Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) that included Khasra No. 792, despite noting evidence of record tampering. The Supreme Court observed that the Settlement Commissioner failed to properly examine conflicting sets of documents regarding the property's scope and the authenticity of the records. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the findings and remanded the case to the Notified Officer under the Evacuee and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. The Court directed an inquiry to determine the genuine extent of the auctioned property and to investigate whether the appellants, as alleged allottees, possess the locus standi to challenge the respondent's claim, particularly in light of contentions regarding alternate allotments.
Questions settled- Can a court remand a case for further inquiry when there is a dispute regarding the authenticity of conflicting property records?
- Does a Notified Officer under the Evacuee and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 have the authority to determine the scope of a property sold at auction?
- Is it necessary to determine the locus standi of appellants in a property dispute if they have received alternate allotments?
- YAMEEN vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, GUJRANWALA and 31986 MLD 1002 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-12Read full judgment →
- YAHYA BAKHTIAR vs Shaikh SHAUKAT ALI And Other1986 SCMR 1062 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding an office objection concerning the petitioner's failure to deposit a mandatory fee of Rs.500, which was a prerequisite for the entertainment of the petition. Upon the matter being fixed for orders, the petitioner failed to appear, and the required deposit remained unpaid. Furthermore, the Court examined the nature of the dispute raised in the proceedings and determined that the issues presented were not appropriate for resolution by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court held that the petition was not entertainable due to both the procedural default in depositing the required fee and the substantive unsuitability of the dispute for adjudication by the apex court. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Questions settled- Can a petition be entertained by the Supreme Court if a mandatory fee has not been deposited?
- Is a dispute that is deemed inappropriate for the Supreme Court's jurisdiction liable to be dismissed?
- What is the consequence of a petitioner's failure to appear when a matter is fixed for orders?
- WORKS MANAGER, I.C.I., KHEWRA And Another vs TARIQ AMIR KHAN1986 PLC 292 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-09-27Read full judgment →
- Workman's Compensation And Authority Under The Payment Of Wages1986 PLC 589 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1986-03-09Read full judgment →
- WORKERS ONION (C.B.A.), PARAS TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, BAHAWALPUR vs ALLAH DITTA And 3 Others1986 PLC 1103 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Wing Commander (Rtd.) EBRAHIM GHAZALI vs SHUJAAT HUSSAIN and another1986 MLD 1335 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-02Read full judgment →
- WILLIAM LAWRENCE vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Other1986 SCMR 1077 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These three petitions arose from the import of foodstuffs by the petitioners, who sought clearance of the goods as unaccompanied luggage. Upon re-examination, the customs authorities discovered that the petitioners had misdeclared both the quantity and value of the goods, resulting in revenue loss. Consequently, the Collector of Customs (Preventive) exercised powers under Section 195 of the Customs Act 1969, set aside the initial release order of the Superintendent of Customs, and ordered the confiscation of the goods under Section 156(1)(9) of the same Act. The petitioners challenged this confiscation order directly through constitutional petitions in the Sindh High Court. The High Court dismissed the petitions on the merits and because the petitioners failed to exhaust the alternate and adequate statutory remedy available under Section 196 of the Customs Act 1969. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that constitutional petitions are incompetent when adequate statutory alternative remedies remain unexhausted.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable when an adequate and alternative statutory remedy under the Customs Act 1969 has not been exhausted?
- Can the Collector of Customs exercise powers under Section 195 of the Customs Act 1969 to set aside a release order passed by a subordinate customs officer if misdeclaration is established?
- WILAYAT SHAH vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and 2 others1986 MLD 222 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
- WEST PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs CENTRAL1986 MLD 1521 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-23Read full judgment →
- WAZIR MUHAMMAD and 19 others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS)1986 MLD 2074 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by Wazir Muhammad and 19 others seeking to declare the orders of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Authorities were competent to determine and alter the nature of disputed land from evacuee property to non-evacuee property. The Lahore High Court held that once land was treated and allotted as evacuee property, the Settlement Authorities lacked the jurisdiction to hold otherwise, as the Custodian alone was legally competent to determine and adjudicate the nature of the property. The petition was consequently allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside as being without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that the exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a property is evacuee or not vests in the Custodian, and subordinate settlement authorities cannot unilaterally change the character of such property.
Questions settled- Whether the Settlement Authorities are competent to determine and adjudicate the nature of a property as evacuee or non-evacuee?
- Can the Additional Settlement Commissioner cancel the confirmation of land allotted as evacuee property on the ground that it was resumed prior to partition?
- Who possesses the exclusive competency to determine the status of property as evacuee property?
