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.
- TAYYAB and 2 others vs NAZIR AHMAD and 5 others1986 MLD 491 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-20Read full judgment →
- TAYABAENT ERPRISES vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, LAHORE1986 MLD 2089 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-04Read full judgment →
- TAUS KHAN vs Messrs WELLCOME PAKISTAN LIMITED And 2 Others1986 PLC 352 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-30Read full judgment →
- TASSADUQ HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD SHABBIR And Another1986 P Cr. L J 2951 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-27Read full judgment →
- TASLEEM HUSSAIN vs PARVEZ AKHTAR And Another1986 SCMR 1610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption suit where the petitioner challenged the dismissal of his suit for failure to deposit the pre-emption money within the time extended by the trial court. The trial court initially ordered a deposit, then extended the deadline, but subsequently dismissed the suit on the extended date for non-compliance. The appellate court remanded the case, imposing new conditions for deposit and security, which both parties challenged in the Peshawar High Court. The High Court accepted the respondent's revision, dismissing the petitioner's suit. The petitioner contended that the High Court erred in its factual assessment, particularly regarding the number of extensions granted, and that the dismissal was procedurally flawed without providing an opportunity to explain the default. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the contentions raised regarding the High Court's exercise of jurisdiction and potential misreading of evidence warranted further examination. The Court maintained the status quo regarding the property until the final disposal of the appeal.
Questions settled- Can a trial court dismiss a pre-emption suit for non-deposit of the pre-emption amount on the very date the deadline expires without allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to explain the default?
- Does the High Court exceed its revisional jurisdiction by misreading the record regarding the number of extensions granted to a party for depositing pre-emption money?
- TASAWAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2218 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-01Read full judgment →
- TARIQ ZAMAN vs THE STATE1986 PLD Peshawar 27 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-10-11Read full judgment →
- TARIQ SALIM And Another vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1410 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular testimony, the sufficiency of the motive, and the validity of the recovery of blood-stained weapons, particularly in light of alleged discrepancies in the time of the occurrence and the prosecution's failure to examine all cited witnesses. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the convictions were properly founded on consistent ocular accounts, corroborated by medical evidence regarding the deceased's digestion, and forensic reports confirming human blood on the recovered weapons. The Court affirmed that the prosecution is not legally obligated to produce every witness if the available evidence is sufficient. Furthermore, the Court held that family honor constitutes a plausible motive for such crimes, and minor variations in testimony do not necessarily undermine the prosecution's case when the core facts are established. The impugned judgment was upheld as a fair and impartial appraisal of the evidence.
Questions settled- Is the prosecution legally bound to produce and examine every witness cited in the case?
- Can medical evidence regarding the digestion of food in the stomach be used to corroborate the time of death?
- Does a motive based on family honor provide a sufficient basis for establishing the intent to commit murder?
- Are convictions sustainable when the recovery of blood-stained weapons is supported by forensic reports?
- TARIQ SAEED And 5 Other vs GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL1986 PLC 1138 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-07-23Read full judgment →
- TARIQ MEHMOOD vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2484 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-24Read full judgment →
- TARIQ MASIH AND Anothers vs THE STATE1986 PLD Lahore 286 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-21Read full judgment →
- TARIQ MANZOOR vs ABDUL AZIZ And Other1986 SCMR 1688 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application for the restoration of a civil revision petition that had been earlier dismissed for default. The core legal question before the Supreme Court concerned whether the High Court erred in dismissing the restoration application and whether considering the past conduct of a party in absenting themselves constitutes an extraneous consideration when refusing an adjournment request. The Supreme Court held that the contentions regarding lack of notice and manoeuvring by ministerial staff lacked factual basis, and that noting the conduct of a party or their counsel is a valid factor when granting or refusing adjournments. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused, upholding the High Court's order.
Questions settled- Whether the past conduct of a party in absenting themselves is an extraneous consideration when refusing an adjournment request?
- Can a civil revision petition dismissed for default be restored when the grounds raised for absence lack factual basis?
