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.
- SHAHID HUSSAIN vs ABDUL HAFEEZ KHAN1986 MLD 1226 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-11Read full judgment →
- SHAHID ALI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 400 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-06Read full judgment →
- SHAHID AKHTAR vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1047 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-31Read full judgment →
- SHAHID AKHTAR And Another vs SECRETARY, MINISTARY OF FINANCE And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 79 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-12-17Read full judgment →
- SHAHID AHMED KHAN vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE SIND And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 426 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-07Read full judgment →
- SHAHEEN AIRPORT SERVICES, KARACHI vs UMER REHMAN1986 PLC 232 · Labour Court · 1985-09-21Read full judgment →
- SHAHBAZ KHAN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 421 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-20Read full judgment →
- SHAHBAZ KHAN And 3 Others vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE1986 SCMR 762 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from a petition challenging orders related to District Council Elections in Union Council Dandot, Tehsil Pind Dadan Khan, District Jhelum, where the petitioner contested for one of two multi-member seats and was defeated. After filing an election petition, the Election Tribunal declared the election as a whole to be void upon a joint statement of counsel and ordered fresh elections. The petitioner challenged this order through a writ petition and an intra-court appeal in the High Court, both of which were unsuccessful or dismissed as not maintainable, leading to the present petition before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the proceedings, fresh elections were held and the petitioner was again defeated, although formal notification of the result was stayed by the court. The core legal question concerned the maintainability and subsistence of the challenge after fresh elections had been conducted. The Supreme Court held that since the elections had already been held and the petitioner was again defeated, the petition had become infructuous and dismissed it accordingly. The key principle laid down is that a petition challenging an election order becomes infructuous when the subsequent fresh elections directed by the tribunal have already taken place.
Questions settled- Does a petition challenging an election tribunal's order to hold fresh elections become infructuous when the fresh elections are subsequently held?
- Whether an intra-court appeal against an interim order refusing a stay of election is maintainable?
- SHAHBAZ KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD FAROOQUE AND ANoTHER1986 PLD Rev. 8 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1977-08-08Read full judgment →
- SHAHAMAND vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2162 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-01Read full judgment →
- SHAHADAT ALI vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1232 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, originating from a murder case where the appellant Shahadat Ali was convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, addressed whether the ocular testimony was of sufficient quality to sustain the conviction and whether the ingredients of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were present to establish vicarious liability. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting inconsistencies and attempts by the closely related parties to soften the blow for the accused, but found that the appellant and his co-accused father actively participated in the sudden murderous assault. The Court held that a common intention developed at the spot and the exact identity of who dealt the fatal blow was inconsequential for establishing liability. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal while modifying the sentence from imprisonment for life to transportation for life as applicable prior to the Law Reforms Ordinance, and granted the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principles laid down relate to the assessment of ocular testimony in cases involving close relatives, the application of vicarious liability under section 34 for a suddenly developed common intention, and the correction of statutory sentencing terms.
Questions settled- Whether ocular testimony containing inconsistencies and attempts by close relatives to soften evidence can sustain a murder conviction?
- Does a suddenly developed common intention during a scuffle satisfy the requirements of vicarious liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the identity of the specific assailant who dealt the fatal blow consequential when a common intention is established among multiple participants?
- What is the correct statutory sentence for murder committed prior to the enforcement of the Law Reforms Ordinance when a death sentence is commuted?
- SHAHADAT ALI vs MUBARIK SHAH AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Supreme Court 347 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by the complainant challenged the grant of pre-arrest bail to respondent Mubarik Shah by the High Court in a case under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the respondent was entitled to pre-arrest bail despite having misrepresented and suppressed material facts regarding his prior bail applications before the Sessions Court. The Supreme Court held that the respondent was indeed guilty of suppressing material facts and misrepresenting the record in his subsequent bail applications, conduct which could lead to a grave miscarriage of justice and abuse of the judicial process. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and cancelled the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent, directing him to surrender into custody while clarifying that he could seek post-arrest bail on merits. The key principle laid down is that a party who indulges in the suppression of material facts or misrepresentation in judicial proceedings is disentitled from claiming or retaining discretionary equitable relief such as pre-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Whether pre-arrest bail can be cancelled on the ground of suppression of material facts in prior bail applications?
- Does concealment of the dismissal of an earlier bail petition constitute sufficient ground to set aside an order granting pre-arrest bail?
- Can a party guilty of misrepresentation in obtaining discretionary relief be allowed to retain the benefit of such bail?
- SHAHADAT ALI vs MUBARAK SHAH And Another1986 SCMR 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court granting pre-arrest bail to the respondents. The petitioner challenged the grant of bail, alleging that the respondent engaged in forum shopping and suppression of material facts. Specifically, it was contended that the respondent initially filed a pre-arrest bail application before an Additional Sessions Judge, where notice was issued but no interim relief was granted. Subsequently, without disclosing the pendency of the first application, the respondent filed a second bail application before a different Additional Sessions Judge in the same jurisdiction, obtaining interim relief. After the second application was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the respondent's absence, the respondent approached the High Court for bail, again failing to disclose the prior proceedings. The Supreme Court found that these allegations regarding the respondent's conduct and the suppression of facts warranted a deeper examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the High Court's order was sustainable in light of the respondent's alleged procedural misconduct.