- WAZIR KHAN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE II, RAWALPINDI And Another1986 SCMR 522 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, by leave of the Supreme Court, arose from a writ petition challenging the decision of the appellate authority (Additional District Judge) which had reversed a Rent Controller's ejectment order. The landlord sought the tenant's eviction on the ground of personal bona fide need for his son's occupation. The appellate authority dismissed the ejectment petition, finding that the landlord had recently got two other similar houses vacated, making his demand for the disputed premises mala fide. The High Court declined to interfere, treating this as a finding of fact. The Supreme Court observed that the other houses were vacated during the pendency of the proceedings, and the tenant had failed to confront the landlord during cross-examination regarding the suitability or adequacy of those alternative properties. Relying on its precedent, the Court held that the suitability of alternative accommodation is a question of fact that must be established through evidence or uncontroverted pleadings. The Court concluded that the appellate authority misdirected itself in law by relying on material not on the record. The appeal was accepted, the orders of the High Court and the appellate authority were set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision.
Questions settled- Can an appellate authority rely on facts and materials regarding alternative accommodation that were not part of the trial record or put to the landlord in cross-examination?
- Whether the suitability and adequacy of alternative accommodation becoming vacant during pendency of ejectment proceedings must be established through evidence or pleadings?
- Is the High Court justified in refusing to interfere under constitutional jurisdiction when an appellate authority's finding of fact is based on misdirection of law and unproven material?
- WAZIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 230 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-10Read full judgment →
- WAZIR AND ANOTHERs vs THE STATE1986 PLD Karachi 646 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-15Read full judgment →
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Sh. ABDUL QADEER1986 SCMR 1541 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which set aside the respondent's removal from service under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, holding it to be a colourable exercise of power because an inquiry for misappropriation and misconduct had been initiated but abandoned. The core legal question is whether action under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 is permissible when a departmental inquiry under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules has already been instituted against an employee. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting previous jurisprudence that action under section 17(1-A) is permissible even where a departmental inquiry has been started, provided the order is not successfully challenged on grounds of mala fides or coram non judice. Leave to appeal on the question of limitation was declined based on findings of fact by the Tribunal.
Questions settled- Whether action under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 is permissible when a departmental inquiry has been initiated against an employee?
- Can an order of removal under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 be challenged on grounds other than mala fides or coram non judice?
- ZAHID HUSSAIN vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 7-5-1984, which had dismissed his Criminal Appeal No. 614 of 1980. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the petition was time-barred by 66 days. Furthermore, the Court examined the merits of the case and determined that, even apart from the issue of limitation, it did not constitute a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition primarily on the ground of limitation. This decision reinforces the principle that petitions for leave to appeal must be filed within the prescribed period of limitation and that the Court retains the discretion to deny leave if the case lacks merit, regardless of procedural hurdles. The judgment underscores the strict adherence required regarding limitation periods in criminal appellate proceedings before the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed solely on the ground of being barred by limitation?
- Does the Supreme Court have the discretion to deny leave to appeal if a case is found to be without merit?
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs MUHAMMAD RASHID1986 SCMR 588 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging the judgment of the Service Tribunal which set aside the respondent's removal from service ordered under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. The respondent, a Budget and Accounts Officer, was removed from service following findings of financial irregularities and failure to exercise proper control and pre-auditing. The Service Tribunal concluded that while some negligence existed, the drastic action of removal under section 17(1-A) was unwarranted given his otherwise brilliant service record, and reinstated him. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal erred in law by interfering with the employer's discretionary removal order under section 17(1-A). The Supreme Court held that orders passed under section 17(1-A) are appealable before the Service Tribunal, and findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal are not open to question under Article 212(3) in the absence of a question of law of public importance. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Are orders passed under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act appealable before the Service Tribunal?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a finding of fact recorded by the Service Tribunal in an appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
- Whether the Service Tribunal can substitute its own judgment for that of the employer in matters of removal from service?
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN1986 PLD Peshawar 81 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
First Appeal against Order was filed by WAPDA challenging the trial court's dismissal of its application to set aside an ex parte decree awarding damages of Rs. 2,42,000 for loss caused by flood water discharge. The trial court had dismissed the application as time-barred under Article 164 of the Limitation Act 1908 and found no sufficient cause for non-appearance. The High Court considered whether Article 164 or the residuary Article 181 applies to setting aside an ex parte decree passed at an adjourned hearing under Order XVII Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Following Supreme Court precedent, the High Court held that Article 164 applies only to ex parte decrees passed at the first hearing under Order IX Rule 6(1)(a), whereas ex parte decrees passed on adjourned dates under Order XVII Rule 2 are governed by Article 181, which provides a three-year limitation period. Consequently, the application was held to be within time, sufficient cause was made out due to counsel's bona fide belief regarding record requisitioning in revision, and the ex parte decree was set aside on terms of heavy costs.
Questions settled- Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs an application to set aside an ex parte decree passed at an adjourned hearing under Order XVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does Article 164 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply only to ex parte decrees passed at the first hearing under Order IX Rule 6(1)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the summoning of trial court records by a revision court operate as an automatic stay of proceedings in the trial court?
