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.
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD CHATTA vs KHUSHI And 6 OTHER1986 CLC 2455 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
- Sardar MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other1986 SCMR 360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal relates to the dispute over the transfer of two plots with structures situated in Krishan Nagar, Lahore, under settlement laws. The core legal question was whether the structures on Plots Nos. 75 and 76 constituted a single indivisible house or two separate residential units, and whether out-houses/servant quarters were appurtenant to the main house. The Supreme Court held that since the structures were built on distinct plots meant for separate buildings, they were not appurtenant to each other, and the Settlement Commissioners were fully competent to treat them as separate houses. The Court established the principle that concurrent findings of fact by specialized tribunals regarding the divisibility of properties should not be lightly interfered with by the High Court in writ jurisdiction unless legally unjustified. The appeal was accordingly allowed, restoring the transfer of Plot No. 76 to the appellant.
Questions settled- Whether servant quarters built on a separate plot can be considered appurtenant to a main house under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Can the High Court reverse concurrent findings of fact arrived at by Settlement Commissioners regarding the divisibility of properties?
- Whether out-houses and garages situated on distinct plots constitute separate residential units?
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD And Others vs A.C./A.S.C. And OTHER1986 CLC 2776 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-14Read full judgment →
- SARDAR MASIH vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE1986 PLC 1086 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- SARDAR KHAN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 721 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-22Read full judgment →
- SARDAR KHAN vs RIAZ AHMAD And Other1986 SCMR 1981 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case concerns an ejectment application filed by a landlord (respondent) against a tenant (petitioner) on the ground of personal requirement. The Rent Controller granted the ejectment, but the Additional District Judge allowed the petitioner's appeal, dismissing the application, based on the assumption that the landlord already had sufficient business premises as a shareholder with his father-in-law. The High Court, in a Constitutional Petition, reversed the Additional District Judge's order, finding an error of law. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the petitioner's appeal. The Court reiterated that the choice in selecting premises for personal requirement lies with the landlord, and the mere fact that the landlord has another shop with a tenant is irrelevant. Furthermore, a shop belonging to the landlord's father-in-law, even if the landlord conducts business there, is not considered the landlord's own for the purpose of assessing personal requirement.
Questions settled- Can findings of fact in a rent case be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction if they are based on a wrong assumption of law?
- Does the landlord's choice in selecting premises for personal requirement matter if they have another shop with a tenant?
- Is a shop where a landlord carries on business in partnership with his father-in-law considered his own for the purpose of personal requirement?
- Can a High Court correct an error of law made by an Additional District Judge in a rent case through constitutional jurisdiction?
- SARDAR KHAN vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others1986 MLD 579 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-03Read full judgment →
- SARDAR KHAN vs KHURSHID AHMAD And Another1986 SCMR 1093 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that set aside an acquittal and directed a retrial in a murder case. The petitioner was originally tried under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Ghulam Qadir but was acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Sialkot, on 21-9-1971, based on the benefit of doubt. Subsequently, the complainant filed a revision petition, which remained pending for approximately 14 years before the High Court set aside the acquittal and ordered a retrial in 1985. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that a retrial was unwarranted given the circumstances and the inordinate delay. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that a reappraisal of the evidence was necessary to resolve the matter. Consequently, the Court stayed further proceedings in the case pending the final decision of the appeal. The judgment underscores the necessity of judicial scrutiny when High Courts order retrials after significant delays following an initial acquittal based on the appreciation of evidence.
Questions settled- Is a retrial warranted when a High Court sets aside an acquittal after an inordinate delay of 14 years?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to grant leave to appeal against a High Court order directing a retrial in a murder case?
- SARDAR KHAN And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 795 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-19Read full judgment →
- SARDAR KHAN And Others vs SAID And Other1986 SCMR 336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil review petition arises from a prayer to review an order of the Supreme Court dismissing a Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal. The core legal question concerns whether an order dismissing a petition was passed due to a clerical or accidental mistake, incorrectly reflecting facts of another case when leave was actually granted and security deposited. The court held that there was force in the submissions that the impugned order was mistakenly attached to the file due to an error. The review petition was accordingly allowed, the dismissal order set aside, and the main petition directed to be fixed for hearing along with tracing the original order granting leave.