Questions settled- Does the suppression of material facts regarding prior bail applications constitute grounds for refusing pre-arrest bail?
- Can a petitioner who engages in forum shopping by filing multiple bail applications in the same jurisdiction be granted relief?
- Is the concealment of a pending or previously dismissed bail application a valid ground for challenging a High Court order granting bail?
- SHAHADAT ALI And Others vs Rai ABU SALEH And Other1986 SCMR 1361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-01Read 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 Regular Second Appeal in an inheritance dispute. The central factual controversy is whether a woman named Sahibzadi was the widow of the deceased, Amir Ali. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but the appellate court decreed it, and the High Court affirmed that decision. The petitioners challenged the evidentiary basis of the lower appellate court's finding, arguing that the testimony of the two prosecution witnesses regarding the relationship was inadmissible under the Evidence Act, 1872. Specifically, the petitioners contended that the relationship was not proven according to the definitions of 'proved' under the Act. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan determined that the legal question raised regarding the admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence required deeper consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower courts erred in their assessment of the evidence regarding the marital status of the deceased, while ordering that the status quo regarding possession be maintained pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
Questions settled- Is the testimony of witnesses regarding a marital relationship admissible under Section 50 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- What constitutes sufficient proof of a relationship under the definition of 'proved' in Section 3 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Can a finding of fact based on limited witness testimony be challenged in a petition for leave to appeal?
- SHAHAB-UD-DIN vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SUB-DIVISIONAL1986 MLD 1211 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- SHAHAB-E-SAQIB vs Messrs NATIONAL REFINERY Ltd.1986 PLC 141 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-07-08Read full judgment →
- SHAHAB DIN vs AHMED YAR And OTHER1986 CLC 2112 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-17Read full judgment →
- SHAH ZAMAN And Others vs MUHAMMAD AZAM And Other1986 SCMR 471 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from four civil petitions for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court, which allowed the contesting respondents to withdraw their writ petitions and file civil suits to vindicate their property rights, with observations that the suits be decided on their own merits. The core legal question raised was whether the High Court's direction to decide the forthcoming civil suits on merits would preclude civil courts from considering objections regarding their lack of jurisdiction, particularly where petitioners claimed permanent entitlement to the land. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the petitioners are entitled to raise all legal pleas in their defence—including the question of the civil court's jurisdiction to entertain the suits—notwithstanding the High Court's observations. The Court laid down the principle that granting liberty to file a civil suit does not bar the defendant from raising jurisdictional objections, and ordered that while the suits may proceed, no final decision shall be rendered by the civil court during the pendency of the appeals.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court's observation to decide a civil suit on its own merits precludes a party from raising the plea of lack of jurisdiction?
- Can civil courts entertain suits regarding property where permanent entitlement has been granted?
- Whether a civil court can take a final decision during the pendency of an appeal before the Supreme Court?
- SHAH MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1137 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-02Read full judgment →
- SHAH MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE-1986 P C r. L J 944 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-27Read full judgment →
- SHAH MUHAMMAD vs DEWANA And Other1986 SCMR 1599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as an appeal filed by the appellant, Shah Muhammad, against the respondents, Dewana and others. The proceedings were marked by the absence of the appellant and any legal representation on his behalf. During the hearing, counsel for the respondents informed the Court that the underlying dispute between the parties had been resolved through an out-of-court settlement. Given the appellant's failure to appear or pursue the matter, the Court addressed the procedural status of the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution. The Court made no order regarding costs, effectively concluding the litigation based on the appellant's lack of interest and the reported settlement between the parties. This decision reinforces the principle that the Court will not entertain appeals where the appellant fails to attend or prosecute the matter, particularly when the underlying dispute has been resolved privately by the parties involved.
Questions settled- Can an appeal be dismissed by the Supreme Court for non-prosecution if the appellant fails to attend?
- Does the Supreme Court dismiss an appeal if the parties have reached an out-of-court settlement?
- SHAH MUHAMMAD Through His Legal Heirs And Others vs Mst. MANDAN And Another1986 SCMR 1094 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The dispute relates to a parcel of land originally belonging to Sher Muhammad, whose son Rehmat Ali died issueless in 1943, prompting a succession battle between his step-brothers and his mother. The petitioners filed a civil suit for a declaration of ownership based on general customary succession, which was initially dismissed by the trial court, accepted by the Additional District Judge, and subsequently restored by the Lahore High Court on the basis of a special family custom entitling the mother to succeed. The core legal question was whether a decision could rest on a special custom when it was not specifically pleaded in the written statement, despite a broad issue having been framed regarding who constituted the valid legal heirs. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the approach of ignoring the established special custom on technical grounds of pleading was artificial, as the issue framed was wide enough to encompass the competing claims of heirship based on evidence adduced by both parties.
Questions settled- Can a decision be based on a special custom when it was not specifically pleaded in the written statement but covered by a general issue of legal heirship?
- Whether the failure to frame a specific issue regarding a special custom vitiates a finding supported by evidence on record?
- Who is entitled to succeed under custom when a male owner dies issueless and leaves behind step-brothers and a mother?