- Can a trial court pass a simple ex parte decree for unliquidated damages without assessing evidence regarding loss and negligence?
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs MUHAMMAD DURYAB1986 SCMR 578 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a decision of the Service Tribunal concerning the retirement of a WAPDA employee under Section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958. The core legal questions concerned the scope of the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction over such orders and whether the Tribunal correctly applied the principle of discrimination to establish mala fide. The Service Tribunal had set aside the retirement order, finding it discriminatory because a similarly situated employee had been reinstated. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal’s reasoning was flawed because the comparison case involved materially different facts, specifically regarding the existence of stay orders from the Labour Appellate Tribunal. Furthermore, the Tribunal failed to address the specific grounds raised in the respondent's appeal and relied on irrelevant subsequent events. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, emphasizing that findings of mala fide cannot be based on factually distinct comparisons and that all substantive grounds of appeal must be adjudicated.
Questions settled- Can a Service Tribunal base a finding of mala fide on the ground of discrimination by comparing the appellant's case to another employee's case when the facts are materially different?
- Is a Service Tribunal required to adjudicate upon the specific grounds raised in the memo of appeal rather than deciding the case on extraneous considerations?
- Does a misrepresentation regarding the date of dismissal in an application for restoration of an appeal necessitate a fresh examination of the restoration order by the Service Tribunal?
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Malik JEHANGIR1986 MLD 2434 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-05Read full judgment →
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Agha NAZIM ALI1986 SCMR 574 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) arose from a judgment of the Service Tribunal which set aside the removal of the respondent, an Executive Engineer, ordered under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The core legal question concerned the competence of an appeal before the Service Tribunal against an order passed under section 17(1-A) and the justification for such removal based on record. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal possessed jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and since the appellant authority failed to produce the relevant departmental record before the Tribunal despite being directed to do so, it could not secure a factual finding in its favour. The Court affirmed that it is the duty of parties to produce material in their possession to resolve questions of fact before the Service Tribunal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal is competent before the Service Tribunal in respect of an order passed under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 in view of section 17(1-C) thereof?
- Can an employer authority sustain an order of removal before the Service Tribunal while withholding the primary record upon which the action was based?
- Is a party permitted to produce withheld documents for the first time at the appellate stage before the Supreme Court?
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Through Its Chairman vs SHAH IMROZ1986 SCMR 840 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal is directed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal whereby the respondent's removal from service by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) was set aside and he was reinstated with consequential benefits. The respondent, an office-bearer of the WAPDA Employees Union, was removed from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act following a demonstration and manhandling of an Executive Engineer, despite not being named in the F.I.R. and being found by the Inquiry Committee to have merely been present and telephoning. The core legal questions involved were whether the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to question an order passed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act and whether the Tribunal could substitute its discretion for that of the Authority. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal possesses jurisdiction to entertain appeals regarding terms and conditions of WAPDA employees, including orders under Section 17(1-A), and can set aside such orders if found to be mala fide, biased, or not passed bona fide. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders passed by WAPDA under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act?
- Can the Service Tribunal set aside an order of removal passed by WAPDA under Section 17(1-A) if it is found to be arbitrary or not passed bona fide?
- Whether the Service Tribunal can substitute its own discretion and order reinstatement of an employee removed by WAPDA?
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Through Chairman And Another vs FIRDAUS KHAN And Another1986 SCMR 838 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comprises cross-appeals directed against an order passed by the Federal Service Tribunal modifying a penalty imposed by the employer. The core legal question concerned the extent of the Service Tribunal's power to interfere with departmental disciplinary penalties, specifically the conversion of an order of removal from service into compulsory retirement for an employee involved in protesting against a departmental officer. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal is competent to suitably interfere with departmental orders passed under section 17(1-A) of the relevant Act under given circumstances, and that the Tribunal's modification of the penalty to compulsory retirement was justified given the contributory discriminatory conduct of the executive engineer. The key principle laid down is that the Service Tribunal possesses the authority to review and modify departmental penalties where attending mitigating circumstances, such as provocative or discriminatory official behavior, warrant such interference.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal is competent to interfere with departmental penalty orders passed under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act?
- Can an order of removal from service be converted to compulsory retirement by the Service Tribunal in view of mitigating circumstances?
- Does provocative or discriminatory conduct by a superior officer justify mitigation of disciplinary penalties imposed on employees?
- WATER & POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WAPDA' HOUSE, LAHORE vs AMJAD HIDAYAT BUTT And Other1986 SCMR 582 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of several appeals and petitions filed by WAPDA against orders of the Service Tribunal. The respondents, who were engineers serving in WAPDA, were retired under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act following an inquiry into financial losses. The Service Tribunal had set aside the retirement orders and ordered reinstatement, finding that WAPDA exercised its powers arbitrarily and with mala fides by according differential treatment to various officers involved in the same inquiry. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, holding that differential action recommended or taken against officers does not constitute unlawful discrimination unless an identity of interest and conduct is established among them. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the principle that mala fides must be specifically pleaded and proved with legal evidence, rather than inferred from assumptions or surmises. Since the Tribunal failed to decide other issues raised by the respondents in their appeals, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's decisions and remanded the cases for fresh adjudication on those remaining pleas.