Questions settled- Whether a civil petition dismissed due to an accidental mistake or wrong attachment of an order can be reviewed?
- Can a court set aside an erroneous order passed on a petition and restore the matter for hearing?
- Sardar HAFEEZ ULLAH KHAN vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD1986 MLD 2270 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-05Read full judgment →
- Sardar GUL E KHANDAN vs Mian GHULAM RASOOL And 3 OTHER1986 CLC 2285 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-11-09Read full judgment →
- SARDAR BAHADUR vs The STATE1986 SCMR 209 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had dismissed his application for post-arrest bail in a murder case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed the impugned judgment of the High Court and the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had delivered a detailed and well-reasoned judgment regarding the bail application. Upon examination, the Court determined that the petitioner failed to raise any substantial question of law that would necessitate interference or further adjudication by the Supreme Court. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition, the Court declined to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with a High Court's bail order where the lower court has exercised its discretion through a reasoned and detailed judgment and no significant legal error is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's bail order when the High Court has provided a detailed and well-reasoned judgment?
- Is leave to appeal granted in a bail matter where no substantial question of law is raised?
- SARDAR ASSEFF AHMAD ALI vs MR. MUHAMMAD KHAN JUNEJO AND OTHERS_p_-Responilents1986 PLD Lahore 310 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition in the nature of quo warranto challenged the eligibility of the Prime Minister and another member of the National Assembly, alleging they incurred disqualification by becoming office-bearers of a political party prior to its formal registration. The core legal question was whether holding office in a political party before its registration under the Political Parties Act, 1962, constitutes a disqualification from parliamentary membership. The Court held that the petition was devoid of merit. It determined that the Political Parties Act, 1962, mandates that a political party must first be formed and then apply for registration within one month, meaning the respondents acted lawfully. Consequently, no disqualification was incurred. The Court further held that disqualifications under Article 63(1)(p) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, which rely on statutory law, are subject to the prevailing legal framework and do not constitute absolute constitutional disqualifications. Finally, the Court emphasized that the issuance of a writ of quo warranto is discretionary and will not be granted on technicalities when the alleged disqualification does not exist at the time of the hearing.
Questions settled- Does becoming an office-bearer of a political party before its registration under the Political Parties Act, 1962, result in disqualification from being a member of the National Assembly?
- Is a writ of quo warranto maintainable if the alleged disqualification of the respondent does not exist at the time of the hearing?
- Does Article 63(1)(p) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 elevate statutory disqualifications to the status of constitutional disqualifications?
- Does the Political Parties Act, 1962, require a political party to be registered before it can be formed or have office-bearers?
- SARDAR alias DARI vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2814 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-14Read full judgment →
- SARDAR ALI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2292 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-20Read full judgment →
- SARDAR ALI vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 646 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-05Read full judgment →
- SANAULLAH vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2461 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-10Read full judgment →
- SANAULLAH vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 669 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-16Read full judgment →
- SANAUL HAQ vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1556 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-11Read full judgment →
- SANAM SHAH And 10 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2947 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This post-arrest bail application was filed by eleven accused facing murder charges registered in 1981, who had remained in continuous custody for approximately three and a half to five years without their trial commencing. The matter was initially referred to a Special Military Court where no actual trial proceedings took place prior to the lifting of Martial Law, after which the case was transferred to the ordinary Sessions Court in 1986. The primary legal issues were whether the period of custody spent while the case was pending before the Special Military Court could be computed for statutory delay under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the fourth proviso allowed prolonged detention without trial. The High Court granted bail, holding that detention before a Special Military Court in the same case counts toward the statutory period under the third proviso. The Court further ruled that the fourth proviso cannot be invoked to justify indefinite pre-trial detention without trial commencement where delay is not attributable to the accused.
Questions settled- Can an undertrial prisoner count the period of detention served during pendency before a Special Military Court for computing statutory delay under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permit keeping an accused in custody as an undertrial prisoner for an indefinite period without trial commencing?