- TARIQ AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1986 PLD Lahore 418 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-08Read full judgment →
- TARIQ And ANOTHER vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2807 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-11Read full judgment →
- Tanzil-ur-Rehman, J MUHAMMAD UMAR vs BOARD OF REVENUE and 2 others1986 MLD 1604 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-14Read full judgment →
- TANWEER JAFAR vs THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, ISLAMABAD And Another1986 SCMR 597 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of the Chenab Rangers, challenged his dismissal from service, which was subsequently modified to removal from service by the Federal Service Tribunal. The petitioner faced charges of misconduct, specifically involving the use of criminal force against a civilian while in custody. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the use of criminal force during the performance of duties did not constitute misconduct under the West Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959, particularly because the term 'misconduct' was not explicitly defined within the Ordinance. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, affirming the findings of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had relied on medical evidence of severe physical injuries to the victim. The Court held that torturing an accused person in custody clearly constitutes misconduct, regardless of the absence of a specific definition of the term within the governing statute. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the argument that such actions fell outside the scope of disciplinary purview.
Questions settled- Does the use of criminal force against a civilian in custody constitute misconduct for a member of the Pakistan Rangers?
- Can an act be classified as misconduct under the West Pakistan Rangers Ordinance 1959 even if the term is not explicitly defined in the statute?
- TANVEER MEHBOOB and another vs SALAH BHAI ABDUL HUSSAIN TAPAL1986 MLD 1641 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-29Read full judgment →
- TALIB KHAN and 6 others vs COLLECTOR,LYALLPUR and others1986 MLD 437 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-10Read full judgment →
- TALIB HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2155 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-28Read full judgment →
- TALIB HUSSAIN And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1545 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-19Read full judgment →
- TALAT ALI KHAN vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 211 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-10-10Read full judgment →
- TAJ MUHAMMAD vs PESHAM KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 823 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the High Court's judgment acquitting the respondents of charges under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149, and 404 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in rejecting the prosecution's ocular evidence and finding the delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) fatal to the case. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal. The Court held that in cases involving a pre-existing blood feud, ocular testimony requires strong, independent corroboration to sustain a conviction. The Court found that the prosecution failed to satisfactorily explain the delay in lodging the FIR, noting that the complainant bypassed a closer village to seek assistance, which undermined the witnesses' credibility. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that mere abscondence of an accused is insufficient to sustain a conviction without solid evidence. The judgment reinforces the principle that 'chance witnesses' closely related to the deceased must withstand rigorous scrutiny, particularly when their testimony is inconsistent with medical evidence or surrounding circumstances.
Questions settled- Does a history of blood feud between parties necessitate independent corroboration of ocular testimony?
- Is the mere abscondence of an accused sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR, where closer assistance was available, undermine the credibility of prosecution witnesses?
- TAJ MUHAMMAD vs DISTRICT JUDGE and others1986 MLD 583 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-16Read full judgment →
- TAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB Through Chief1986 PLC (C.S.) 1025 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- TAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN vs GHULAM REHMANI AND 7 OTHERS1986 PLD Peshawar 86 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-02-02Read full judgment →
- TAJ MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY vs THE GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS1986 SCMR 1707 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a former Sub-Inspector of the Pakistan Railways against the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had modified his dismissal from service to removal from service. The petitioner had been removed from his position following charges of disobeying a superior officer's order to attend a meeting and manipulating official records in the Roznamcha. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the removal order was legally infirm or suffered from illegality warranting judicial interference. Upon review, the Court observed that while the department's underlying motivation for removal appeared to be frustration with the petitioner’s conduct rather than the specific charges, the removal order itself was legally sound and free from procedural illegality. Consequently, the Court held that no case for interference was made out. The Court dismissed the petition but clarified that because the petitioner was removed rather than dismissed, the department is obligated to grant him all service benefits to which he is entitled under the law.