Questions settled- Does differential action against different officers involved in the same inquiry constitute unlawful discrimination without proof of identity of conduct and interest?
- What level of proof is required to establish a finding of mala fides against an authority?
- Is a Service Tribunal justified in recording a finding of mala fides based merely on assumptions and surmises?
- WATER & POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Sheikh MUHAMMAD ALI1986 SCMR 580 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Water and Power Development Authority against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, which had set aside the removal of the respondent Executive Engineer ordered under section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act and directed his reinstatement with consequential benefits. The core legal questions involved the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal to entertain appeals against orders passed under section 17(1-A) of the Act, the effect of limitation where no objection was raised before the Tribunal, and the justifiability of the removal order. The Supreme Court held that the jurisdictional issue stood already resolved by earlier precedent and declined to interfere with the Tribunal's factual findings regarding the arbitrary and unjustified nature of the removal under its limited constitutional jurisdiction. The Court further held that a plea of limitation not raised before the Service Tribunal cannot be successfully raised for the first time before the apex court. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an order passed under section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act?
- Can a plea of limitation be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court when it was not urged before the Service Tribunal?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with findings of fact by the Service Tribunal regarding the arbitrariness of an order under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
- WASIL KHAN vs Mst. SAKINA BAYEE And 3 Other1986 SCMR 1792 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his civil revision by the Peshawar High Court, which had upheld the lower courts' dismissal of his suit for specific performance of a contract. The core legal question concerned whether the defendants' failure to specifically traverse the averments in the plaint regarding the execution of the sale agreement amounted to an admission of those facts under procedural law. The Supreme Court held that the argument advanced by the petitioner had force, as a defendant must be specific with the allegation of facts and failure to do so results in those facts being taken as admitted. Leave to appeal was accordingly granted, and status quo was ordered to be maintained.
Questions settled- Whether a defendant must be specific when denying allegations of fact in a plaint under the Code of Civil Procedure?
- What is the legal consequence under the Code of Civil Procedure if a defendant fails to specifically deny an assertion of fact made in the plaint?
- Does the failure of defendants to rebut averments regarding a sale agreement warrant the grant of leave to appeal?
- WASI DAD KHAN vs THE DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT1986 PLC 858 · Labour Court · 1985-11-23Read full judgment →
- WASAL And 2 Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2954 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-05-31Read full judgment →
- WARYAM vs WARYAM and another1986 MLD 2431 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-04Read full judgment →
- WARYAM vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1566 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-24Read full judgment →
- WARIS KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1986 PLD Peshawar 182 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-06-22Read full judgment →
- WARIAL vs MANTHAR AND 2 OTHERS1986 PLD Rev. 100 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1975-07-14Read full judgment →
- WAQAR AZEEM vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2183 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-28Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs SAEED AHMAD1986 SCMR 725 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a Service Tribunal judgment regarding the removal of a WAPDA employee. The employee was removed from service under Section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, following a prior history of disciplinary proceedings. The core legal questions were whether the Authority could summarily remove an employee under Section 17(1-A) despite pending disciplinary inquiries, and whether the Service Tribunal possessed the authority to modify an order of removal into one of retirement. The Supreme Court held that no question of law of public importance arose to merit further consideration. The Court affirmed that action under Section 17(1-A) is permissible even where departmental inquiries have commenced, and that the Service Tribunal holds the power to vary, set aside, or modify impugned orders, including converting removal into retirement. Furthermore, the Court noted that allegations of mala fide must be substantiated according to the procedural requirements of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974, which require full disclosure and supporting affidavits.
Questions settled- Can an employee be removed from service under Section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958 while a departmental inquiry is pending?
- Does the Service Tribunal have the power to modify an order of removal from service into an order of retirement?
- What are the procedural requirements for raising a plea of mala fide before the Service Tribunal?
- WAPDA vs CAPT. NAZIR HUSSAIN And Other1986 SCMR 96 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by WAPDA against a decision of the Service Tribunal. The respondents, after serving in the Army, were recruited as Electrical Engineers in WAPDA and granted seniority benefits under Rule 5(2)(b) of the West Pakistan WAPDA Service of Electrical Engineers Rules 1965. Subsequently, WAPDA altered its policy regarding the grant of seniority to Army officers and sought to apply this new policy retrospectively to the respondents, thereby unsettling their established seniority. The Service Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondents. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that while a competent authority possesses the power to rescind or modify its decisions, such modifications cannot be applied retrospectively to reopen past and closed transactions or unsettle matters already competently settled and implemented. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as it raised no question of law of public importance.
