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.
- Syed ATIQ AHMAD vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS And Others1986 PLC (C. S.) 102 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-05-27Read full judgment →
- Syed ATA HUSSAIN SHAH and others vs LAL DIN and others1986 MLD 433 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-27Read full judgment →
- Syed ASIF ALI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 467 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-03Read full judgment →
- Syed ARIF SHAH vs ABDUL HAKIM1986 PLD Karachi 189 · Sindh High Court · 1984-07-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 arose from an order of the Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, rejecting an application for review of a judgment in a specific performance suit. The trial court had found the sale agreement executed, but in exercise of its discretion under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, declined specific performance due to the peculiar circumstances of the case (involving allegations of coercion), instead decreeing refund of earnest money and damages. The plaintiff did not appeal but sought review, which was rejected. The High Court held that a revision petition against an order rejecting a review application lies within a narrow compass under Section 115 CPC, requiring proof of jurisdictional error, illegality, or material irregularity. The court held that a mistake or improper exercise of judicial discretion is a matter for appeal rather than review or revision. Finding no arbitrary or fanciful exercise of discretion by the trial court, the High Court dismissed the revision application.
Questions settled- Is a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 maintainable against an order rejecting an application for review?
- Can a court refuse a decree for specific performance under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 merely because a sum is named in the agreement to be paid in case of breach?
- Does an improper or incorrect exercise of judicial discretion constitute a valid ground for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- SYED ANWAR KAMAL vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2314 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-22Read full judgment →
- Syed ANWAR ALI SHAH vs YAR MUHAMMAD and 3 others-1986 P Cr. L J 1278 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application challenged the order of the IVth Additional City Magistrate, Karachi East, whereby four respondents were acquitted under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the framing of a formal charge. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate can acquit an accused under Section 249-A prior to framing a charge and recording evidence, and on what material such an acquittal can be based. The Sindh High Court held that while a Magistrate possesses the unrestricted power to acquit an accused at 'any stage'—including prior to the framing of a charge based on police papers—such power can only be exercised if the charge is groundless or if there is no probability of conviction based solely on the police report or material legally brought on record. The Court ruled that a Magistrate cannot rely on extraneous material produced by the accused or prematurely disbelieve eyewitnesses and chance witnesses without recording evidence. Consequently, the revision application was allowed, the acquittal was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision.
Questions settled- Can a Magistrate acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prior to the framing of a formal charge?
- What material can a Magistrate legally consider when deciding to acquit an accused under Section 249-A before recording evidence?
- Whether the testimony of chance witnesses can be rejected without recording their evidence and subjecting them to cross-examination?
- Can a Magistrate rely on extraneous material produced by the accused to direct an acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Syed ALTAF HUSSAIN SHAH And Other vs VICE-PRESIDENT, UNITED BANK1986 PLC 523 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1985-12-31Read full judgment →
- Syed ALI SULEMAN JAFRI vs SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF SIND And 3 Other1986 SCMR 1302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a protracted dispute over the allotment of a plot in the Firdaus Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Karachi, claimed by both the deceased appellant and respondent No. 4. The core legal question revolved around the validity of the rival allotments and whether the appellant had become a member of the Society prior to respondent No. 4 to lawfully receive the plot. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the majority arbitrators and the High Court—establishing that respondent No. 4 was a valid member and allottee since 1951, whereas the appellant only became a member in 1955 and obtained manipulated documents—were well-founded. The Court affirmed that under the Society's bye-laws, regular membership and shareholding were prerequisites for a valid allotment, and irregularities in the Society's management did not override the sound documentary evidence supporting respondent No. 4. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an arbitration award under the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 can be set aside in revisional proceedings by the Provincial Government?
- Does a person become entitled to the allotment of land in a cooperative housing society prior to obtaining regular membership and purchasing the requisite shares?
- Can conflicting stands taken by the management of a cooperative society vitiate concurrent factual findings based on independent documentary evidence?