Questions settled- Does a removal from service, as opposed to a dismissal, entitle a public servant to service benefits?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a service tribunal's decision if the order of removal is legally sound despite the department's underlying motives?
- Is a service order legally infirm if the department's motivation for the action differs from the stated charges?
- TAJ MUHAMMAD And Others vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL And Other1986 SCMR 276 (2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 17-11-1981 in a rent matter, whereby the petitioners' constitutional petition against concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge was dismissed. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition is competent when the sole contention raised is the appreciation of evidence on questions of fact by the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that the writ petition was not competent in light of its prior observation in Abdul Rahman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others PLD 1981 SC 522, as the appreciation of factual evidence cannot be reopened through constitutional jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed as frivolous, establishing the principle that findings of fact concurrently arrived at by rent forums cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction on the ground of misappreciation of evidence.
Questions settled- Is a constitutional petition competent when the sole ground raised is the misappreciation of evidence on questions of fact by rent courts?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and the appellate court be interfered with in writ jurisdiction?
- TAJ MUHAMMAD Alias TAJUK vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1752 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-06Read full judgment →
- TAJ MASIH vs THE STATE and 5 others1986 P Cr. L J 671 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-16Read full judgment →
- TAJ INDUSTRIES vs THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS and another1986 MLD 1316 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-23Read full judgment →
- TAJ DIN vs SHAKOOR AHMED1986 MLD 577 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-24Read full judgment →
- TAJ DIN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1986 MLD 452 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-06Read full judgment →
- TAJ DIN AND ANOTHER s vs THE STATE1986 PLD Lahore 142 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-17Read full judgment →
- TAJ DIN And 2 Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 907 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-07Read full judgment →
- TAHIR SHEIKH vs MUHAMMAD KAMIL QURESHI represented by Legal Heirs1986 MLD 1368 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-12Read full judgment →
- TABBAQ RESTAURANT, RAWALPINDI vs TABBAQ RESTAURANT, LAHORE1986 MLD 2673 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-27Read full judgment →
- Syeda SHAMS ZEHRA NAQVI vs Miss SOOFIA LATEEF and another1986 MLD 991 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-12Read full judgment →
- Syed ZAWWAR HUSSAIN vs THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PLANNING &1986 SCMR 1826 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's service appeal by the Service Tribunal. The core legal question is whether a service appeal filed beyond the period of limitation without an accompanying application for condonation of delay is maintainable. The court held that the Tribunal's order dismissing the appeal as time-barred in the absence of any application for condonation of delay was unexceptionable. The key principle laid down is that a time-barred service appeal without a formal request for condonation of delay cannot be entertained and is liable to be dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a service appeal filed beyond the period of limitation without an application for condonation of delay is maintainable?
- Is an order of the Service Tribunal dismissing a time-barred appeal unexceptionable when no condonation of delay was sought?
- Syed ZAKIR HUSSAIN vs SIND LABOUR COURT N0. IV, KARACHI And 2 Others1986 P LC 268 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-15Read full judgment →
- Syed ZAFAR ALI SHAH vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAHAWALPUR And 21986 PLC (C.S.) 492 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed YAQOOB ALI vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WASA)1986 PLC 693 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-02-04Read full judgment →
- Syed TASNIMUL HASSAN and another vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1986 MLD 1477 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-21Read full judgment →
- Syed TASADDAQ HUSSAIN vs JAFFAR KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 1696 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a constitutional petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner, claiming to be the landlord of the property in dispute, had challenged the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the appellate court, which refused to recognize the respondents as the petitioner's tenants on the basis that the property in question was classified as evacuee trust property. The core legal question before the Supreme Court concerned the status, nature, and character of the property in dispute. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the same legal issue regarding the character of the petitioner's property was already pending adjudication in another matter, specifically Civil Petition No. 1063 of 1979, where leave to appeal had previously been granted. Finding that the resolution of the status of the property was essential to both cases, the Court held that it was appropriate to grant leave to appeal in the present petition and directed that both appeals be heard together to ensure consistent adjudication.