Questions settled- Can a competent authority retrospectively apply a modified policy decision to reopen past and closed transactions?
- Whether seniority benefits competently granted and implemented under service rules can be subsequently withdrawn by a retrospective policy change?
- Does a competent authority's power to rescind or modify its decisions extend to unsettling matters already settled and acted upon for years?
- WAPDA Through Its Chairman, Area Electricity Board, Hyderabad vs SAEEDUDDIN AHMED And 2 Others1986 PLC 891 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-26Read full judgment →
- WAPDA Through Its Chairman vs SHUJAAT ALI BAGHDADI1986 SCMR 2004 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by WAPDA against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had condoned the delay in filing an appeal by the respondent, Shujaat Ali Baghdadi, and altered his punishment from removal from service to retirement. The respondent had a severe disciplinary record, including making wild allegations against staff, blackmailing officers and lady workers, insulting modesty, criminal intimidation, impersonating a military officer, and sending filthy letters. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the Tribunal was justified in granting the benefit of retirement and altering the punishment given the grave misconduct established on record. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the arbitrary exercise of discretion by the Tribunal in altering the punishment contrary to public policy. The principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will examine whether service tribunals exercise their discretion judiciously when altering departmental punishments in cases of gross misconduct.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal was justified in giving the benefit of retirement to the respondent in the circumstances of the case?
- Can the Service Tribunal arbitrarily alter the punishment of an employee found guilty of grave misconduct?
- Whether the alteration of punishment in cases involving blackmailing and gross indiscipline is against public policy?
- WAPDA Through Director (Legal), Lahore vs ANWAR MAHMOOD1986 PLC 1057 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-05-15Read full judgment →
- WALLA vs A.C., KASUR And Other1986 SCMR 576 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the High Court's judgment dismissing his challenge to the denial of twenty-five percent excess beshi land allotted against his verified claim. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was lawfully entitled to the excess land based on rehabilitation instructions and whether his admissions regarding the same were properly relied upon. The Supreme Court held that the factual objection regarding the timely filing and transfer of the claim form was not raised or pressed in the High Court and could not be agitated at the leave stage, and that the High Court committed no error in relying upon the petitioner's recorded admissions before the settlement authorities. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a factual objection not raised or pressed before the High Court can be agitated for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Can the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court be invoked to interfere with concurrent findings based on the petitioner's recorded admissions before settlement authorities?
- Whether the lack of clean hands of a reporting party in a Mukhbari application affects the resumption of unlawfully held land?
- WALL DAD vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ATTOCK And 3 OTHER1986 CLC 2138 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-15Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2748 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-27Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD vs IRSHAD BEGUM and others1986 MLD 2263 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-05Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD vs DOST MUHAMMAD And ANOTHER1986 CLC 1220 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land comprising undivided shares in joint holdings, where the trial court and the first appellate court decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The core legal question was whether a suit for pre-emption of undivided land is barred by limitation under section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 by reckoning limitation from an earlier alleged date of physical possession derived from a mutation report, rather than from the date of attestation of the mutation. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that a plea involving factual inquiry not raised in the written statement cannot be entertained for the first time at the appellate stage. Furthermore, the Court laid down the principle that undivided shares of joint holdings are intangible property not capable of physical possession, and thus limitation for pre-emption runs from the date of the sanction of the mutation rather than any alleged prior delivery of possession.
Questions settled- Whether a plea involving an inquiry into facts, if not raised in the written statement, can be permitted to be taken for the first time at the appellate stage?
- Does the sale of land comprising an undivided fractional share of a joint holding constitute tangible property capable of physical possession under section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act?
- From which date does the period of limitation run for filing a pre-emption suit regarding land that is not capable of physical possession?
- WALI MUHAMMAD vs CANTONMENT BOARD, LAHORE And OTHER1986 CLC 995 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-06Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD through Legal Heirs vs SHERU through Legal Heirs1986 MLD 850 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-03Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD through Legal Heirs vs Mst. JANNA T1986 MLD 1314 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-22Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD KHATRAN vs SECRETARY, EXCISE AND TAXATION, PUNJAB, LAHORE And 3 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 134 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-09-14Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD And Others vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB And Other1986 SCMR 766 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed in limine the petitioners' writ petition regarding the allotment of land. The core legal question concerns whether an allotment of land made in 1958 could be challenged decades later through an application under Settlement Scheme No. IX and whether the settlement authorities retained jurisdiction after the repeal of the relevant Act. The Supreme Court held that the petition must fail as the petitioners had lost their rights due to their own default and delay, the application under Settlement Scheme No. IX was not maintainable as it applied only to urban properties, and the settlement authorities lacked jurisdiction following the repeal of the Displaced Persons Act. The key principles laid down are that stale claims regarding property allotments cannot be entertained when a party is guilty of default and delay, and that settlement authorities lack jurisdiction to interfere with long-standing allotments after the repeal of the governing statute.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge an allotment of land made decades prior after failing to pursue timely and proper proceedings?