- SHAH MUHAMMAD And Others vs Mst. MANDAN And Another1986 SCMR 616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The present matter arises from a civil dispute concerning the succession of land measuring 710 Kanals 8 Marlas situated in District Sheikhupura, originally owned by one Sher Muhammad. Following the death of Rehmat Ali, son of the deceased, without issue or a widow, mutation was made in favour of his mother under customary law. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration claiming ownership as successors of Sher Muhammad, which was initially dismissed, then decreed in first appeal, and subsequently restored by the Lahore High Court based on a special custom. The core legal question was whether a court can decide a case based on a special custom regarding succession when the general issue of heirship was framed and evidence thereon was led without specific pleadings of special custom. The Supreme Court held that the broad issue regarding valid legal heirs encompassed evidence of special custom, and technical objections regarding lack of specific pleadings or issues are untenable when parties understood the contest and led evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a decision can be made to rest on a ground regarding special custom when it was not specifically pleaded in the written statement?
- Does a general issue regarding who were the valid legal heirs of a deceased person at the time of his death encompass the examination of a special custom?
- Can an appellate court's approach be considered technical and artificial if it ignores established evidence on record merely because no specific issue was framed regarding a special custom?
- SHAH KHATOON vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2323 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-07Read full judgment →
- SHAH DIN Alias SALA vs SUMMARY MILITARY COURT-1986 P Cr. L J 2419 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-25Read full judgment →
- SHAH BAKHSH vs GHULAM HAIDER1986 P Cr. L J 982 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-30Read full judgment →
- SHAH ALAM vs ZAFAR IQBAL and 5 others1986 MLD 453 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-07Read full judgment →
- SHAFQAT BARI vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2165 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-08Read full judgment →
- SHAFIQUL HASSAN SHAH vs PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL Through Its Chairman1986 SCMR 768 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by an ex-Kanoongo whose removal from service by the District Collector was upheld in departmental appeal by the Commissioner and subsequently by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The core legal question concerns whether the case involves a substantial question of law of public importance warranting interference under the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to establish any substantial question of law of public importance. The key principle laid down is that leave to appeal under Article 212 of the Constitution will not be granted unless the petitioner demonstrates a substantial question of law of public importance.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal can be granted against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal without establishing a substantial question of law of public importance?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with service matters under Article 212 of the Constitution in the absence of a question of public importance?
- SHAFIQ ALAM FARUQUI And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2243 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-23Read full judgment →
- SHAFIQ AHMED vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 692 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-21Read full judgment →
- SHAFI vs ABDUL MAJID1986 PLD Rev. 127 · Sindh Revenue Board · -Read full judgment →
- SHAFI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1842 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-23Read full judgment →
- SHAFI MUHAMMAD vs GUARDIAN JUDGE,OKARA and others1986 MLD 891 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-05Read full judgment →
- SHAFI MUHAMMAD vs ABDUL WAHID1986 PLD Rev. 137 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1971-02-01Read full judgment →
- SHAFI AHMAD vs The STATE1986 SCMR 712 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentence of death for the murder of his mother, with his jail petition being barred by 252 days. The prosecution case, established through the testimony of the maternal-grandmother and two independent eye-witnesses, was that the petitioner demanded money, and upon refusal, stabbed his mother to death. Both the trial court and the High Court concurrently believed the prosecution witnesses and maintained the conviction and death sentence, finding no mitigating circumstances. In his petition before the Supreme Court, the petitioner admitted to the stabbing for the first time, offering an uncorroborated explanation regarding a family dispute over property and ornaments. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts were fully justified in relying on the eye-witness testimony, that the petitioner's belated explanation found no support from the record, and that no mitigating circumstances existed to warrant interference. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a belated jail petition for leave to appeal with an unexplained delay can be entertained without sufficient cause?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court regarding a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Whether an uncorroborated explanation raised for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal can displace consistent ocular testimony believed by the lower courts?
- SHAFFI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE and others-1986 P Cr. L J 2568 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-19Read full judgment →
- SHAFAAT AHMAD And Others vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB And 2 Other1986 SCMR 30 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the service status and seniority of a former Thal Development Authority employee absorbed into the Irrigation Department. The respondent challenged his appointment as an officiating Executive Engineer, alleging that a prior written undertaking accepting this status was obtained through undue influence. The Service Tribunal ruled in his favor, declaring his appointment permanent and adjusting his seniority. The Supreme Court held that the appeal before the Tribunal was hopelessly time-barred, as no right of appeal or representation exists against an order passed by the Governor under the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974, and repeated representations do not extend the limitation period. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Tribunal erred in adjudicating allegations of undue influence against a specific officer without impleading him as a party. On merits, the Court clarified that surplus employees absorbed into new departments are treated as direct recruits, not entitled to automatic confirmation, and their seniority is determined by the appointing authority. The impugned order was set aside, and the respondent's service appeal was dismissed as incompetent and meritless.
Questions settled- Does a representation against an order passed by the Governor of the Punjab lie under the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974?
- Can a service appeal be maintained against an order of the Governor when the statutory limitation period has expired?
- Are surplus employees absorbed into a new government department entitled to automatic confirmation in their posts?
- Can a Service Tribunal adjudicate allegations of undue influence against a specific public official without impleading that official as a party?
