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.
- SIBTE MUHAMMAD And Another vs MERAJ DIN And Another1986 SCMR 364 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside a revisional order of the Settlement Commissioner and restored the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner regarding the demarcation and transfer of urban evacuee property comprising Khasra Nos. 2915 and 2916 in Raj Garh, Lahore. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Commissioner's finding of fact regarding the physical extent of the transferred property and its demarcation could be validly disturbed by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly concluded that the Settlement Commissioner's order was based on irrelevant considerations and no order in the eye of the law, thereby justifying interference in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision as just and fair, laying down that an order of a settlement authority based on irrelevant factors and flawed inferences regarding property demarcation is amenable to correction under constitutional jurisdiction, and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with a finding of fact by a Settlement Commissioner in constitutional jurisdiction when the finding is based on irrelevant considerations?
- Does the ownership of adjacent plots by the same evacuee necessarily imply that they comprise a single property for transfer purposes?
- Whether an order passed without appreciation of relevant and material factors by a Settlement Commissioner can be sustained in the eye of the law?
- SHUKAR DIN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2871 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-06Read full judgment →
- SHUJAIT ALI vs MUHAMMAD NAZIR and others1988 MLD 774 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-26Read full judgment →
- SHOAIB AHMED vs MUHAMMAD TARIQ1986C L C 2103 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-09Read full judgment →
- SHERI YAZDAN vs Sh. ABDUL GHANI And ANOTHER1986 CLC 1146 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-03Read full judgment →
- SHERDIL vs THE STATE1986 PLD Peshawar 95 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-12-06Read full judgment →
- SHERA And Others vs HAQ NAWAZ And OTHER1986 CLC 2334 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-03Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2367 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-15Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1720 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-12-03Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs SUMMARY MILITARY COURT and others-1986 P Cr. L J 2421 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-14Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL And Others1986 P Cr. L J 903 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-22Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE And OTHER1986 CLC 2160 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-20Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs ALI MUHAMMAD and others1986 MLD 597 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-15Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD And Others vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1986 CLC 2331 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-18Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD alias SHERO vs RABIA BIBI and 17 others1986 MLD 1024 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-05Read full judgment →
- SHER BROTHERS TRANSPORT Co. Ltd., LYALLPUR vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/1986 SCMR 1090 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of the dismissal in limine of a writ petition filed by a private limited company seeking reimbursement of an amount of Rs. Four lacs allegedly recovered illegally from it in 1970 towards fines imposed upon its directors and managers by a summary Military Court under Martial Law Regulation No. 16-A in 1969. The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition on 30-1-1975 on the ground of extreme delay. The core legal question was whether the pursuit of departmental mercy petitions constitutes a valid justification for a gross and unexplained delay of five years in invoking the constitutional writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the filing of mercy petitions does not furnish a sufficient ground to excuse a delay of five years in approaching the High Court for a discretionary writ remedy. The Court affirmed that unexplained delays of such magnitude are fatal to constitutional petitions, and accordingly dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does the pursuit of mercy petitions justify a delay of five years in filing a constitutional writ petition?
- Is a delay of five years fatal to the discretionary remedy of a writ petition?
- Whether the dismissal of a writ petition in limine on the ground of extreme delay is sustainable in law?
- SHER BAHADUR vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through District Education Officer, D. G. Khan1986 PLC (C. S.) 908 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-01-05Read full judgment →
- SHER AFGAN vs THE STATE1986 PLD Peshawar 107 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-05-02Read full judgment →
- Sheikh RIAZ UD DIN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1950 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-15Read full judgment →
- Sheikh MUHAMMAD YASIN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OP JAMMU1986 PLD Azad J & K 222 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-07-08Read full judgment →
- Sheikh MUHAMMAD IMTIAZ and another vs Mst. MALIKA SAFIA and 2 others1986 MLD 1458 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-26Read full judgment →
- Sheikh MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 702 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-08Read full judgment →
- SHEIKH MUHAMMAD Alias SHAIKHA And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 549 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-18Read full judgment →
- Sheikh INAYATULLAH and 5 others vs MASOOD AHMAD and 3 others1986 MLD 965 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-15Read full judgment →
- Sheikh GHULAM AHMAD AND OTHERS vs Raja MUHAMMAD YUSUF KHAN AND OTHERS-Non1986 PLD SC (A J & K) 16 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Sheikh AHMAD ALI And Others vs The SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Another1986 SCMR 1553 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of property under settlement laws, specifically involving the Kashmir Hotel and an adjoining shop. The petitioners challenge the transfer of the roof of their shop to the respondents, who had previously acquired the hotel and incorporated the roof into it through construction. The Settlement Commissioner and the High Court had previously held as a finding of fact that the roof became part of the respondents' hotel property through conversion. The petitioners contend that the roof of their shop could not legally be transferred to the respondents and allege discriminatory treatment, noting that a similar claim regarding an adjoining shop's roof was rejected by the authorities. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the transfer of the roof of the petitioners' shop to the respondents, as part of their converted hotel, was in accordance with the applicable settlement laws and whether the alleged discrimination vitiates the transfer.