- Syed ALI NAZAR and 2 others vs SAKHIDAD and another1986 MLD 1811 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-22Read full judgment →
- Syed ALI HASAN RIZVI vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN And Other1986 SCMR 1086 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of the petitioner's service appeal by the Sind Service Tribunal on the ground of limitation. The petitioner, a former police sub-inspector dismissed in 1959, engaged in protracted litigation spanning civil suits, execution proceedings, and a subsequent suit for arrears of salary which abated following the establishment of the service tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution. The core legal question concerned whether the Service Tribunal erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal and whether the rule in Syed Faiz Ali Shah's case applied to the petitioner's circumstances. The Supreme Court held that the question of condoning delay was a question of fact within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, which did not exercise its discretion arbitrarily, and that the cited precedent was distinguishable on facts as the petitioner had indeed been afforded an opportunity to be heard on his condonation application. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the question of condoning delay in filing an appeal before a Service Tribunal falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal?
- Does the admission of an appeal by a tribunal without noting a time-bar automatically imply the condonation of delay under the principle laid down in Syed Faiz Ali Shah's case?
- Whether the abatement of a civil suit upon the promulgation of service tribunal laws warrants the automatic condonation of delay for subsequent appeals?
- Syed ALI AKBAR RIZVI And Others vs Messrs PAK ARMY FURNISHING STORES1986 SCMR 1220 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, owners of land in Karachi, sought ejectment of the respondent tenant before the Rent Controller on the ground of personal requirement for reconstruction, having obtained an approved building plan. The Rent Controller framed an issue regarding good faith and sanction. During proceedings, a letter and circular were produced showing that the Building Control Authority had suspended the building plan pursuant to the Karachi Building Controller Regulation, 1984, issued under the Sind Building Control Ordinance No. V of 1979, requiring a landlord to enter an agreement with tenants for alternate accommodation prior to reconstruction. The High Court dismissed the respondent's appeal but conditioned the eviction on the revalidation of the building plan. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court's conditional order was beyond the scope of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised require examination and granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a High Court can condition an order of ejectment on the revalidation of a suspended building plan?
- Does the suspension of a building plan by a building control authority curtail a landlord's right of ejectment under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Can a building control authority impose conditions requiring a landlord to enter into an agreement with tenants before permitting reconstruction?
- Syed ALI ABBAS SHAH And Others vs Syed MUHAMMAD ABBAS SHAH And Other1986 SCMR 432 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns cross-petitions arising from a land dispute under Martial Law Regulation No. 64 of 1959, where a declarant sought to revoke previously declared gifts of land to his mother and wife while exercising a fresh choice of land retention. The core legal questions were whether a declarant, upon being permitted to amend his land declaration, could unilaterally revoke prior gifts, and whether he was entitled to a 10% rebate on produce index units for lift-irrigated land. The Supreme Court dismissed both petitions, affirming the High Court's judgment. The Court held that the Land Commission's authority is limited to determining total holdings and permissible retention limits; it is not the forum to adjudicate the validity or revocability of private gifts between donor and donee. The Court established that disputes regarding the validity of gifts made by a declarant are civil matters to be resolved between the parties, independent of the Land Commission's regulatory functions. Furthermore, claims for rebates not supported by specific legal provisions or schemes cannot be granted under constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does the Land Commission have the authority to adjudicate the validity or revocability of private gifts made by a declarant?
- Can a declarant under Martial Law Regulation No. 64 of 1959 claim a 10% rebate on produce index units for lift-irrigated land without a specific legal provision?
- Is the validity of a gift made by a declarant a matter to be resolved by the Land Commission or by civil courts between the parties?