- SHADI vs MUHAMMAD UMAR1986 PLD Rev. 24 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1977-10-31Read full judgment →
- SHAD MUHAMMAD vs KHAN POOR1986 PLD Supreme Court 91 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a pre-emption suit where the appellant-vendee asserted a superior right of pre-emption based on his status as a tenant on a portion of the disputed land. The core legal question was whether, in the event of a conflict within the Jamabandi (record of rights), the entry in the cultivation column should take precedence over the entry in the Lagan (rent) column. The respondent argued that the Lagan column, which indicated the appellant was a mortgagee without payment of rent, disproved his tenancy. The Supreme Court, relying on its prior precedent, held that entries in the cultivation column of a Jamabandi raise a presumption of tenancy that cannot be overridden by uncorroborated entries in the Lagan column. The party asserting the correctness of the Lagan column bears the burden of producing independent evidence to support it. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case to the trial court to allow the respondent to adduce corroborative evidence.
Questions settled- Whether an entry in the cultivation column of a Jamabandi takes precedence over a conflicting entry in the Lagan column in the absence of corroborative evidence?
- Which party bears the burden of proof when relying on an entry in the Lagan column that contradicts the cultivation column of a Jamabandi?
- Does the mere non-payment of rent as recorded in the Lagan column divest an individual of their status as a tenant if they are explicitly recorded as such in the cultivation column?
- SHAD MUHAMMAD And Others vs SHER AMAN And Other1986 SCMR 114 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court which partially accepted a civil revision and dismissed their suit for possession regarding Khasra No. 5710. The underlying dispute arose from a revenue court suit for produce rent, subsequent dismissal by the Collector based on entries of possession as Bila Lagan Badal Kham, and the subsequent civil litigation for possession. The core legal question concerned the effect of non-payment of rent and entries in revenue records regarding adverse possession and hostile title. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petition involves a question requiring consideration and accordingly granted leave to appeal to the petitioners, allowing security of rupees two thousand five hundred and granting liberty to file additional documents. The key principle laid down is that the mere non-payment of rent and entries of Bila Lagan Badal Kham in revenue records require examination by the court to determine whether possession constitutes adverse possession or hostile title.
Questions settled- Does the mere non-payment of rent make a tenant's possession adverse to the owner?
- What is the legal effect of revenue entries stating Bila Lagan Badal Kham on a claim of adverse possession?
- Who bears the heavy onus of proving title by adverse possession?
- SHAD MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PESHAWAR1986 PLD Peshawar 169 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- SHABIR AHMED and 5 others vs MOHOMED YOUSUF and 3 others1986 MLD 187 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-03Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 955 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-26Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR AHMAD vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1730 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-04-16Read full judgment →
- SHABAN And Another vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, SAHIWAL And 21986 PLC 480 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- SHAAFI WOOLLEN INDUSTRIES Ltd vs RUBY INDUSTRIES1986 MLD 872 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
- Sh. ZAFAR YAR ALI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, REVENUE1986 PLC (C.S.) 998 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Sh. TAHIR IQBAL vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER_CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, SIALKOT and 3 others1986 MLD 538 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-03Read full judgment →
- Sh. TAHIR IQBAL vs Syed MAZHAR-UL-HASSAN and others-1986 P Cr. L J 1650 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-28Read full judgment →
- Sh. SALEEM ALI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 792 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-30Read full judgment →
- Sh. RIAZ AHMAD vs MASUD AKHTAR KIANI And Others1986 PLC 37 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1985-07-17Read full judgment →
- Sh. NAZIR AHMAD vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT, LAHORE And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 942 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-07-30Read full judgment →
- Sh. NAZIR AHMAD And Another vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1986 PLC (C.S.) 774 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-06-12Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN And Other vs THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1986 PLC (C.S.) 1013 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR AHMAD And ANOTHER1986 CLC 211 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB And ANOTHER1986 CLC 593 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-29Read full judgment →
- SOOHARO vs RAMZAN1986 SCMR 113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld an eviction order against the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as a tenant, was entitled to receive a notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, despite having entered into a specific tenancy agreement with the respondent on 9-10-1966. The Rent Controller had initially ordered eviction due to default in rent payments, a decision reversed by the Additional District Judge on the grounds of lack of notice, but subsequently restored by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly determined that the petitioner, having acquired tenancy rights through a private agreement, was not entitled to the statutory notice under Section 30 of the Act. The Court affirmed the findings of fact regarding the execution of the agreement and the default in rent payment, concluding that the eviction order was legally sound and dismissing the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Is a tenant who acquires tenancy rights through a private agreement entitled to notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Does the failure to pay rent for the period in question justify an eviction order against a tenant?
- Sh. MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs SPECIAL JUDGE, BANKING COURT1986 MLD 614 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-24Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others1986 MLD 794 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD ASLAM And Others vs Kh. MUHAMMAD RASHID VINE1986 SCMR 91 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the court is directed against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the appellants' Second Appeal from Order arising from proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. When the matter was called out, counsel for the appellants ultimately did not press the appeal on merits, instead requesting a period of two months to vacate the premises, coupled with an undertaking to deliver vacant possession to the respondent-landlord by a specified date and to pay advance rent for the intervening period. The counsel for the respondent-landlord consented to this arrangement upon the stated conditions. The Supreme Court accordingly granted the appellants two months' time to vacate the premises and surrender possession in accordance with their undertaking. The core legal question concerned the execution of the eviction order and the accommodation of the tenant's request for time to vacate based on mutual agreement. The court held that the time extension be granted subject to the strict fulfillment of the undertakings given by the appellants. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts may dispose of rent matters in terms of lawful undertakings and mutual concessions agreed upon by the contesting parties.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court can grant time to vacate premises based on an undertaking given by the tenant?