- Whether inordinate delay in the commencement and finalisation of trial not attributable to the accused entitles them to bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- SAMIN KHAN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1648 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-31Read full judgment →
- SAMAR GUL vs CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 35 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal concerns a dispute over the redemption of a mortgage on agricultural land that became evacuee property. The appellant, holding the equity of redemption, challenged revenue mutations that declared the Central Government the full owner of the land, arguing his right to redeem had not expired. The core legal questions were whether the suit for redemption was time-barred under Article 148 of the Limitation Act 1908, and whether specific revenue records acknowledging the appellant's status as mortgagor constituted an acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Limitation Act 1908, thereby extending the limitation period. The Supreme Court held that the mutation entry dated 11th January 1969, which recognized the appellant as the mortgagor, constituted a valid acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Limitation Act 1908, effectively resetting the limitation period. The Court established that substance prevails over form in pleadings and that revenue records acknowledging a mortgagor's rights can serve as an acknowledgment of liability, preventing the extinguishment of redemption rights under Section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908.
Questions settled- Does a revenue mutation entry acknowledging a mortgagor's rights constitute an acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Does the acquisition of evacuee property by the Central Government under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 extinguish the pre-existing rights of a non-evacuee mortgagor?
- Can a court grant relief for redemption of a mortgage even if the suit is framed as a declaratory suit, provided the substance of the claim is for redemption?
- Does the expiry of the limitation period for a redemption suit under Article 148 of the Limitation Act 1908 automatically extinguish the mortgagor's title under Section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908 if an acknowledgment of liability has occurred?
- SAMANDAR KHAN vs Mst. SITARA BIBI And Other1986 SCMR 949 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the leasehold rights of a property owned by the Karachi Municipal Corporation. The petitioner, Samandar Khan, obtained a lease for a property already leased to the respondents' predecessor-in-interest, Muhammad Yousuf, by allegedly misrepresenting facts. The core legal question was whether a subsequent lease granted by the municipal authority for a property already under a valid, subsisting lease to another party is legally sustainable without the cancellation of the prior lease. The trial court decreed in favor of the original lessee, a decision initially reversed by the appellate court but restored by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that a subsequent lease cannot be validly granted over a property while a prior lease remains in existence and has not been cancelled through proper legal procedure. The principle established is that the existence of a prior, valid lease precludes the grant of a subsequent lease for the same property by the municipal authority, regardless of the subsequent lessee's physical possession.
Questions settled- Can a municipal authority grant a lease for a property that is already subject to a valid, subsisting lease in favor of another party?
- Is the cancellation of a prior lease a necessary legal prerequisite before a municipal authority can grant a new lease for the same property to a different person?
- Does the physical possession of a property by a third party entitle them to a lease from the municipal authority if a prior lease for the same property already exists?
- SAMANDAR KHAN And Another vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1732 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-07-26Read full judgment →
- SALIM KHAN AFRIDI vs PRINCIPAL, AYUB MEDICAL COLLEGE, ABBOTTABAD AND 4 TM-RS1986 PLD Peshawar 138 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-04-08Read full judgment →
- SALIK And ANOTHER vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1642 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-12Read full judgment →
- SALEHOON vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 312 · Other · 1985-10-29Read full judgment →
- SALEHOON vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2593 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-06Read full judgment →
- SALEHON And OTHERS vs Mst. ANWARI And Other1986 SCMR 1217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal examines whether the entitlement of a vendor in a rehabilitation settlement was correctly fixed to protect the purchasers' interest in the land. The core legal question concerned whether an allottee female heir held an exclusive allotment of the disputed land or shared it with her sisters, and how subsequent claims by collaterals affected the property. The Supreme Court held that the confirmation of land was made in the name of the deceased right-holder, and all daughters were legitimate co-sharers under the relevant rehabilitation scheme without any exclusive allotment to the vendor. The Court established that successors to a deceased right-holder under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme can only receive land to the extent of their respective inheritance shares, and failure to produce primary verification documents like form RL-II to substantiate independent allotments elsewhere defeats claims of exclusive ownership.
Questions settled- Whether successors of a deceased right-holder are entitled to receive land beyond their respective shares in inheritance under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme?