- Do settlement authorities retain jurisdiction to interfere with property allotments after the repeal of the Displaced Persons Act?
- Is an application under Settlement Scheme No. IX maintainable for properties that are not urban properties?
- WALI MUHAMMAD Alias NANDHOO vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1153 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 304, Part II, of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following his trial for murder. The core legal question was whether a retracted judicial confession, recorded after sixteen days of police custody by a Magistrate outside the jurisdiction, could sustain a conviction in the absence of independent corroborative evidence. The trial court had acquitted the co-accused after rejecting the ocular evidence but relied solely on the appellant's confession. The High Court held that the confession was involuntary and unreliable, noting the prolonged police custody, the lack of jurisdiction of the recording Magistrate, and the absence of corroborating evidence. The Court reiterated the principle that a retracted confession requires independent corroboration to be admissible and that prolonged, unexplained police custody casts doubt on the voluntariness of such statements. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant. The judgment emphasizes that confessions obtained under circumstances suggesting coercion or lacking procedural regularity must be excluded from consideration to ensure a fair trial.
Questions settled- Can a retracted confession sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
- Does prolonged police custody prior to a confession render it involuntary?
- Is a confession recorded by a Magistrate outside the jurisdiction of the offence valid?
- WALI DAD And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2400(2) · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-23Read full judgment →
- WALI DAD And Others Mst. ZAINAB BIBI And Others vs GHULAM MUSTAFA And Other Mst. MUHAMMAD BIBI And Other1986 SCMR 119 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These petitions concern the inheritance of property and the validity of land alienations previously challenged under Customary Law. The core legal question was whether, under the evolving legislative framework, specifically Punjab Ordinance No. XIII of 1983, inheritance from Muslim landowners and challenges to their land alienations based on Customary Law remain viable. The Supreme Court held that, pursuant to the interpretation of the new law, inheritance from the deceased landowners in question must be governed by Muslim Personal Law (Shariat), regardless of the date of death. Furthermore, the Court held that any pending proceedings challenging land alienations made by such landowners on the basis of Customary Law are deemed to have abated. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, affirming that Customary Law claims regarding ancestral property alienation are no longer sustainable against the provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) as applied under the relevant Ordinance.
Questions settled- Does the Punjab Ordinance No. XIII of 1983 require that inheritance from Muslim landowners be governed by Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) regardless of the date of death?
- Do pending proceedings challenging land alienations based on Customary Law abate under the provisions of the Punjab Ordinance No. XIII of 1983?
- Can land alienations made by Muslim landowners be set aside on the basis of Customary Law following the enactment of the Punjab Ordinance No. XIII of 1983?
- WALAYAT ALI Represented By Mubarik Ali And Others vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE And Other1986 SCMR 1518 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-28Read full judgment →
- WAJID ALI vs UNITED BANK LTD.1986 PLD Lahore 148 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-10Read full judgment →
- WAJID ALI vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others1986 MLD 2915 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-09Read full judgment →
- WAJID ALI Represented By Syed Nasir Ali Shah And Others vs Syed SAJID ALI1986 SCMR 716 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for review was brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging an earlier judgment. Upon examination, the Court first noted that the petition was filed with a delay of five days, for which no sufficient cause for condonation was established. Furthermore, the Court addressed a procedural defect regarding the representation of the petitioner. It observed that the review petition had not been drafted or signed by the same Advocate who had appeared at the original hearing of the case, as mandated by the procedural requirements governing the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that strict adherence to these procedural rules is necessary for the orderly administration of justice and found no compelling grounds to relax the specific rule requiring the original counsel to draw the review petition. Consequently, the Court held that the petition was procedurally incompetent and failed to meet the necessary criteria for review. The petition was accordingly dismissed on both the grounds of delay and non-compliance with the mandatory rules of the Court regarding legal representation in review proceedings.
Questions settled- Is a review petition required to be drawn by the same Advocate who appeared at the hearing of the original case?
- Can a review petition be dismissed for failure to comply with the procedural rules regarding legal representation?
- Must sufficient cause be shown for the condonation of delay in filing a review petition?
- WAHID BUX vs The STATE1986 SCMR 429 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner, Wahid Bux, challenging his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his maternal uncle, Isa. The trial court had initially sentenced the petitioner to death, which the High Court subsequently commuted to imprisonment for life, alongside a compensation order under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the evidence, including the ocular testimony of eyewitnesses and forensic recovery of blood-stained items, sufficiently established the petitioner's guilt, despite his plea of grave and sudden provocation. The Supreme Court examined the consistency of the eyewitness accounts, the medical evidence, and the corroborating forensic reports regarding the recovered weapon and clothing. Finding no error in the lower courts' appraisal of the evidence, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and dismissed the petition. The judgment reaffirms that where ocular testimony is consistent, credible, and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, it remains sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder, even when the motive remains obscure.