Questions settled- Whether the transfer of a shop's roof to an adjoining hotel owner, as part of a converted hotel, is legally permissible under settlement laws?
- Can a finding of fact regarding property conversion be challenged in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Does the inconsistent treatment of similar property claims by the Settlement Commissioner constitute unlawful discrimination?
- Sheikh AFTAB AHMAD And Others vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KARACHI And Another1986 SCMR 445 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the dismissal of appeals by the Sind Service Tribunal regarding the termination of temporary Surveyors. The appellants had initially filed civil suits challenging their termination, which were dismissed by the Additional District Judges on the ground of abatement prior to the promulgation of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Tribunal subsequently held that because the suits were not pending on the date the Act was promulgated, the appellants could not invoke Section 6 of the Act to transfer their cases. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Tribunal's finding was erroneous. Relying on established legal principles, the Court ruled that a cause remains 'pending' until the period of limitation for filing an appeal against the original order has expired. Since the limitation period for filing appeals in the High Court had not elapsed when the Act was promulgated, the proceedings were deemed pending. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the cases for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Is a legal cause considered 'pending' until the period of limitation for filing an appeal against the original order has expired?
- Does the abatement of a suit by a civil court preclude the application of Section 6 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- Can a service tribunal refuse to hear a case on the grounds that the suit was not pending on the date of the promulgation of the Sind Service Tribunals Act 1973 if the limitation period for an appeal had not yet expired?
- Sheikh ABDUS SATTAR vs Malik MUHAMMAD AFZAL, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT1986 CLC 2098 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Sheikh ABDUL HAQUE vs Mst. NARGIS And Other1986 SCMR 1820(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against an order of the Lahore High Court. The petitioner had initially filed a criminal complaint under Section 9 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929, alleging that seventeen respondents had collaborated to forcibly solemnize the marriage of a minor girl aged fifteen years with an accused person. The trial Magistrate dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondents. Subsequently, the petitioner sought leave to appeal under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petition in limine for lack of sufficient grounds. The Supreme Court evaluated whether the High Court erred in refusing leave to appeal. Upholding the decisions of both lower courts, the Supreme Court held that the complaint was rightly dismissed and that no grounds for interference existed. The Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal against an order of acquittal under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should be granted where the trial court rightly dismissed a complaint under the Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929?
- Sheikh ABDUL HAQUE And Another vs Dr. SAFDAR BOKHARI And Other1986 SCMR 2016 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves civil appeals arising from a common judgment passed in Intra-Court Appeals. The core legal question addressed is the competency of the Intra-Court Appeals filed before the High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Intra-Court Appeals were incompetently filed and consequently declared the common judgment allowing those appeals to be a nullity. Additionally, connected civil appeals were disposed of in the same terms or dismissed accordingly. The key principle laid down is that an incompetent appeal cannot sustain a valid judgment, rendering any decision rendered thereon a nullity in the eyes of the law.
Questions settled- Whether an Intra-Court Appeal filed without legal competency renders the resulting judgment a nullity?
- How should civil appeals arising from an incompetent Intra-Court Appeal be disposed of by the Supreme Court?