Questions settled- Does the classification of property as evacuee trust property preclude a landlord-tenant relationship under rent laws?
- Should separate petitions involving the same legal question regarding property status be consolidated for hearing?
- Syed TANVIR HUSSAIN vs COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS, QUETTA And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 644 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed TAHIR HASSAN GARDEZI vs ABID HUSSAIN QURESHI1986 MLD 2980 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-28Read full judgment →
- Syed SULTAN HUSSAIN vs BAHADUR KHAN1986 SCMR 1793 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit filed by the respondent, Bahadur Khan, against the petitioner, Sultan Hussain, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Swabi. The core legal question concerned the validity of a decree passed by the trial court based on a settlement reached through an oath taken on the Holy Quran. During the proceedings, the plaintiff offered to take an oath to prove his claim, and the defendant consented to be bound by the outcome of that oath, subsequently requesting that the suit be decreed in the plaintiff's favor. The trial court decreed the suit accordingly, a decision upheld by the Additional District Judge and subsequently affirmed by the Peshawar High Court in civil revision. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit, reasoning that the petitioner had voluntarily undertaken to abide by the oath taken by the respondent. Consequently, the Court affirmed the trial court's decision, establishing the principle that a party is bound by a decree passed on the basis of a solemn oath when they have explicitly consented to such a procedure.
Questions settled- Is a decree passed on the basis of a solemn oath taken by a party binding on the defendant who consented to the procedure?
- Can a defendant challenge a decree where they explicitly requested the court to pass the decree based on the plaintiff's oath?
- Syed SULEMAN SHAH vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2809 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
- Syed SUBHAN SHAH vs MANZOOR: HUSSAIN SHAH And ANOTHER1986 CLC 2669 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-20Read full judgment →
- Syed SHAUKAT HUSSAIN FATIMI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and 13 others1986 MLD 2645 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Syed SHAMSHAD RAZI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 212 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-30Read full judgment →
- Syed SHAMIMUL HASSAN NAQVI vs NIAZ MUHAMMAD1986 MLD 905 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-18Read full judgment →
- Syed SHAKIR HUSSAIN And Others vs THE STATE And Other1986 SCMR 1645 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the dismissal of applications for acquittal under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. The petitioners, accused in a case under Sections 406/420, P.P.C., had their initial acquittal application rejected as premature, and a subsequent application dismissed after some prosecution evidence was recorded. The High Court, while dismissing the constitutional petition, directed the trial Magistrate to dispose of the case expeditiously, observing that prior remarks made without evidence should not influence the trial. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that the High Court's direction for final disposal would not impede the petitioners' right to seek acquittal under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. The Court affirmed that a trial court is empowered to acquit at any stage if the necessary conditions are met, and there is no bar to entertaining a fresh application under this section on its merits.
Questions settled- Can a trial court entertain a fresh application for acquittal under Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, even after previous applications have been dismissed?
- Does a higher court's direction for expeditious disposal of a case preclude a trial court from considering an application for acquittal under Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Should observations made by a higher court without evidence on record influence a trial court's decision on the merits of a case?