- Can an appeal under the rent laws be disposed of in terms of a mutual agreement between the landlord and tenant regarding vacation time?
- Sh. MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs The MULTAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, MULTAN And Other1986 SCMR 643 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether a Tribunal or the Senior Civil Judge had exclusive jurisdiction over a land acquisition reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, and whether landowners were legally entitled to fifteen per cent additional compensation for compulsory acquisition. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of an established and functioning Tribunal, section 66(2) of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 operates to vest jurisdiction in the Court, rendering the Senior Civil Judge's adjudication competent. On the second question, the Court clarified that paragraph 10(2) of the Schedule to the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, as originally framed, enjoys constitutional protection under section 299(4) of the Government of India Act, 1935 as an existing law, unlike subsequent amendments such as Punjab Act II of 1953 which were struck down. Consequently, the statutory denial of the fifteen per cent compulsory acquisition allowance for land acquired under the original Act is valid and enforceable. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a Senior Civil Judge has jurisdiction to dispose of a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the absence of an established Tribunal under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922?
- Does paragraph 10(2) of the Schedule to the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 validly exclude the application of fifteen per cent additional compensation for compulsory acquisition?
- Is paragraph 10(2) of the Schedule to the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 protected as an existing law under section 299(4) of the Government of India Act, 1935?
- Whether subsequent legislative amendments affecting compulsory acquisition compensation without conforming to section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935 are ultra vires?
- Sh. MANZOOR AHMAD vs ALI AHMAD And 2 Other1986 SCMR 1708 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-27Read 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 constitutional petition challenging an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller. The core legal question was whether the landlord's claim for personal bona fide need of a shop for his son, who was deaf and dumb and trained as a tailor, was genuine, particularly in light of allegations that the landlord possessed another shop that was let out subsequent to the filing of the ejectment application. The petitioner argued that an admission made by the landlord's attorney during proceedings indicated the lack of bona fide need and suggested the eviction was merely a pretext for rent enhancement. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's assessment of the attorney's statement as equivocal was plausible. Consequently, the Court refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction, affirming that such findings are not subject to reappraisal in constitutional jurisdiction absent a jurisdictional error. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by rent tribunals in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does an equivocal admission by an attorney regarding a landlord's property possession necessarily negate the bona fide need for ejectment?
- Is the possession of another shop by a landlord, which was let out after the filing of an ejectment application, sufficient to disprove the bona fide need for the premises in dispute?
- Sh. MAHBOOB ILAHI vs SECRETARY, R.T.A., GUJRANWALA DIVISION and 31986 P Cr. L J 1880 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-20Read full judgment →
- Sh. IHSANUL HAQ PIRACHA vs MR. WASIM SAJJAD AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment concerns two appeals under Section 48(3) of the Senate Election Act, 1975, challenging an Election Tribunal's decision that the appellants were not "technocrats" as defined in Article 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Election) Order, 1977, and thus unqualified for special Senate seats. The core legal questions involved the interpretation of "technocrat," the meaning of "nationally or internationally recognized professional competence," and the scope of "high level" experience. The Supreme Court held that "profession" is vague and flexible, emphasizing practical experience over academic qualification for a technocrat. It ruled that national or international recognition of professional competence is not limited to formal acts but can also be indirect, such as association in national policy-making or representation in international bodies. The Court found that both appellants satisfied the criteria, accepting their appeals and setting aside the Election Tribunal's judgment.
Questions settled- What constitutes a "technocrat" for the purpose of election to special Senate seats?
- How should "nationally or internationally recognized professional competence" be interpreted in the context of a technocrat's qualification?
- Can indirect forms of recognition, such as participation in national policy-making or international representation, satisfy the requirement of national or international recognition for a technocrat?
- What is the meaning of "high level" experience and expertise for administering or managing an operational or policy-making unit?
- Does the failure to object to a candidate's qualification before the Returning Officer estop an aggrieved party from filing an election petition on the same grounds?
- Is a technocrat required to possess academic qualifications, or is practical experience and expertise sufficient?
- Can an election petition be dismissed solely because the petitioner did not lead affirmative oral evidence, when relying on the respondent's nomination papers and biodata?
- Does the use of the word "professional" as an adjective in the definition of "technocrat" imply that a technocrat must also satisfy the full definition of a "professional"?
- Can the qualifications prescribed in the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Election) Order, 1977 be declared ultra vires of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by an Election Tribunal?
- Is the announcement of election results through notification in the Gazette a prerequisite for filing an election petition?