- SHEHZAD Alias SHADA. vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1883 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-30Read full judgment →
- SHEHNAZ BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL1986 CLC 797 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-06Read full judgment →
- SHEHLA NARGIS vs DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE/ RESIDENT EDITOR, DAILY "JANG"1986 PLC 585 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-05-29Read full judgment →
- SHEHBAZ ALI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1780 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-01Read full judgment →
- SHEERIN BAI vs MUHAMMAD HANIF and others1986 MLD 2020 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-15Read full judgment →
- SHEEDA and another vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1092 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-01Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 740 · Lahore High Court · 1985-08-05Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT KHAN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1054 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-19Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT JAMIL vs SECRETARY, COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT1986 PLC (C.S.) 923 · Punjab Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT IQBAL AHMAD vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 200 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-04-16Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT HUSSAIN vs THE CHAIRMAN, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD, WAPDA,-1986 PLC 365 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-01-04Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT Alias SHAFQAT vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1429 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-29Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI. vs SAEEDA KHATOON And Another1986 SCMR 1398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing his constitutional petition, which challenged the refusal of the settlement department to transfer a shop to him under Scheme No. IX. The property in question had been previously transferred to the respondent, and although an order of resumption was passed due to non-payment of the price, the department and the High Court found that the cancellation was flawed because an application for reduction of the price was still pending and proper notice of cancellation had not been served in accordance with the law. The core legal question was whether a property subject to an unresolved price reduction application and defective cancellation notice could be treated as an available residual property for transfer to a third party. The Supreme Court held that while a pending price reduction application remained undisposed of, the property could not be validly resumed, and the High Court's factual findings regarding defective service of notice were unexceptionable. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that flawed resumption proceedings do not render a property available for disposal.
Questions settled- Whether a property can be validly resumed for non-payment of price while an application for reduction of price is still pending?
- Does the mere passing of a resumption order render a property available for future disposal as a residual property regardless of the legality of the resumption?
- Can a High Court's finding of fact regarding the lack of proper notice before property cancellation be interfered with in the absence of contrary material on record?
- SHAUKAT ALI vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2161 · Special Court · 1985-06-16Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1501 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-22Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE And OTHER1986 CLC 2422 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI vs GHULAM QADIR And OTHER1986 CLC 838 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-02Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 696(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-15Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 345 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-16Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI And Others vs THE STATE- Respondent1986 P Cr. L J 2880 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-18Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI And Another vs MUHAMMAD YUSUF SHAH And Other1986 SCMR 1582 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition arising from proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding a property dispute. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate is empowered to initiate or continue proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. when there is no evidence of an apprehension of a breach of the peace. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the High Court and the revisional court, noting that the Investigating Officer explicitly testified that no such apprehension existed. Consequently, the Court held that the Magistrate lacked the necessary foundation to invoke jurisdiction under Section 145, Cr.P.C. The ratio of the decision is that the summary procedure under Section 145 is strictly contingent upon the existence of an apprehension of a breach of the peace; absent this, the dispute must be resolved through civil litigation. The petition was dismissed as frivolous with costs awarded to the respondents.
Questions settled- Can a Magistrate initiate proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if there is no apprehension of a breach of the peace?
- Is the existence of an apprehension of a breach of the peace a jurisdictional prerequisite for action under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should a property dispute be referred to civil courts when the requirements for Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are not met?
- SHATAB KHAN vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1986 MLD 2295 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-27Read full judgment →
- SHARIFULLAH KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND, through its Secretary, Labour1986 MLD 88 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-05Read full judgment →
- SHARIF vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1116 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
- SHARIF vs HE STATE1986 CLC 2147(2) · Board of Revenue · 1983-04-23Read full judgment →
- Shariat Appellate Bench]Shariat PAKISTAN vs PUBLIC AT LARGE1986 PLD Supreme Court 240 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1985-05-22Read full judgment →
- Shariat Appellate Bench]MAULANA ABU DAWOOD MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs REGISTRATION OFFICER, REGISTRATION OFFICE, LAHORE AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 564 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1984-05-16Read full judgment →
- SHARAFATULLAH vs THE STATE1986 P C r. L J1 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-05Read full judgment →
- SHARAFAT HUSSAIN And Others vs JAFFAR RAZA And Other1986 SCMR 1140 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 20-11-1985, which set aside an order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and remanded the case. The core legal question involved whether a subsequent bench of the High Court could reinterpret or interfere with an earlier finalized judgment of the same court that had attained finality. The Supreme Court held that since the earlier High Court judgment dated 30-10-1979 interpreting the remand directions had not been challenged and had become final, it was not open to subsequent benches or authorities to reopen or re-examine the settled interpretation. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that an unchallenged judgment or order attaining finality is binding on the parties and subordinate authorities, and subsequent proceedings must strictly conform to it without unwarranted interference.