- At what stage of a criminal trial can a court exercise its power to acquit an accused under Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Syed SALEH MUHAMMAD SHAH vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2772 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-12Read full judgment →
- Syed SAIEED HASSAN vs MUHAMMAD USMAN RAMZ and 9 others1986 MLD 2312 · Election Tribunal · 1986-06-16Read full judgment →
- Syed QAMRUL HASAN vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2216 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-01Read full judgment →
- Syed QAISAR ABBAS And ANOTHER vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 581 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-10Read full judgment →
- Syed QADIR DAD AND ANOTHER. vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL AND 25 OTHERS1986 PLD Quetta 179 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-03-09Read full judgment →
- Syed QABOOL MUHAMMAD SHAH vs BIBI BUSHRA BEGUM AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Rev. 94 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1977-05-22Read full judgment →
- Syed NAZIR HUSSAIN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and another1986 MLD 231 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-17Read full judgment →
- Syed NAZIR HAIDER vs AMANULLAH1986 MLD 347 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-22Read full judgment →
- Syed NASIR ALI SHAH vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1986 SCMR 242 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a retired government servant, challenged departmental proceedings initiated against him for the recovery of alleged unauthorized amounts. Initially, proceedings were commenced under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, within one year of his retirement. Following an appeal, the Punjab Service Tribunal set aside these proceedings, ruling that the 1975 Rules were inapplicable to a retired pensioner, but permitted the department to proceed under the West Pakistan Civil Service Pension Rules, 1963. The petitioner contended that the subsequent proceedings under the 1963 Rules were time-barred under Rule 1.8(b), which mandates that departmental proceedings must be instituted within one year of retirement. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the initial proceedings commenced within the statutory period and the subsequent action was merely a continuation of the same process under a different legal provision. The Court established that a change in the legal provision invoked does not alter the character of the action, nor does it constitute the institution of fresh proceedings, provided the underlying cause of action remains consistent and the initial action was timely.
Questions settled- Does a change in the legal provision under which departmental proceedings are conducted constitute the institution of fresh proceedings for the purpose of limitation?
- Can departmental proceedings for recovery of losses from a pensioner be considered a continuation of earlier proceedings initiated under inapplicable rules?
- Does Rule 1.8(b) of the West Pakistan Civil Service Pension Rules 1963 require the institution of proceedings within one year of retirement?
- Syed NADIR HUSSAIN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 2 others1986 MLD 16 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-16Read full judgment →
- Syed MUSTAFA HUSSAIN vs MUZAFFAR Alias BHAI SAHIB1986 SCMR 1463 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Sind, which reversed a Rent Controller's order allowing the eviction of a tenant from commercial premises based on the landlord's personal requirement. The core legal question is whether the High Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, correctly applied the principles of appreciation of evidence in civil cases when it overturned the Rent Controller's findings. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court appeared to have reassessed the evidence on speculative grounds, specifically regarding the credibility of witnesses and the nature of the landlord's business needs. The Court held that the High Court's approach to evaluating the evidence, particularly its rejection of testimony as 'interested' and its assumptions about the landlord's business operations, required further judicial scrutiny. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine if the High Court properly adhered to the rule that civil issues are determined by the preponderance of evidence, rather than by speculative conclusions regarding the sufficiency of the landlord's existing business space.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the authority to reverse a Rent Controller's finding of fact based on speculative reasoning regarding the landlord's business needs?
- What is the correct standard for the appreciation of evidence in civil cases regarding the testimony of witnesses in rent control proceedings?
- Is the determination of a landlord's bona fide personal requirement subject to interference in appeal if the appellate court fails to apply the principle of preponderance of evidence?
- Syed MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE---1986 P Cr. L J 2676 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-19Read full judgment →
- Syed MUNAWAR ALI vs MURTAZA QURESHI1986 MLD 1289 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-19Read full judgment →
- Syed MUMTAZ HUSSAIN vs Dr. ASHFAQ ALI1986 MLD 708 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
- Syed MUMTAZ AHMAD vs MUBARAK AHMAD And Others1986 PLC 63 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1985-09-17Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHARRAM ALI vs SECRETARY, LABOUR AND COOPERATION1986 SCMR 1195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a common judgment of the High Court of Sind disposing of two interconnected constitutional petitions. The dispute concerned the cancellation of a shop lease originally granted to the predecessor of respondents 4 to 10 by a co-operative society, and its subsequent re-allotment to the petitioner. The High Court had dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition and allowed the respondents' petition, declaring the cancellation and re-allotment orders, as well as an arbitration reference, to be without lawful authority because they were not passed by the competent Administrator under the West Pakistan Co-operative Board (Dissolution) Act, 1966. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner sought to challenge the common judgment only in relation to the dismissal of his own petition, without filing a separate leave petition against the decision in the respondents' petition. The Supreme Court held that a party cannot indirectly challenge or seek review of a decision in a connected petition without filing a proper, distinct petition for leave to appeal against that specific decision. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner challenge a common judgment of the High Court in so far as it relates to their own dismissed petition without filing a separate petition for leave to appeal against the decision in the connected petition?