- Sh. ASHFAQUE AHMAD vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION And Another1986 PLC 632 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Sh. AMER MAFTOON vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Through Secretary, Education Punjab, Lahore And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 1037 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Sh. AMAR MAFTOON vs DISTRICT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, SARGODHA And 21986 PLC (C.S.) 920 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-04-08Read full judgment →
- Sh. ABDUL REHMAN vs Mst. VIOLET And OTHER1986 CLC 1033 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the appellant claiming ownership of a disputed verandah and rooms as part of House No. 425. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court dismissed it. During the second appeal, the appellant filed applications for amendment of the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to add a prayer for possession, and under Order XLI, Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to produce additional evidence, including a subsequent rectification deed. The High Court held that the production of additional evidence was necessary for a just decision and that the amendment seeking possession should be allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and because it did not alter the nature of the suit. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower courts' judgments, and remanded the suit to the trial court for fresh disposal after permitting the amendment and additional evidence.
Questions settled- Whether an application for amendment of the plaint to include a prayer for possession can be allowed during a second appeal?
- Is the production of additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 permissible when it is necessary for a just decision of the case?
- Does the addition of a prayer for possession alter the fundamental nature of a suit originally filed for declaration and permanent injunction?
- Sh. ABDUL QADEER vs ASSISTANT SECRETARY (GENERAL), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1986 PLC (C.S.) 995 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Sh. ABDUL JABBAR vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Through The Secretary,1986 PLC (C.S.) 1003 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Others vs ABDUL HAMID1986 CLC 2380 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-20Read full judgment →
- Seth WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1986 SCMR 1469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal concerning the transfer of evacuee property to the petitioner, Saith Wali Muhammad Khan, and the identification of properties belonging to particular evacuee owners. The core legal question involves determining whether properties of different evacuee owners could be merged or if the unit of property must be fixed with reference to its own independent owner under the applicable law. The Court granted leave to consider the proper identification and segregation of the evacuee properties based on their original ownership. Furthermore, the Court ordered that an existing status quo granted on 5-8-1981 shall continue subject to the regular deposit of rent, failing which the petitioner would be liable to eviction, and directed the High Court to proceed with the pending Letters Patent Appeal arising from an ejectment application expeditiously to benefit from its views.
Questions settled- Whether the unit of property in evacuee property transfer cases is to be fixed with reference to its own independent owners rather than being merged with properties belonging to different owners?
- Can a status quo order be made conditional upon the regular deposit of rent by the petitioner?
- Seed SHAH MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1986 PLD Supreme Court 32 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a High Court judgment upholding the petitioner's conviction under the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, for illegal possession of a revolver. The petitioner was arrested by police officers while standing outside his house; he contends the recovery was fabricated after he demanded a search warrant for his residence. The core legal questions concern the evidentiary value of sole police testimony in the absence of independent witnesses and the procedural requirements for search and seizure. The petitioner argues that the prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory provisions regarding independent witnesses, rendering the conviction unsafe. The Supreme Court, noting the petitioner's contentions regarding the lack of independent witnesses and the potential for police fabrication, granted leave to appeal. The Court held that the case merits a re-examination to determine whether the established principles of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases were correctly applied by the lower courts, particularly concerning the reliance on exclusively police witnesses in a recovery case.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for illegal possession of arms be sustained solely on the testimony of police officers when independent witnesses were available but not associated?
- Does the failure to comply with the requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding independent witnesses vitiate a recovery?
- Is a personal search by police justified without suspicious conduct or behavior by the accused?
- SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF SIND EDUCATION DEPARTMENT And Another S1986 SCMR 64 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves civil appeals regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 212 of the Constitution in service matters and the competency of an appeal before the Service Tribunal concerning promotion. The core legal questions relate to whether a civil servant has a vested right to promotion, whether an appeal lies to the Service Tribunal against an order refusing promotion, and whether the High Court can exercise constitutional jurisdiction to remand a matter involving terms and conditions of service. The Supreme Court held that a civil servant has no vested right to promotion, that the Service Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to order promotion due to the statutory bar in the Sind Service Tribunals Act, and that the High Court lacks constitutional jurisdiction under Article 212 to interfere with service matters or remand such cases. The key principles laid down are that seniority is not the sole criterion for promotion as fitness is determined by the competent authority, outside forums cannot review promotion fitness, service appeals seeking promotion are incompetent, and the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted in matters within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal under Article 212.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant have a vested right to promotion?
- Does an appeal lie to the Service Tribunal against an order refusing promotion to a civil servant?
- Is the High Court competent to exercise constitutional jurisdiction in matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants falling within the ambit of Article 212 of the Constitution?
- Can a party be permitted to alter the nature of its case by raising a new plea of seniority when the original appeal before the Service Tribunal was exclusively for promotion?