Questions settled- Whether an unchallenged judgment of a High Court attaining finality can be reinterpreted in subsequent proceedings?
- Can subordinate authorities depart from the explicit directions given in a remand order?
- Whether a claimant is entitled to purchase excess land under the settlement instructions?
- SHARAF DIN vs Qazi ABDUL JALIL And Another1986 SCMR 1368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the appointment of a Lambardar. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court ought to interfere with the selection of a Lambardar made by statutory functionaries. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the High Court correctly declined to substitute its own view for that of the competent statutory authorities in matters concerning the appointment of a Lambardar. The Court relied on established jurisprudence, noting that judicial restraint is appropriate when reviewing the discretionary selection process of such functionaries. Consequently, the Court held that there was no merit in the petitioner's challenge and refused the leave to appeal, reinforcing the principle that courts should not interfere with the administrative discretion of revenue authorities in Lambardari appointments absent compelling legal error.
Questions settled- Should the High Court substitute its own view for that of statutory functionaries in the selection of a Lambardar?
- Is the appointment of a Lambardar a matter subject to interference by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- SHARAF ALI vs Mst. BILQUIS1986 MLD 1320 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-15Read full judgment →
- SHANOO And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1840 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-09Read full judgment →
- SHANA vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 854 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- SHANA MEER vs GUL NOOR And Another1986 SCMR 932 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit filed by the petitioner Shana Meer regarding a share of land against the respondents Gul Noor and another. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court accepted the petitioner's appeal and decreed the suit. However, the Peshawar High Court accepted the respondents' civil revision and set aside the appellate court's judgment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner had a superior right of pre-emption based on contiguity against the respondents, whose status as tenants was established by the revenue record. The Supreme Court held that the revenue records, specifically Khasra Girdawaris which were not successfully rebutted or discredited through cross-examination of the Patwari, sufficiently established that the respondents were tenants of the disputed Khasra numbers. The petition was accordingly dismissed as frivolous with forfeiture of costs, affirming the principle that entries in the revenue record are accepted in pre-emption cases unless rebutted.
Questions settled- Whether entries in the revenue record regarding tenancy are sufficient to establish the status of a tenant in pre-emption suits unless successfully rebutted?
- Does a pre-emptor with contiguous land succeed against established tenants of the suit land?
- What is the evidentiary value of Khasra Girdawaris when the Patwari is not cross-examined to discredit them?
- SHAN MUHAMMAD vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION1986 PLC (C.S.) 462 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-11-16Read full judgment →
- SHAMSUDDUHA vs LIAQUAT ALI1986 MLD 848 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-31Read full judgment →
- SHAMSUDDIN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 437 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-12Read full judgment →
- SHAMSUDDIN SHAH vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, RAWALPINDI1986 PLC (C.S.) 815 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1973-01-27Read full judgment →
- SHAMSUDDIN And Others vs THE RAINBOW DYEING AND PRINTING1986 SCMR 295 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave is directed against the order of the Sind High Court rejecting an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed by the appellants to correct alleged miscalculations in the amounts awarded to individual workmen under a consent judgment and compromise. The core legal question was whether a consent decree and compromise agreement could be amended under inherent powers to alter individual allocations when an accidental slip in calculation was alleged. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly rejected the application, as the compromise explicitly set specific sums for each workman in full and final settlement, and the total stated in the agreement was the result of an error rather than an intention to distribute a fixed aggregate pool. The key principle laid down is that a court cannot amend a consent decree or compromise to alter individual entitlements agreed upon by the parties unless there is a genuine common mistake regarding the whole bargain.
Questions settled- Whether a consent decree based on a compromise can be amended under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to alter individual allocations?
- Can a court correct an alleged miscalculation in a compromise agreement that has been made the rule of the court?