Questions settled- Is ocular testimony consistent with medical evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
- Does the failure to establish a clear motive for a murder invalidate a conviction when other evidence is strong?
- Can a conviction be maintained when the accused pleads grave and sudden provocation but fails to substantiate it against credible eyewitness accounts?
- WAHID BAKHSH AND OTHERS vs NAZIR AHMAD AND OTHERS1986 PLD Lahore 87 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-29Read full judgment →
- WAHID AKHTAR KYANI vs HOLY FAMILY HOSPITAL SOCIETY1986 MLD 1744 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-30Read full judgment →
- WAHEED UR REHMAN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1424 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-19Read full judgment →
- WAHEED IQBAL vs THE STATE1986 PLD Azad J & K 192 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-01-25Read full judgment →
- WAHEED AHMED SHAHEED vs FARID ASHRAF1986 SCMR 1860 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had set aside an order of ejectment passed by a Rent Controller. The petitioner had originally sought the respondent's eviction from the disputed premises based on two grounds: bona fide personal requirement and the unauthorized conversion of the premises into a motor workshop. The Rent Controller had initially allowed the ejectment application on both grounds. However, the High Court reversed this decision on appeal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller. Upon reviewing the impugned judgment, the Supreme Court determined that the High Court's reasoning for setting aside the Rent Controller's findings did not align with the evidence on record. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the High Court's interference with factual findings was unwarranted. The principle established is that an appellate court should not disturb findings of fact by a lower forum if the reasoning for such interference is not supported by the evidence.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court interfere with findings of fact recorded by a Rent Controller if the reasoning is not supported by the evidence?
- Is the unauthorized conversion of premises into a motor workshop a valid ground for ejectment?
- WAFA ULLAH vs M.M. ZAHID And Other1986 SCMR 761 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an ejectment petition filed by the respondent landlord against a tenant in respect of a commercial shop. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment, which was upheld in appeal by the Additional District Judge and subsequently challenged through a constitutional writ petition in the High Court by the tenant. During the writ proceedings, the petitioner, claiming to be a business partner and nephew of the tenant, filed an application to be impleaded as a party, which the High Court dismissed alongside the main writ petition. Following the dismissal, the landlord initiated execution proceedings, prompting the petitioner to file an objection petition claiming independent possession, which was rejected by the executing court and appellate authorities. The core legal question concerned whether a sub-tenant or alleged partner could obstruct execution proceedings of a valid ejectment order obtained against the primary tenant. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's attempt to cling to the property was mala fide and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the lower courts' concurrent findings.
Questions settled- Whether an alleged business partner of a tenant can be impleaded as a party in a writ petition challenging an ejectment order?
- Can a third party obstruct execution proceedings of an ejectment order by claiming independent possession through a mala fide objection petition?
- WADHO AKHARA TRUST vs Mst. GHAFOORAN And Other1986 SCMR 1339 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute over the ownership of a structure (hut) built on land owned by the petitioner, Wadho Akhara Trust. The original tenant, Mst. Gandi Hajiani, constructed huts on the land and sub-let them. Upon her death, Mst. Ghafooran claimed rights to the structure via a Will, while the Trust contended that tenancy rights reverted to it upon the tenant's death. The Rent Controller and the High Court ruled in favor of Mst. Ghafooran, finding that the structure did not automatically vest in the landlord upon the tenant's death and that Mst. Ghafooran, as a relative, inherited the structure. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that the claim was improperly based on a Will rather than inheritance and that tenancy rights should have reverted to the Trust. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the legal questions regarding the devolution of tenancy rights upon the death of a tenant and the validity of claims based on a Will versus inheritance merit further consideration by the Court.
Questions settled- Does a structure built by a tenant on rented land automatically vest in the landlord upon the tenant's death?
- Can tenancy rights be transferred via a Will, or do they revert to the landlord upon the death of the tenant?
- Is a claimant entitled to relief based on inheritance rights if their primary pleading was based on a Will?
- W. WOODWARD (PAKISTAN) Ltd. vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI And Others1986 PLC 34 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-14Read full judgment →
- VEERS! AND 2 OTHERS vs L.C., HYDERABAD AND OTHERS1986 PLD Rev. 79 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1971-04-25Read full judgment →
- UZIN EXPORT IMPORT ENTERPRISES vs M. IfTIKHAR & COMPANY LTD.1986 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court Appeal arises from an order dismissing the appellant's application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of a suit to enable arbitration. The core legal questions involve whether a plaintiff who initiates a suit and subsequently participates in proceedings and compromises can later seek a stay under section 34, and whether such conduct amounts to taking steps in the proceedings and demonstrates a lack of readiness and willingness to go to arbitration from the commencement. The Sindh High Court held that by choosing to file a suit instead of invoking arbitration, and by actively participating in court proceedings, consenting to amendments, and seeking remedies from the court, the appellant made a binding choice of forum, exhausted the arbitration agreement, and took steps in the proceedings. The court established the key principles that initiating legal proceedings constitutes an abandonment of the right to arbitration, and that any subsequent conduct showing submission to the court's jurisdiction disentitles a party from seeking a stay under section 34.