- Syed ALE ALI and others vs MUHAMMAD ASGHAR and others1986 MLD 2782 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-22Read full judgment →
- Syed ALA vs Messrs PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION Ltd.1986 PLC 545 · Labour Court · 1984-05-27Read full judgment →
- Syed AKHTAR HUSSAIN ZAIDI vs Sheikh ABDUL MAJEED1986 PLD Lahore 663 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-01Read full judgment →
- Syed AHMED ALI vs KHURSHID ALl KHAN and 3 others1986 MLD 1249 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-12Read full judgment →
- Syed AHMAD ALI vs KHURSHID ALI KHAN and 3 others1986 MLD 1486 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-14Read full judgment →
- Syed ABRAR HUSSAIN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS), SIND and 41986 MLD 1228 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-25Read full judgment →
- Syed ABID ALI SHAH vs FAKHAR UD DIN1986 SCMR 1199 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an unsuccessful defendant, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed his revision petition and affirmed the concurrent judgments and decrees of the two courts below. The plaintiff-respondent had instituted a civil suit claiming ownership and possession of a plot of land measuring 17 Marlas. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff's ownership extended only to 14 Marlas and not 17 Marlas, which finding was upheld by the Additional District Judge and the High Court. The core legal question concerned the petitioner's grievance regarding observations made in the High Court judgment concerning the remaining 3 Marlas of land. The Supreme Court held that since the decree of the trial court only granted 14 Marlas and left the residue untouched, the petitioner was not aggrieved by the unaltered decree. The Supreme Court laid down that a party cannot maintain a petition for leave to appeal against mere observations in a judgment when the actual decree does not adversely affect them. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Can a party seek leave to appeal against mere observations in a judgment when the underlying decree does not grant relief against them?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts can be disturbed in revision without jurisdictional error?
- Syed ABDULLAH SHAH vs THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SANGHAR and another1986 MLD 1214 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-27Read full judgment →
- Syed ABDULLAH SHAH And Others vs ABDUL GHAFFAR KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 253 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over agricultural land in Baluchistan, originating from a criminal complaint of trespass filed in 1960. Following a complex procedural history involving the Frontier Crimes Regulation, the Quetta/Kalat Ordinance (No. III of 1965), and Ordinance I of 1968, the petitioners' predecessor-in-title obtained a decree for possession. The respondent challenged this in revision before the Board of Revenue, where the Member, Mr. Agha Nasir Ali Khan, remanded the case for retrial, citing a failure to frame issues and determine limitation. The petitioners challenged this remand order in the High Court, which dismissed their petition. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the Member, Board of Revenue, was biased due to his prior involvement in the case and that the remand order was legally unsustainable as the relevant law did not require framing issues and the limitation plea was not raised in the pleadings. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the questions regarding the necessity of framing issues under Ordinance I of 1968 and the propriety of raising limitation for the first time in revision were substantial questions of law.
Questions settled- Whether a Member of the Board of Revenue is disqualified from hearing a revision application if they previously expressed an adverse opinion on the merits of the same case?
- Does Section 4 of Ordinance I of 1968 require the framing of issues before a Tribunal, or can the entire dispute be referred?
- Can a plea of limitation, being a mixed question of law and fact, be raised for the first time during revision proceedings if it was not pleaded in the written statement?
- Syed ABDUL QASIM vs Ch. MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others1986 MLD 894 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-02Read full judgment →
- Syed ABDUL MAJEED vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS AND MINORITIES, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and 2 others1986 MLD 21 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-14Read full judgment →
- SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, SCARP-II CIRCLE, SARGODHA And Another vs IRRIGATION OPERATION LABOUR UNION, SCARP-11, SARGODHA1986 PLC 55 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-07-15Read full judgment →
- SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER III, PROVINCIAL BUILDINGS CIRCLE, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ1986 PLC 468 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-04-30Read full judgment →
- SUMANDAR KHAN vs NAWAB KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 1108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a vendee of agricultural land, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which refused to interfere with the revisional order of the Member, Board of Revenue in a pre-emption matter. The respondent-pre-emptor had successfully claimed pre-emption as a tenant and was directed to deposit the decretal amount by a specified date, having already made the statutory one-fifth deposit under section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. Subsequently, the pre-emptor applied for and obtained a refund of the one-fifth deposit by stating he was abandoning his pre-emption right, but later deposited the full decretal amount within the stipulated time. The core legal question concerned whether the withdrawal of the section 22 deposit violated the statutory requirements and terms of the decree. The Supreme Court held that the interpretation of section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act and strict compliance with the terms of the decree warranted an authoritative pronouncement. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal to examine the legal implications of withdrawing pre-emption deposits.
Questions settled- Must a deposit made under section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act remain intact until the pre-emption suit is decided and the decree is complied with?
- Does the withdrawal of a one-fifth pre-emption deposit amount to an abandonment of pre-emption rights?
- Whether strict compliance with the terms of a pre-emption decree requires the initial statutory deposit to be maintained throughout the proceedings?