- Is an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 competent to change the specific terms and amounts settled between parties in a consent judgment?
- SHAMSHUR RIAZ And Anoth vs TRUST CERAMIC INDUSTRIES1986 PLC 839 · Labour Court · 1985-07-09Read full judgment →
- SHAMSHUDDIN vs HUSSAIN KHAN1986 MLD 1688 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-12Read full judgment →
- SHAMSHIR ALI GHAZI vs DIRECTOR, EDUCATION MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN1986 PLC (C.S.) 313 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-04-07Read full judgment →
- SHAMSHER KHAN vs MUHAMMAD SARWAR and others1986 MLD 521 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-08Read full judgment →
- SHAMSHAD HUSSAIN vs FOREIGN SECRETARY1986 SCMR 1240 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had partially dismissed the petitioner's service appeal concerning his entitlement to daily allowance while stationed in Iran. The petitioner, a stenotypist in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, sought daily allowance for a period between his relief from duties in Iran and his return to Pakistan, arguing that his extended stay was necessitated by his daughter's illness and the requirement to obtain a travel certificate. The core legal question was whether this period of stay at the station of duty constituted a "forced halt en route to the place of duty" under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' financial instructions, thereby entitling the official to daily allowance. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that the stay at the station of duty did not qualify as a "halt en route" under the relevant financial regulations. The Court affirmed that daily allowance provisions for forced halts apply strictly to transit situations, not to delays occurring at the original place of duty following a transfer order.
Questions settled- Does a stay at a station of duty following a transfer order qualify as a 'forced halt en route' for the purpose of claiming daily allowance?
- Are financial instructions regarding 'forced halts' applicable to delays occurring at the place of duty from which an official is transferred?
- SHAMSHAD AHMED KHAN vs AIJAZ AHMED1986 MLD 1624 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-27Read full judgment →
- SHAMS-UD-DIN vs Mst. JEVAN and others1986 MLD 764 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of a property dispute concerning inheritance rights of daughters against an exclusive mutation sanctioned in favour of their brother in 1933. The core legal questions involved whether the parties' family was governed by custom or Islamic law in matters of inheritance, and whether the suit filed decades later was barred by limitation, estoppel, or maintainability grounds. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner-defendant failed to discharge the heavy onus required to establish a special custom overriding personal law, as no instances of contested and abandoned claims by females were proved. The Court affirmed the appellate court's finding that the parties were governed by Islamic Law, ruling that co-heirs' possession is deemed joint possession, limitation does not run against co-heirs in the absence of adverse possession, and a fresh attack on inheritance rights affords a fresh cause of action. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- What is the standard and quantum of proof required to establish a special custom in derogation of personal law in matters of inheritance?
- Whether the possession of one co-heir over ancestral property is to be construed as possession on behalf of all co-heirs?
- Does a suit for a mere declaration regarding inheritance rights remain maintainable when co-heirs claim joint possession?
- When does time begin to run for the purpose of limitation in a declaratory suit involving a challenge to an old inheritance mutation among co-heirs?
- SHAMOON AND Others vs AHMAD AND Other1986 SCMR 888 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that decreed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The petitioners had entered into agreements to sell land they had purchased under Martial Law Regulation No. 64, despite a restriction in the Sale Scheme (paragraph 32(c)) prohibiting alienation without prior permission. The petitioners argued that the agreement was void due to this restriction. The Supreme Court held that an agreement to sell does not constitute an 'alienation' prohibited by the scheme. Furthermore, applying Section 18 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, the Court affirmed that where a person enters into an agreement to sell property with an imperfect title but subsequently acquires full ownership, they are bound to fulfill the agreement. The Court concluded that the restriction against alienation did not invalidate the agreement to sell, and the respondents were entitled to specific performance once the petitioners became full owners of the land.
Questions settled- Does an agreement to sell land constitute an 'alienation' under a scheme prohibiting the sale of land without prior permission?
- Is an agreement to sell property void under the Contract Act 1872 if the seller initially lacks full title but acquires it subsequently?
- Under Section 18 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, is a seller bound to fulfill an agreement to sell if they acquire the property interest after the agreement is made?