- SECRETARY CUM CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN, QUETTA And 2 Others vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD KHAN And ANOTHER1986 CLC 2987 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-07-28Read full judgment →
- SCHWAN-STABILO SCHWANHAUSSEB GmbH & Co. vs THE REGISTRAR. OF TRADE MARKS and another1986 MLD 1480 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-10Read full judgment →
- Sayyed MUHAMMAD ALI SHAH vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER_COLONIZATION OFFICER, THAL PROJECT, DISTRICT SAHIWAL AND Other1986 SCMR 863 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These consolidated civil appeals arise from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning competing claims of land regrant and refugee allotments within the Thal Project area. The core legal question revolves around whether specific parcels of land—namely Khewats Nos. 58 and 67—retained their character as evacuee property or were validly acquired by the Thal Development Authority under the Punjab Thal Development Act, 1949, thereby removing them from the rehabilitation pool. The Supreme Court held that land exclusively owned by non-Muslims and sanctioned by the Central Government was validly acquired and ceased to be evacuee property, whereas land held jointly by Muslims and non-Muslims remained unacquired evacuee property subject to the jurisdiction of rehabilitation authorities. The Court laid down the principle that the prior statutory sanction for acquisition by the Central Government under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949, prevails over subsequent administrative withdrawals by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, and that property validly acquired by a development authority cannot be lawfully allotted under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958.
Questions settled- Whether land jointly owned by Muslims and non-Muslims within the Thal Project area constituted validly acquired property or remained unacquired evacuee property?
- Does the withdrawal of sanction by the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 12(6) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 affect a prior acquisition sanction granted by the Central Government?
- Whether property acquired by the Thal Development Authority with the approval of the Central Government remains subject to allotment under settlement laws?
- Sayed ARIF SHAH vs ABDUL HAKIM QURESHI1986 PLD Supreme Court 155 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a house, where the trial court declined specific performance but awarded the return of earnest money and stipulated damages, which decision was upheld in revision by the High Court. The core legal question concerns the interpretation of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, specifically whether the mere specification of a sum to be paid in case of breach bars specific performance, and whether the courts below properly exercised their discretion. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the trial court's refusal to grant specific performance was contrary to law, whether the High Court misconstrued the grounds of the trial court's decision regarding coercion and undue influence, and whether the High Court erred in declining to interfere under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that leave should be granted to examine these contentions regarding the proper exercise of judicial discretion.
Questions settled- Does the naming of a sum to be paid in case of a contract's breach bar the court from granting specific performance under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
- Whether the discretion exercised by the trial court in refusing a decree for specific performance was contrary to law?
- Can a High Court refuse to interfere in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground that the trial court's order could only have been challenged via appeal?
- SAWAN AND 3 OTHERS vs ADAM AND 10 OTHERS1986 PLD Rev. 7 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1976-12-06Read full judgment →
- SATTAR vs THE STATE1986 PLD Lahore 27 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-17Read full judgment →
- SARWAR ZIA vs BAGH DIN1986 SCMR 79 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for possession of a portion of property comprising a room and verandah, which was decreed against the petitioner (defendant) by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court and High Court in revision. The core legal questions pertained to whether an admission made by the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest in prior litigation bound the petitioner as a privy, and whether the closure of the petitioner's evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was lawful. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding ownership were based on a clear admission made by the predecessor-in-interest in a previous written statement and compromise, which fully bound the petitioner as successor-in-interest. The Court further affirmed that the closure of evidence was justified given the repeated failures of the petitioner to process witness fees or produce evidence despite multiple adjournments. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Whether an admission regarding property ownership made by a predecessor-in-interest in earlier litigation is binding on their successor-in-interest?
- Whether a court is justified in closing a party's evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the party repeatedly fails to pay process fees or produce witnesses despite multiple adjournments?
- SARWAR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2173(2) · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-01Read full judgment →
- SARWAR And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2802(1) · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-12Read full judgment →
- SARWAR And 5 Others vs Mst. BIBI1986 CLC 2514 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-04Read full judgment →
- SARWAR And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2333 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-11Read full judgment →
- SARFRAZ NAWAZ And 8 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 500 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-16Read full judgment →
- SARFRAZ KHAN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 63 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-18Read full judgment →
- SARFRAZ KHAN vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1986 SCMR 1950 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a suit filed by a government employee seeking a declaration to correct his date of birth in service records, thereby extending his service tenure. While the trial and first appellate courts decreed the suit in the appellant's favor, the High Court reversed this decision in its revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court could interfere with concurrent findings of fact and whether the civil court possessed jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the lower courts committed a gross irregularity by completely ignoring vital documentary evidence—specifically, the appellant's own signed declarations confirming his original date of birth. The Court affirmed that such disregard for material evidence justifies interference in revisional jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court held that the civil court lacked the jurisdiction to grant the relief of extending the appellant's service tenure. Consequently, the High Court’s decision to set aside the lower courts' judgments was deemed unexceptionable, and the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in its revisional jurisdiction if lower courts ignored material evidence?
- Does a civil court have the jurisdiction to grant a decree extending an employee's service tenure?
- Does the failure of lower courts to consider contradictory documentary evidence constitute a gross irregularity?
- SARFRAZ And 8 Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1737 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-01Read full judgment →
- SARFRAZ AHMED vs S.M. SIRAJ-UD-DIN1986 MLD 1382 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-05Read full judgment →
- SARFRAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2965 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-23Read full judgment →
- SARDAR vs GHULAM QADIR And Other1986 SCMR 1227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision petition concerning a land suit. The petitioner had filed a suit in 1979 challenging a 1957 registered sale-deed of land gifted to him by his father in 1952, claiming the sale was illegal and void. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the grounds that the suit was barred by limitation and suffered from deficient court-fee. The first appellate court maintained the dismissal on limitation, and the High Court dismissed the subsequent civil revision. The core legal question involved the determination of limitation and whether the petitioner had requisite knowledge of the alienation to save the suit from being time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had knowledge of the sale following the purchasers taking possession of the suit-land, rendering the suit hopelessly time-barred even from the date he attained majority. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Questions settled- Whether a suit challenging a registered sale-deed is barred by limitation when filed decades after the sale and long after attaining majority?
- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground that the suit is time-barred?
- Does taking possession of the disputed land by purchasers constitute constructive knowledge of the sale for the purpose of limitation?
- Sardar Said Muhammad Khan, I SHABIR HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE1986 PLD SC (A J K) 105 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-06-27Read full judgment →
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2540 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-03Read full judgment →
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD vs BARKAT ALI1986 SCMR 770 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging the transfer of property under Settlement Scheme No. VII by the Tehsildar exercising powers of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner filed a civil suit to contest the transfer order, which was initially decreed by the Civil Court. However, on appeal, the Additional District Judge held that civil courts lacked jurisdiction in such matters, a view subsequently affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed the concurrent findings and the core legal question regarding the ouster of civil court jurisdiction over matters exclusively assigned to settlement authorities. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Authorities possess exclusive jurisdiction in disputes of this nature, thereby upholding the concurrent findings of the lower appellate court and the High Court. The key principle laid down is that civil courts have no jurisdiction to entertain matters falling within the exclusive domain of settlement authorities under the applicable settlement schemes.
Questions settled- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to challenge an order of transfer of property passed by a settlement authority under Settlement Scheme No. VII?
- Do Settlement Authorities possess exclusive jurisdiction in matters concerning the transfer of property under Settlement Scheme No. VII?
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD vs AKHTARI BEGUM And Other1986 SCMR 1298 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside a temporary injunction previously granted in favour of the petitioner. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's decision to vacate the temporary injunction was legally sustainable in light of established precedents and relevant statutory provisions. Upon hearing the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal. The Court held that the High Court's impugned order was consistent with the principles laid down in Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) v. Muhammad Shafi (PLD 1971 SC 791) and the provisions of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1975. The Court further clarified that the observations made by the High Court regarding the interlocutory matter were tentative in nature and would not prejudice the final determination of the case on its merits.
Questions settled- Does an order vacating a temporary injunction in an interlocutory matter prejudice the final determination of the case?
- Is the High Court's decision to set aside a temporary injunction consistent with the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1975?
- Sardar MUHAMMAD UMAR KHAN vs Raja GUL ZAMAN1986 SCMR 1530 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit for permanent injunction and possession regarding a plot of land, Khasra No. 9205/4089, in Rawalpindi. The respondent claimed exclusive ownership based on a chain of title originating from a permanent transfer document (P.T.D.) issued by the Central Government after partition, followed by subsequent registered sale deeds. The petitioner, owning the adjoining property, contested the respondent’s title, alleging misreading of evidence and the improper rejection of an application for a Local Commissioner to demarcate the property boundaries. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, a decision upheld by the District Judge and subsequently affirmed by the Lahore High Court in revision. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, noting the established chain of title starting from the P.T.D. and supported by mutation records and registered deeds. Finding no merit in the contention that evidence was misread or that the refusal to appoint a Local Commissioner constituted a legal error, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the respondent's ownership.
Questions settled- Does the concurrent finding of fact by lower courts regarding ownership based on registered title documents warrant interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Is the appointment of a Local Commissioner for demarcation a mandatory requirement when the chain of title is otherwise established by documentary evidence?
- Can a revision petition be dismissed in limine if the findings of the trial and appellate courts are supported by the record?
- Sardar MUHAMMAD SARWAR KHAN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR Through Chief Secretary And 2 OTHER1986 CLC 2173 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the concurrent orders of the lower courts rejecting the petitioner's application for a temporary injunction and holding that the Sub-Judge at Rawalakot lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the declaratory suit. The petitioner, a contractor, had filed a suit at Rawalakot concerning a road construction contract executed in Mirpur and seeking to restrain the recovery of a demand notice as arrears of land revenue. The core legal question was whether a suit against the Government can be instituted at Rawalakot under section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on the presence of government officers or subordinate offices there, notwithstanding that the cause of action arose entirely in Mirpur. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that terms like 'resides', 'carries on business', and 'works for gain' under section 20 C.P.C. apply to natural persons or commercial concerns for profit, and not to the Government. The key principle laid down is that a suit against the Government must be instituted where the cause of action wholly or partly arises, and cannot be anchored in a jurisdiction merely due to the formal presence or administrative acts of government functionaries where no cause of action accrued.
Questions settled- Does the term 'resides' in section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to legal entities and the Government?
- Can a suit against the Government be instituted at any place where a government officer is stationed, regardless of where the cause of action arose?
- Do the words 'carries on business' or 'works for gain' in section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 extend to governmental functions?
- Where must a suit be instituted when the cause of action wholly arises outside the territorial limits of the court where the plaint is filed?
- Sardar MUHAMMAD SALAH GOPANG vs Sardar ALLAH BUX KHAN JALBANI and 8 others1986 MLD 2320 · Election Tribunal · 1986-06-17Read full judgment →