- SULTAN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 251 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-09Read full judgment →
- SULTAN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 365 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-13Read full judgment →
- SULTAN MAHMOOD vs ANWAR AHMAD1986 SCMR 118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court dismissing a second appeal filed by the appellant. The appellant had challenged his eviction order passed by the Rent Controller for non-compliance with a rent deposit order, which was upheld by the Additional District Judge and subsequently by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review its orders passed in a second appeal under the relevant rent restriction law and thereby revive a dismissed appeal. The Supreme Court held that no exception could be taken to the view of the High Court that a second appeal once dismissed could not be revived by way of a review application. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with parties bearing their own costs. The key principle laid down is that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to review its orders passed in second appeal under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance to revive a dismissed matter.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review its orders passed in a second appeal under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Can a second appeal once dismissed by the High Court be revived through a review application?
- SULTAN MAHMOOD MIR vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through Secretary, Communications And Works Department, Lahore1986 SCMR 608 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the civil servant's appeal seeking expunction of adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Report. The core legal question was whether adverse remarks in a service record must be expunged merely because disciplinary proceedings initiated on the same allegations resulted in exoneration on appeal. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal's finding of fact justified the remarks and noted that the departmental appeal succeeded on technical grounds rather than a complete exoneration on merits. The Court concluded that no question of law of public importance was involved, thereby refusing leave to appeal and laying down the principle that an acquittal or success in disciplinary proceedings on technical grounds does not automatically entitle a civil servant to the expunction of adverse Annual Confidential Report remarks properly justified on record.
Questions settled- Whether adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report must be expunged when departmental disciplinary proceedings result in a successful appeal?
- Does an exoneration on technical grounds in disciplinary proceedings entitle a civil servant to the removal of adverse remarks from his service record?
- Is a finding of fact recorded by the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding Annual Confidential Report remarks open to interference by the Supreme Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- SULTAN MAHMOOD And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2410 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-18Read full judgment →
- SULTAN KHAN vs THE GOVERMENT OF N.-W. F. P_1986 PLD Federal Shariat Court 7 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- SULTAN KHAN Alias SULTAN AHMAD And Others vs Mst.SARDAR BIBI And OTHER1986 CLC 74 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-08Read full judgment →
- SULTAN Andanother vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1026 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
- SULTAN and others vs SALEH MUHAMMAD and others1986 MLD 859 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-10Read full judgment →
- SULTAN ALI vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2324 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-09Read full judgment →
- SULTAN AHMAD vs MANZOOR AHMAD And 2 Others1986 P Cr. L J 3016 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-04Read full judgment →
- SULTAN AHMAD KHAN vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and 2 others1986 MLD 13(2) · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-24Read full judgment →
- SULTAN AHMAD And Others vs KHUDA BUX And Other1986 SCMR 1005 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These petitions for leave to appeal arose from pre-emption suits filed by the respondents against the petitioner vendees regarding agricultural land, wherein the plaints were originally filed with deficient court-fees. The core legal question concerned the legality of a subsequent order extending time for making up the deficiency in court-fees after the expiry of the period specified in an earlier order, and whether the plaints were liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the power of the Court to extend time under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be exercised successively, even after the expiry of a previously fixed period, provided no specific amount of deficiency was originally quantified. The Court established that a subsequent order allowing time to make good deficient court-fees is legally valid, and the exercise of discretion under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the appellate court was sound and in accordance with settled principles.
Questions settled- Can a court exercise power under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to extend time successively after the expiry of the period fixed under a previous order?
- Are plaints liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for deficient court-fees when the court has not initially specified the exact amount of deficiency to be made up?
- Whether an appellate court's exercise of discretion under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to extend time for making up court-fee deficiencies can be interfered with without proof of perverse exercise?