- SHAMAS TEXTILE MILLS Ltd. vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL & PUNJAB LABOUR COURT1986 PLC 52 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-24Read full judgment →
- SHAMAS DIN vs Syed QALANDAR SHAH1986 PLD Azad J & K 108 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-01-11Read full judgment →
- SHAMAN AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1986 PLD Lahore 11 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-11Read full judgment →
- Shallot Appellate Bench] GHULAM ALI vs THE STATE1986 PLD Supreme Court 741 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1986-05-07Read full judgment →
- SHAKIL-UZ-ZAMAN vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2671 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-25Read full judgment →
- SHAKIL AHMED and 4 others vs KUBABAI1986 MLD 401 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-16Read full judgment →
- SHAKEEL And Another vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SANGHAR And Other1986 SCMR 121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a constitutional petition challenging the cancellation of revenue mutation entries made in favour of the petitioners following their purchase of disputed land under a registered sale-deed. The Mukhtiarkar and the Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar had set aside/cancelled the revenue entries on the ground that the original allotment was based on bogus Rehabilitation certificates. The High Court declared the impugned administrative orders invalid for violating principles of natural justice as no hearing was afforded, and remitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to take fresh action regarding correction of mutation after hearing the affected parties. The petitioners sought full declaratory and injunctive relief before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that in view of serious allegations of fraud and forgery regarding revenue entries, the High Court rightly remanded the matter for fresh determination after due notice to the parties. Dismissing the petition, the Court affirmed that procedural natural justice must be complied with while remanding serious fraud inquiries to competent revenue authorities.
Questions settled- Whether administrative orders cancelling revenue mutation entries without providing an opportunity of hearing are invalid for violating principles of natural justice?
- Whether the High Court properly exercises its constitutional jurisdiction by remanding a matter involving allegations of fraud and forgery to the competent authority for a fresh hearing?
- Can a purchaser of property seek absolute injunctive relief to prevent revenue authorities from investigating alleged fraudulent antecedent title entries?
- SHAISTA ESTATES Ltd. vs KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY, KARACHI1986 MLD 2987 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-06Read full judgment →
- SHAISIR RAHIM vs Mst. FATIMA BAI1986 MLD 18 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-06Read full judgment →
- Shaikh MUSHIAQ ALI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER— s1986 PLD Federal Shariat Court 26 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- SHAIKH MUHAMMAD vs GOPALOMAL And Others1986 P Cr. L J 1227 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-14Read full judgment →
- Shaikh JAVID AHMAD vs Mst. DIL AFROZE GOZDER and another1986 MLD 338 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-21Read full judgment →
- Shaikh GHULAM RASUL vs Mst. FARHAT BEGUM1986 SCMR 798 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner-tenant sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's judgment in a second appeal, which had remanded the ejectment matter to the Rent Controller to frame a proper issue regarding the service of statutory notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and to decide it within two months. The core legal question concerned whether remand was justified where the original issue framed by the Rent Controller did not correctly reflect the controversy over the service of notice and whether reliance on documents present on the file but not formally tendered in evidence warranted a retrial. The Supreme Court held that the remand was proper to ensure a just and fair adjudication in advancement of substantial justice, eliminating technicalities in rent control proceedings. The Court established that where parties are not misled by an incorrect issue but material documents remain unadmitted on record, a remand allowing parties to lead evidence is permissible and does not prejudice the tenant in possession.
Questions settled- Whether a High Court can remand an ejectment case to frame a correct issue regarding the service of statutory notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Does the presence of unadmitted documents on the judicial file concerning statutory notice justify remanding the case for proper adjudication?
- Whether the framing of an incorrect issue by the Rent Controller vitiates the proceedings where the parties were aware of the actual controversy?
- Shaikh ABDUL HAMID vs PRESIDENT, CANTONMENT BOARD And Other1986 SCMR 392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had refused relief to a candidate whose nomination paper for election to the Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi, was rejected by the authorities. Although the High Court found all initial grounds for rejecting the nomination paper to be without merit, it dismissed the candidate's constitutional petition on a new, suo motu ground involving a statutory disqualification introduced by the Cantonments (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983, which incorporated by descriptive reference provisions of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions pertained to the propriety of the High Court raising a new ground of fact and law in constitutional jurisdiction, the proper interpretation of statutes incorporated by descriptive reference, and whether the appellant suffered from electoral and political disqualifications. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a jurisdictional error by resting its decision on a new factual inquiry not considered by the statutory authorities, and that the disqualification proviso exempted former members of the Cantonment Board. Furthermore, clerical errors in electoral rolls and unproven allegations of misconduct could not legally disqualify a candidate. The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction can dismiss a petition on a new ground of fact and law not considered by the original statutory authorities?