- Whether an order passed by an authority other than the designated Administrator under the West Pakistan Co-operative Board (Dissolution) Act 1966 is valid and within jurisdiction?
- Is a party permitted to indirectly obtain a review of a decision in a connected constitutional petition where no proper leave petition has been filed against that specific decision?
- Syed MUHAMMAD SHAH alias MAHMOOD SHAH and 3 others vs Messrs1986 MLD 1773 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-10Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs Messrs AL-GHAZI TRACTORS Ltd.1986 PLC 429 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-15Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD RASHID vs FAKHRUDDIN1986 MLD 1662 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-30Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs MUSLIM ZAIDI AND 4 OHERS1986 PLD Lahore 66 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-25Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD QASIM SHAH vs CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY, AZAD1986 CLC 214 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-10-30Read full judgment →
- SYED MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs MANZOOR ELAHI And 2 OTHER1986 CLC 846 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD ABBAS ZAIDI vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2728 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-23Read full judgment →
- Syed Mir AHMAD SHAH vs PAKISTAN And Other1986 SCMR 1200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an advocate, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his regular second appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the decisions of the lower courts dismissing his civil suit. The petitioner had previously litigated the refusal of Settlement authorities to transfer a disputed house to him through a constitutional petition and subsequent proceedings up to the Supreme Court, all of which were dismissed. In the second round of litigation, he filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership, which was dismissed by the trial court and the first appellate court on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and lack of locus standi, and by the High Court on the ground of res judicata. The Supreme Court held that the matter had already been conclusively decided in earlier proceedings and that the principles of res judicata and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Settlement authorities barred the civil court from entertaining the dispute. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
Questions settled- Whether a civil suit is barred by res judicata when the subject-matter has already been adjudicated through earlier constitutional and appellate proceedings up to the Supreme Court?
- Do civil courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon matters relating to the refusal of Settlement authorities to transfer a property after the claimant has failed in higher forums?
- Whether a party having failed to secure property transfer through settlement authorities and constitutional petitions has the locus standi to institute a civil suit for the same relief?
- Syed MATLOOB-UL-HASSAN vs BROOKE BOND PAKISTAN Ltd., LAHORE1986 PLC 278 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-09-22Read full judgment →
- Syed MASOOD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1834 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-07Read full judgment →
- Syed MAQSOOD ALI vs Mst. SOOFIA NAUSHABA And Other1986 SCMR 426 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from prolonged litigation between divorced parents concerning the custody and guardianship of their two minor children. Initially, the parties resolved multiple pending suits through a compromise before the High Court, whereby the father agreed to divorce the mother, pay dower and maintenance, and in exchange receive custody of the minor son upon his reaching seven years of age and the minor daughter upon reaching puberty, with visitation rights in the interim. Following the mother's subsequent refusal to surrender custody of the son when he turned seven, the father initiated proceedings under Sections 12 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act. While the Family Court awarded custody of the male child to the father, the Additional District Judge and the High Court ordered both minors to remain with the mother. The Supreme Court observed that the matter could not depend entirely on the wishes of the minors due to maternal alienation during litigation. Ultimately, the Supreme Court recorded a fresh mutual compromise submitted by the parties and passed an interim custody order operative for six months.
Questions settled- Can the custody of a minor child be determined solely on the basis of the child's wishes where there has been prolonged litigation and potential parental influence?
- Can the court implement an interim custody arrangement based on a mutual compromise of the parents to foster conducive relations between the minors and the non-custodial parent?