- SULEMAN ZULFIQAR MEHDI vs HABIBUR REHMAN and 3 others1986 MLD 195 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-03Read full judgment →
- SULEMAN vs MIRZAN And Others1986 P Cr. L J 1216 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- SULEMAN vs KARIM1986 PLD Karachi 344 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-09Read full judgment →
- SULEMAN KHAN vs MUHAMMAD ADREES And Others1986 P Cr. L J 2157 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-11Read full judgment →
- SULEMAN AND ANOTHER vs RAMZAN AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Rev. 14 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1979-10-02Read full judgment →
- SULEMAN AKHTAR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1625 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-02Read full judgment →
- SUGHRAN BEGUM vs NAWAB DIN And OTHER1986 CLC 819 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-23Read full judgment →
- SUFAIDULLAH vs The STATE1986 SCMR 335 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a Depot-holder, challenged his conviction under sections 3/6 of the West Pakistan Food Stuffs (Control) Act, 1958, for alleged shortages of sugar and Atta, which was upheld by the lower appellate court and the High Court. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained in the absence of crucial documentary evidence establishing the shortages and without examining the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the Atta shortage. The Supreme Court held that the conviction could not be maintained based solely on unsubstantiated oral evidence and the unverified ipsi dixit of the Food Inspector, particularly when the stock register and documentary evidence were not produced and the mandatory examination under section 342 was deficient. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the fine was ordered to be remitted.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for shortages of food stuffs be maintained under the West Pakistan Food Stuffs (Control) Act, 1958, in the absence of crucial documentary evidence such as the stock register?
- Whether reliance can be placed solely on the oral testimony and ipsi dixit of a Food Inspector to prove shortages of essential commodities?
- Does the failure to question an accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding a material piece of evidence vitiate the conviction?
- SUBHAN KHAN And 6 Others vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ COLLECTOR, KASUR1986 CLC 2599 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-12Read full judgment →
- SUBHAN DIN vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE1986 PLC 1126 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- SUBHAN ALI vs GHULAM QADIR And OTHER1986 CLC 1270 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-22Read full judgment →
- SUBEY DIN and another vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2472 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-29Read full judgment →
- Subedar Malik SHER MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1510 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
- Subedar LAL HUSSAIN And 3 Others vs ALLAH DITTA And 3 OTHER1986 CLC 1341 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-18Read full judgment →
- STATE vs Sheikh SALAHUDDIN1986 PLD Karachi 342 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-22Read full judgment →
- STATE vs SAHIBZADI ATTIQUAH ABBASI and 2 others1986 MLD 2356 · Federal Land Commission · 1986-07-23Read full judgment →
- STATE vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ And Another1986 P Cr. L J 546 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-30Read full judgment →
- STATE vs Mst. ASHO And Another1986 P Cr. L J 2058 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-04-12Read full judgment →
- STATE vs MIR NABI BAKHSH KHAN KHOSO And Others1986 P Cr. L J 1130 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This acquittal appeal challenged an order by the Sessions Judge, Sibi, discharging respondents under Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, before framing charges or recording evidence. The core legal question was whether a trial court can invoke Section 265-K to acquit an accused at the initial stage without providing the prosecution an opportunity to present its case. The High Court held that while Section 265-K empowers a court to acquit an accused at any stage if there is no probability of conviction, this power cannot be exercised arbitrarily to stifle or throttle a legitimate prosecution. The court ruled that the trial judge acted prematurely and failed to consider the material on record, including police statements and statements under Section 164, Cr.P.C. The key principle laid down is that the power under Section 265-K must be exercised based on the material available on record, not whimsically, and parties must be granted a fair opportunity to present their cases. Consequently, the acquittal order was set aside, and the case was remanded for trial.
Questions settled- Can a trial court invoke Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to acquit an accused before framing a charge or recording any evidence?
- Is the power of a court to acquit an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 absolute or subject to the requirement of considering material on record?
- Can a court use Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to stifle or throttle a prosecution?
- Are statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 admissible for consideration when deciding an application under Section 265-K?