- How should statutory provisions incorporated into another statute by descriptive reference be interpreted regarding their provisos and exceptions?
- Does a clerical error in an electoral roll misprinting a candidate's name invalidate their nomination for election?
- Can unproven allegations of misconduct and past temporary contractual relationships with a local body constitute valid grounds for disqualifying a candidate?
- SHAHZADA vs THE STATE1986 MLD 414(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-03Read full judgment →
- SHAHZADA And Another vs DISTRICT CONTROLLER OF STORES, SHOP DEPOTS, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE1986 PLC 667 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- SHAHNAZ AKHTAR vs MANZOOR ALI1986 MLD 672 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-02Read full judgment →
- SHAHIDUN NABI KHAN And 2 Others vs ASHMATULLAH And ANOTHER1986 CLC 96 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-28Read full judgment →
- SHAHID SARWAR KHAN And Others vs HASHIM KHAN1986 SCMR 1241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed civil revisions arising from pre-emption suits. The petitioners challenged the validity of the decrees on two primary grounds: first, that the initial filing of the suits in a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction rendered the subsequent decrees nullities; and second, that the appointment of guardians-ad-litem for minor defendants was procedurally improper. The Supreme Court examined these contentions and found them meritless. Regarding the jurisdictional argument, the Court held that Section 11(b) of the relevant statute provided a complete answer, precluding the challenge. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the petitioners failed to raise these objections before the appellate court, thereby depriving the judicial process of the opportunity to rectify any technical defects. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the conduct of the petitioners in withholding these pleas at the appropriate stage barred them from raising them in revisional jurisdiction. The petition for leave to appeal was refused, reinforcing the principle that procedural objections must be timely raised to allow for remedial measures.
Questions settled- Does the initial filing of a suit in a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction render subsequent decrees a nullity?
- Can a party raise objections regarding the appointment of a guardian-ad-litem for the first time in revisional jurisdiction if they failed to raise them before the appellate court?
- Does the failure to raise procedural objections before an appellate court preclude a party from seeking relief on those grounds in a higher forum?
- SHAHID PERVEZ vs RAFHAN MAIZE PRODUCT LTD., FAISALABAD1986 PLC I095 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-01-20Read full judgment →
- SHAHID MAKHDOOM vs DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE CROPS REPORT SERVICE, PUNJAB And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 1010 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- SHAHID MAHMOOD vs Messrs HASHMAT SONS1986 PLC 658 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-12-13Read full judgment →
- SHAHID HUSSAIN vs IQBAL And 11 Other1986 SCMR 1069 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an ejectment application filed under Section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The Rent Controller directed the tenants to deposit arrears and future monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 35 per month, and further ordered them to withdraw amounts previously deposited in a separate miscellaneous rent case and redeposit them in the ejectment proceedings. Upon the tenants' failure to redeposit the withdrawn amounts, the Rent Controller struck off their defence and ordered eviction. On appeal, a Single Judge of the Sind High Court set aside the eviction order, holding that the deposit order contained patent contradictions regarding the period of arrears and that the failure to transfer the previously deposited amounts constituted a mere technical default. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the landlord's petition for leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's view that the deposit order was contradictory and that payments already duly deposited in court in the landlord's name substantially satisfied the legal requirements, rendering any technical non-compliance insufficient to warrant striking off the defence.
Questions settled- Whether a Rent Controller's order for deposit of rent containing patent contradictions regarding arrears can form the basis for striking off a tenant's defence?
- Does the failure of a tenant to physically withdraw rent deposited in a separate miscellaneous case and redeposit it in the ejectment case amount to a fatal default warranting eviction?
- Whether the High Court is justified in remanding an ejectment case where the initial rent deposit order suffers from internal contradictions?