- Syed KHADIM HUSSAIN ABDI vs Mst. GETI ARA BEGUM1986 PLD Karachi 184 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 challenged an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller on the grounds of default in rent, electricity, and gas charges, and nuisance. The core legal question concerned the burden of proof regarding the payment of rent and utility charges when receipts were disputed, and whether the landlord had successfully established default. The Sindh High Court held that the landlord discharged the initial burden of proving non-payment of rent by testifying on oath, after which the onus shifted to the tenant to prove affirmative payment, which the tenant failed to do through any oral or documentary evidence. The court laid down the principle that a landlord's sworn statement of non-payment sufficiently discharges the initial burden for a negative fact, shifting the onus to the tenant to substantiate payment, and that utility charges unpaid under the statutory definition of rent also constitute a valid ground for eviction.
Questions settled- Does the landlord discharge the initial burden of proving non-payment of rent simply by stating on oath that rent has not been received?
- Whether unpaid electricity and gas charges fall within the definition of rent under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 to warrant eviction?
- Does the burden shift to the tenant to prove payment once the landlord makes a statement on oath regarding non-payment of rent?
- Syed INTISAR ALI vs AHMAD DIN KHAN1986 MLD 1374 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-22Read full judgment →
- Syed INTEZAR HUSSAIN Zaldi vs RETURNING OFFICER NA 186, KARACHI And Other1986 SCMR 1869 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an election petition filed by a defeated candidate challenging the election results of National Assembly Constituency NA-186, Karachi, held on February 25, 1985. The appellant, who secured 559 votes against the successful respondent's 20,647 votes, alleged widespread rigging and unfair election practices. The sole evidence presented to support these claims was a single ballot paper discovered by the appellant in a dried riverine several days after the election results were declared. The core legal question was whether the discovery of this isolated ballot paper, without evidence of systemic malpractice or attribution to the successful candidate, was sufficient to invalidate the election. The Election Tribunal dismissed the petition, finding no material effect on the election result. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, ruling that the mere discovery of one ballot paper, absent proof of widespread irregularity or involvement by the returned candidate, does not materially affect the election outcome. The court affirmed that an election cannot be declared void based on unsubstantiated allegations of rigging without demonstrating a material impact on the result.
Questions settled- Does the discovery of a single stray ballot paper outside a polling station constitute sufficient grounds to declare an election void?
- Can an election be set aside on the basis of general allegations of rigging without proof of material effect on the result?
- Is a petitioner required to establish that the returned candidate was responsible for irregularities to successfully challenge an election?
- Syed IMTIAZ vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2530 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-04Read full judgment →
- Syed IKRAM GIRD AZY vs RAHIM JAN1986 CLC 2384 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-10Read full judgment →
- Syed Ikram Gardezi. vs State And AnotherPTCL 1986 CL. 53 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan is directed against an interim order passed by a Magistrate in a criminal complaint case under sections 406 and 408 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 282 of the Companies Act, wherein the accused was directed to produce certain documents under section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question raised was whether an accused person can be directed to produce documents that would incriminate him in a pending criminal case. The Supreme Court did not formally answer or adjudicate upon the constitutional and statutory questions raised regarding self-incrimination, as the appellant agreed during the proceedings to produce the first few specified documents, while stating that the remaining documents were never in his possession, prompting the Court to observe that the respondent could seek permission to lead secondary evidence. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of on these statements without laying down a definitive ruling on the substantive legal question.
Questions settled- Can an accused person be directed to produce documents which would incriminate him in a case pending against him before a Court?