- STATE vs MAHMOOD1986 P Cr. L J 427 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- STATE vs LIAQAT ALI1986 P Cr. L J 1564 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-14Read full judgment →
- STATE vs HABIB SUGAR MILLS LTD., NA WABSHAHPLD 1986 Rev. 49(2) · Sindh Revenue Board · -Read full judgment →
- STATE vs FAZAL DIN AND 8 OTHERS1986 PLD Quetta 102 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-09-22Read full judgment →
- STATE vs DILAWAR KHAN and 2 others1986 MLD 2355 · Federal Land Commission · 1986-09-03Read full judgment →
- STATE vs Ch. FAYYAZ ALI KHAN and 9 others1986 MLD 2345 · Federal Land Commission · 1986-09-09Read full judgment →
- STATE THROUGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/CiLLECTOR, BAHAWALNAGAR1986 PLD Rev. 64 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1983-05-25Read full judgment →
- State Through Collector Central Excise & Land Customs Lahore. vs ZulifqarPTCL 1986 CL. 318 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- STATE Through Advocate General And Another vs ZARD ALI And Other1986 SCMR 713 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal filed by the State and a complainant against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which acquitted two respondents previously convicted of murder. The trial court had initially convicted the respondents under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court, while acknowledging the promptness of the FIR and the presence of independent ocular evidence, overturned the conviction based on discrepancies between the medical evidence, the site plan, and the version of the occurrence provided by eye-witnesses. The State argued that the High Court misapplied legal principles regarding the weight of oral evidence versus medical evidence and site plans, citing established Supreme Court precedents. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court's acquittal was based on well-recognized principles for the safe administration of criminal justice. The Court ordered the issuance of bailable warrants for the respondents pending the appeal.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of an accused based on discrepancies between medical evidence and ocular testimony align with the established principles for the safe administration of criminal justice?
- Can medical evidence be used to contradict ocular evidence that is otherwise considered convincing and free from taint?
- Is a site plan intended to corroborate or contradict the version of an occurrence provided by eye-witnesses?
- STATE LIFE INSURANCE vs S. A. AZIZ RIZVI1986 PLD Karachi 79 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-04Read full judgment →
- STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION vs Haji ABDUL GHANI and 3 others1986 MLD 1245 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-05Read full judgment →
- STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN Petitioner vs Mst.1986 PLD Peshawar 121 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-03-19Read full judgment →
- STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN vs M.Z. KHALIL, OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR1986 CLC 2826 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-23Read full judgment →
- STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN vs DIRECTOR OF LABOUR And Others1986 PLC 782 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
- STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN vs ABDUL KHALIQ1986 SCMR 1490 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by the State Bank of Pakistan challenges the judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, which had upheld the first appellate court's decision setting aside the dismissal of the respondent, a chowkidar, from service. The respondent was dismissed following a departmental inquiry for dereliction of duty under Regulation 22 of the State Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Regulations. The core legal questions involved whether a declaratory civil suit was maintainable when departmental rules were not violated, and whether the inquiry was vitiated by alleged bias because the inquiry officer was subordinate to the dismissing authority. The Supreme Court held that since no rules were violated and no plea of bias was raised during the departmental inquiry, findings of bias based on the subordination of the inquiry officer were speculative and not rooted in evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and the first appellate court, and restored the trial court's judgment dismissing the suit, establishing that departmental actions conducted fairly without rule violations cannot be invalidated on surmises of bias.
Questions settled- Whether a declaratory civil suit is maintainable against a dismissal from service when there is no breach of any departmental rule regarding the enquiry?
- Can an administrative departmental enquiry be vitiated on the ground of bias simply because the enquiry officer is subordinate to the competent authority, when no such objection was raised during the proceedings?
- Is it open to a civil court or first appellate court to substitute its own discretion regarding the quantum of punishment inflicted by an administrative authority?
- SPEAKER, PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLY OF SIND vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND through Chief Secretary1986 MLD 203 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-03Read full judgment →
- SOOMRO vs ABDUL WA HID1986 PLD Rev. 147 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1975-11-13Read full judgment →
- SOOMAR KHAN LAHROOMAL And Another vs MAUDHOMAL1986 SCMR 1636 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via petitions for leave to appeal challenging interim orders passed by the High Court during the pendency of appeals filed by the petitioners. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the discretionary interim orders issued by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had passed the impugned interim orders in the valid exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to warrant interference with these orders and dismissed the petitions. The key principle affirmed is that the Supreme Court will generally decline to interfere with interim orders passed by the High Court where such orders are found to be within the scope of the High Court's valid discretionary jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with interim orders passed by the High Court when such orders are within the High Court's discretionary jurisdiction?
- Is a petition against an interim order maintainable if the High Court exercised its discretion validly?