Questions settled- Whether a party who initiates a civil suit instead of invoking an arbitration clause can subsequently seek a stay of proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration Act?
- Does the conduct of a plaintiff in a suit, including seeking interim injunctions and consenting to amendments of a counter-claim, amount to taking 'steps in the proceedings'?
- Is a party who files a suit considered ready and willing to go to arbitration from the commencement of the legal proceedings as required by section 34 of the Arbitration Act?
- UZIN EXPORT IMPORT ENTERPRISES FOR FOREIGN TRADE vs Messrs ASIA STEEL1986 MLD 1356 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from two intra-court appeals filed against an order of a learned Single Judge regarding interlocutory applications in a recovery suit. The plaintiff, a specialized sub-contractor for mechanical erection and steel structures, filed a suit for a multi-million rupee money decree, delivery of machinery, declarations, and injunctions against the principal contractor, foreign trade enterprise, owner, and other entities. The Single Judge had refused temporary injunctions and attachment before judgment but appointed the court Nazir as a receiver of the plaintiff's machinery, subject to a security requirement which could discharge the receivership. The core legal question concerned whether interim relief, specifically the appointment of a receiver or attachment, was legally justified where damages were quantifiable in money terms, no privity of contract existed between the sub-contractor and the foreign enterprise, and the balance of convenience heavily favoured the project's continuity. The Sindh High Court held that the impugned order appointing a receiver could not be sustained, as the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, the damages were ascertainable in money, and the balance of convenience and colossal potential loss to the main project weighed heavily against such relief. The court laid down the principle that in a suit primarily for a money decree where damages can be compensated financially, and where the plaintiff has failed to make out a case under specific procedural provisions, extraordinary interim remedies like the appointment of a receiver or demands for security should not be granted, especially when doing so would paralyze a major public or industrial project.
Questions settled- Whether a receiver can be appointed in a suit primarily filed for a money decree where damages are capable of assessment in pecuniary terms?
- Does the absence of privity of contract between a sub-contractor and the principal employer disentitle the sub-contractor from seeking equitable interim reliefs against the employer?
- Whether the appointment of a receiver and the imposition of security are justified when the balance of convenience heavily favours the continuation of a major industrial project?
- Can inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be invoked to grant interim reliefs or demand security when the specific conditions of Order XXXVIII or Order XL are not met?
- USMAN vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2670 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-02Read full judgment →
- USMAN vs KARIMDAD KHAN1986 MLD 1426 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-30Read full judgment →
- USMAN GHANI vs THE STATE1986 CLC 1950 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1986-05-10Read full judgment →
- USMAN GHANI vs FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL And Another1986 SCMR 1875 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, an Executive Engineer in WAPDA, was served with a charge-sheet under the West Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975 regarding a fire incident at Regional Stores. While the inquiry was pending, the Authority removed him from service under Section 17(1-A) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Act, 1958. His appeal to the Service Tribunal was dismissed, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the Authority could invoke Section 17(1-A) to remove an employee while disciplinary proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules were actively pending against him, and whether such an order was vitiated by mala fides. The Supreme Court held that while Section 17(1-A) grants wide powers of removal without assigning reasons, exercising this power during the pendency of active departmental proceedings initiated under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules renders the removal order mala fide in law. The Court laid down the principle that the exercise of power under Section 17(1-A) remains subject to scrutiny for competency, amenability, and the absence of mala fides or bias.
Questions settled- Can the Authority remove an employee under Section 17(1-A) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Act, 1958 while disciplinary proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules are pending against him?
- What are the key requirements to scrutinize the exercise of power under Section 17(1-A) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Act, 1958?
- Does an order of removal passed under Section 17(1-A) stand vitiated if it is found to have been exercised mala fide?
- USMA NASSER And 4 Others vs ZAITOON KHATOON1986 SCMR 1670 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the Rent Controller's order directing the petitioners to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent-landlord. The core legal question before the court was whether the concurrent findings of the lower forums regarding default in the payment of rent were sustainable in law. The Supreme Court held that no exception in law could be taken against the concurrent findings of the two courts below establishing that the petitioners were indeed defaulters in rent payment. Consequently, the court established the principle that concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and the High Court regarding rent default, based on recorded evidence, will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court unless a legal exception is made out. The petition was accordingly dismissed as being without merit.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding rent default made by the Rent Controller and the High Court?
- Does an order directing the handover of vacant possession for rent default warrant leave to appeal when concurrent findings exist?
- URIS vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1449 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-01Read full judgment →
- URIS AND ANOTHER vs MANZOOR ALI1986 PLD Rev. 102 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1975-09-09Read full judgment →