- SYED IHSAN MEHDIJAFERY vs COMMISSIONER LAHORE DIVISION And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 490 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
- Syed IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN vs SUMMARY MILITARY COURT, SAHIWAL and others1986 P Cr. L J 2416 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-06Read full judgment →
- Syed HASAN HAMID vs THE STATE And Another1986 SCMR 1112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-05Read full judgment →
- Syed HAMID RAHMANI vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and 3 others1986 MLD 315 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-09Read full judgment →
- Syed HAIDER AABDI vs Syed JAVED AABDI1986 MLD 2298 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-20Read full judgment →
- Syed GUL ALAM vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1816 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-28Read full judgment →
- Syed GHULAM RAZA vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1986 SCMR 1055 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 29-2-1984, which had previously disposed of the petitioner's petition for leave to appeal. The petitioner, a civil servant, contended that he was exempt from the requirement of having his employment case referred to the Public Service Commission, arguing that his appointment predated the relevant regulatory framework, specifically relying on definitions within the Ordinance XIV of 1981. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's arguments regarding his service status and the applicability of the Ordinance warranted a review of the previous judgment. The Court held that the petitioner's arguments had already been thoroughly considered and addressed in the original judgment. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, establishing the principle that a review petition cannot be utilized as a mechanism for a de novo rehearing of a case on grounds that have already been adjudicated upon. The scope of review jurisdiction is strictly limited and does not extend to re-arguing the entire merits of a previously decided matter.
Questions settled- Can a review petition be used to seek a de novo rehearing of a case on the same grounds already adjudicated?
- What is the scope and purpose of review jurisdiction in the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
- Syed GHULAM MIRAN SHAH vs SHAFAQAT RAZZAQ1986 CLC 2365 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
- Syed GHULAM HUSSAIN SHAH Through Legal Heirs vs Syed SADIQ HUSSAIN1986 SCMR 84 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a civil miscellaneous petition filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Syed Ghulam Hussain Shah vs. Syed Sadiq Hussain. The core legal question presented to the Court involved a request by the petitioners/appellants for permission to undertake the re-building of a shop that was the subject of the underlying dispute. The Court, exercising its discretion in the civil miscellaneous proceedings, granted the prayer sought by the petitioners. The holding of the Court was that the petitioners were permitted to proceed with the re-building of the disputed shop, subject to the specific condition that such construction would be undertaken entirely at the petitioners' own risk and cost. This decision establishes the principle that a court may grant interim relief allowing for the modification or reconstruction of disputed property during the pendency of litigation, provided that the party seeking such relief assumes full liability for the associated costs and any potential legal consequences arising from the alteration of the property's status quo.
Questions settled- Can a party to a civil dispute be granted permission by the court to re-build a disputed shop during the pendency of proceedings?
- Is a court empowered to allow the alteration of disputed property subject to the condition of risk and cost to the applicant?
- Syed GHULAM DASTG!R SHAH vs Mst. Syyada TAHIRA SABOOHI1986 PLD Lahore 52 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
- Syed GHIAS HAIDER vs Mst. ALLAH RAKHI AND Other1986 SCMR 853 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a pre-emption suit due to abatement. The petitioner filed a suit for pre-emption, but the defendant died while proceedings were pending. The petitioner failed to implead the correct legal representatives within the statutory period, instead attempting to implead a business partner. The trial court dismissed the suit as having abated under Order XXII, Rule 4(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the suit could proceed despite the failure to bring the correct legal representatives on record within the limitation period, and whether the initial application could be treated as one to set aside abatement. The Supreme Court held that the suit abated automatically upon the expiry of the limitation period. The Court affirmed that an application to implead a wrong person does not satisfy the requirements of Order XXII, Rule 4, and that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 do not apply to the substitution of legal representatives. The Court emphasized that the plaintiff must establish 'sufficient cause' to set aside an abatement.
Questions settled- Does the failure to implead legal representatives within the statutory period result in the automatic abatement of a suit?
- Are the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 applicable to the substitution of legal representatives under Order XXII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can an application to implead a wrong person be treated as a valid application to set aside the abatement of a suit?
- Does the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 apply to cases where abatement occurred prior to its promulgation?
- Syed FIDA HUSSAIN vs THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT T.B1986 PLC (C.S. ) 984 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed FASAHAT ALI ZAIDI And 8 Other vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND Through The Secretary1986 PLC (C.S) 740 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-18Read full judgment →
- Syed BALEEGHUR REHMAN vs PAKISTAN Through Secretary, Establishment1986 PLC (C. S.) 728 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-04Read full judgment →
- Syed AZIZ AKHTAR vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2541 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-22Read full judgment →