- SOOMAR And 11 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1645 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-11Read full judgment →
- Soofi ABDUL RASHID vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2218 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-12Read full judgment →
- SOOBEY KHAN And Others vs THE STATE-1986 PCr. L J 829(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-24Read full judgment →
- SOHNA vs THE STATE and 7 others-1986 P Cr. L J 1576 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-01Read full judgment →
- SOHAIL AZAM And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 823(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-26Read full judgment →
- SOHAIL AMJAD vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1482 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-04-27Read full judgment →
- SOHAIL AKBAR SOOFI vs ABDUS SALAM KHAWAR, JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, LAHORE and another1986 MLD 1347 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-27Read full judgment →
- SOFIA SULTAN And Others vs KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY And Other1986 SCMR 1870 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from the dismissal of a Constitutional Petition by the Sind High Court concerning the conversion of a designated park area into residential plots within K.D.A. Scheme No. 24, Karachi. The petitioners, who were allottees of nearby residential plots, challenged the Works Co-operative Housing Society's decision to re-designate the park land for residential use, arguing it violated the Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957. The core legal question was whether the authorities possessed the power to alter the site plan or scheme after its initial sanction. The Supreme Court declined to definitively interpret the conflicting provisions of the Karachi Development Authority Order regarding scheme alteration. Instead, the Court held that the authorities had demonstrated compelling public interest—specifically, the need to relocate the park due to underground water pipelines and drainage issues affecting other residential plots. Furthermore, the Court noted that a park facility remained available to residents. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the administrative action was justified and that judicial interference would cause unnecessary disruption to third parties who had already commenced construction.
Questions settled- Are authorities competent to alter a sanctioned site plan or scheme under the Karachi Development Authority Order 1957?
- Does the existence of compelling public interest justify the conversion of land reserved for a park into residential plots?
- Can a court refuse to interfere with an administrative action if such interference would cause undue hardship to third parties?
- SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS and another vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KARACHI (EAST), KARACHI1986 MLD 1460 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-27Read full judgment →
- SMILE GARMENTS LIMITED. vs GHULAM HAIDER And 12 Others1986 PLC 271 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-15Read full judgment →
- SIRAJ vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1630 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, Siraj, who was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death. Upon appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to imprisonment for life. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel limited the prayer to seeking the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which allows for the period of detention as an under-trial prisoner to be considered part of the substantive sentence. The Supreme Court, finding the case appropriate for such relief, converted the petition into an appeal and partly allowed it. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C., and directed the jail authorities to account for the period spent by the petitioner as an under-trial prisoner when calculating the term of his imprisonment.
Questions settled- Is a convict sentenced to life imprisonment entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the Supreme Court grant the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during an appeal against conviction and sentence?
- SIRAJ DIN And Others vs ALLAH RAKHA And Other1986 SCMR 1946 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition concerning an urban settlement dispute. The core legal question was whether two properties, bearing distinct identification numbers, were in reality a single property, which would affect the validity of the transfer of the disputed property to the respondent via auction. Following a remand in an earlier round of litigation, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner rendered a finding of fact that the two numbers represented separate properties. This finding was subsequently affirmed by a Single Judge of the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the findings of fact were based on a misreading of evidence, specifically pointing to an administrative error regarding a statement purportedly made by a predecessor-in-interest after his death. The Supreme Court held that the mistake regarding the statement was minor and innocent, and that the finding of fact was supported by several other independent factors. Consequently, the Court found no legal infirmity in the High Court's judgment and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a minor factual error regarding a statement attributed to a deceased person invalidates a finding of fact supported by other independent evidence?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by settlement authorities and the High Court be interfered with in the absence of a manifest jurisdictional error or material illegality?
- SIRAJ DIN And Others vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, OKARA And OTHER1986 CLC 975 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge, Okara, which dismissed the petitioners' application to be impleaded as parties in an ejectment petition filed by respondent No. 3 against respondent No. 4. The core legal question was whether persons having a bona fide claim and previous litigation history concerning the disputed property are necessary parties to an ejectment proceeding brought against an alleged sub-tenant who denies possession. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners are necessary parties to the proceedings, as failing to implead them creates a legitimate apprehension of illegal dispossession, especially since the alleged sub-tenant denies having any connection with the property. The court laid down the principle that where an interlocutory order suffers from a jurisdictional defect or improperly shuts out a proper party whose presence is necessary for conclusive adjudication, constitutional jurisdiction can be invoked to set aside such order.
Questions settled- Whether persons who have been litigating over property and against whom a landlord previously sought ejectment are necessary parties in a subsequent ejectment application filed against an alleged sub-tenant?
- Can an interlocutory order passed by a Rent Controller or lower tribunal be challenged through a constitutional petition if it suffers from a jurisdictional defect?
- Whether a High Court can interfere with the discretion exercised by a lower court in refusing to implead a party under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- SIRAJ And Another vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1578 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that modified their convictions from murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to causing grievous hurt under Section 326/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s reliance on ocular testimony and recovery evidence was legally sound, given the petitioners' contentions regarding the acquittal of a co-accused, the discrepancy between the weapons allegedly used and the injuries sustained, and the reliability of recovery witnesses. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court’s findings were in consonance with the principles of criminal justice. The Court affirmed that when ocular testimony is credible and corroborated by recovery evidence, and where no specific grounds exist to discredit the prosecution witnesses, the conviction is sustainable. The judgment reinforces that appellate courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact when the evidence is consistent and no material infirmity is demonstrated in the trial or appellate assessment.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of one co-accused necessarily invalidate the conviction of other co-accused based on the same ocular testimony?
- Can a conviction be sustained when recovery witnesses are police officers and no public witnesses are present?
- Is the Supreme Court required to interfere with a High Court's assessment of evidence if the findings are consistent with established principles of criminal justice?
- SIRAJ AHMED vs THE STATE1986 PLD Rev. 91 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1972-12-20Read full judgment →
- SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD ALI G. KHOKHAR1986 SCMR 1667 (2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the legal status of service rules adopted by the Sind Road Transport Corporation. The core legal question presented is whether the West Pakistan Road Transport Board Rules, 1959, which were adopted by the petitioner Corporation to regulate the terms and conditions of service for its employees, possess a statutory character. Furthermore, the court addresses whether a constitutional petition is maintainable in the High Court for the non-compliance of such rules. Upon consideration, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, indicating that the matter requires further examination on the merits. The judgment establishes that the nature of the rules governing the employees of the Corporation is a significant legal question that necessitates a formal determination by the Court, particularly concerning the availability of constitutional remedies for alleged violations of these service regulations.
Questions settled- Are the West Pakistan Road Transport Board Rules, 1959, adopted by the Sind Road Transport Corporation, statutory in character?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable in the High Court for the non-compliance of the West Pakistan Road Transport Board Rules, 1959?
- SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIA6 SECURITY INSTITUTION vs Messrs KOHINOOR1986 SCMR 1134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Sind High Court, which had dismissed its Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 64 of the Social Security Ordinance against the order of the Social Security Court. The core legal question raised was whether the respondent's appeal before the Social Security Court was incompetent under section 59 of the Ordinance due to the absence of a proper decision under section 57. The Supreme Court held that since the point was not raised or argued before the High Court or the Social Security Court, despite being mentioned in the written objections, it could not be permitted to be raised for the first time before the apex court. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a legal ground contained merely in written pleadings, if not specifically argued and pressed before the lower courts, cannot be entertained in further appeal.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a legal ground in the appellate court that was pleaded in written objections but never argued before the lower courts?
- Whether an appeal before the Social Security Court is incompetent without a decision under section 57 of the Social Security Ordinance when the objection was not pressed below?
- SIKANDAR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 239 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-04Read full judgment →
- SIKANDAR vs THE STATE OF PAKISTAN-1986 P Cr. L J 2463 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-05-20Read full judgment →
- SIKANDAR HAYAT vs THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD And 21986 PLC (C.S.) 252 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-12-08Read full judgment →
- SIKANDAR HAYAT vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2159 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-09Read full judgment →
- SIKANDAR ALI, GENERAL SECRETARY ARMY WELFARE EMPLOYEES (ARZOO)1986 PLC 297 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-09-21Read full judgment →
- SIDDIQUE And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2653 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-17Read full judgment →
- SIDDIQUE AHMAD vs MUH AMMADBH AI and 5 others1986 MLD 926 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-08Read full judgment →