- Can jamabandi entries substitute for basic confirmation documents like form RL-II to establish separate exclusive land allotments?
- Are rehabilitation authorities legally bound to reflect co-sharers according to verified inheritance shares upon the appearance of rightful collaterals?
- SALEHEEN vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR And 2 Other1986 SCMR 1535 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal sought the cancellation of bail granted by the High Court to two respondents, Muhammad Bashir and Mst. Ghulam Sakina, who were charged with offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The petitioner contended that the accused were charged with offences punishable by imprisonment for ten years and that the High Court erred by granting bail solely because the police no longer required the accused's presence, without explicitly recording its satisfaction that there were reasonable grounds to believe the accused were not guilty. Upon examination of the facts, the Supreme Court noted evidence indicating that Mst. Ghulam Sakina had been divorced by her husband and that Muhammad Bashir was unaware of her marital status. The Court held that the High Court had exercised its discretion appropriately in granting bail. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the petition, affirming that the exercise of judicial discretion in bail matters remains sound when based on the specific circumstances of the case.
Questions settled- Does the grant of bail solely on the ground that the police no longer require the accused's presence satisfy the legal requirements for bail in offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in granting bail when evidence suggests the accused may not be guilty of the charged offences?
- SALEHA AKHTAR and others vs SALAH-UD-DIN and others1986 MLD 2506 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
- SALEH vs YAKUB1986 PLD Rev. 125 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1970-10-22Read full judgment →
- SALEEM UR REHMAN And Others vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB Through Secretary, S&GAD, Lahore And Other1986 SCMR 747 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal examines whether the expression "Government servant" under clause (v) of rule 3 of the Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1976 bears a generic, extended meaning encompassing both Federal and Provincial Government employees, or a restricted meaning limited solely to Provincial Government servants. The appellants, federal civil servants employed in the Office of the Accountant-General, Punjab, sought to appear for the Civil Judges examination under the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1962, claiming upper age limit relaxation. The Supreme Court held that in view of the definition of "Government" under section 2 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and the statutory rule of construction under section 19 of the General Clauses Act, coupled with the principle that relaxation or exemption rules must be strictly and narrowly construed rather than extended, the expression "Government servant" in the context refers strictly to servants of the Punjab Government. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding the appellants ineligible for age relaxation as federal employees, while observing that the Provincial Government retains the discretion to relax age requirements if necessary.
Questions settled- Whether the expression "Government servant" in rule 3(v) of the Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1976 includes Federal Government servants or is restricted to Provincial Government servants?
- How does the definition of "Government" under section 2 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 affect the interpretation of rules framed thereunder?
- What is the rule of interpretation applicable to statutory provisions providing for exemptions or relaxations from normal recruitment rules?
- SALEEM BOKHARI AND 5 OTHERS vs Mst. SADOZAI AND 6 OTHERS1986 PLD Quetta 284 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-10-19Read full judgment →
- SALEEM And Another vs Kazi INAYAT AHMAD1986 SCMR 514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises out of a matter where leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 9-10-1974. During the pendency of the appeal, the sole respondent died on 31-10-1977. The core legal question addressed by the court is the consequence of the appellants' failure to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent on record within the prescribed period of 90 days. Holding that the appeal became improperly constituted and could not proceed due to the long and unexplained delay of over eight years in filing the necessary application for substitution, the court dismissed the appeal. The key principle laid down is that an appeal abates or becomes improperly constituted when legal representatives of a deceased party are not brought on record within the statutory limitation period, and time will not be extended without good grounds.
Questions settled- What is the consequence of failing to bring the legal representatives of a deceased respondent on record within 90 days?
- Will the court extend the time to bring legal representatives on record after a delay of several years without good grounds?
- Does an appeal remain properly constituted when a respondent dies and no substitution is made?
- SALAMAT MASIH vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2869 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-13Read full judgment →
- SALAMAT ALI And ANOTHER vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 221 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-20Read full judgment →
- SALAH UDDIN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1902 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-07Read full judgment →
- SALA M U D DIN vs AMIR HASSAN1986 CLC 2096 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-16Read full judgment →
- SAKINA BIBI And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1089 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-03Read full judgment →
- SAKHI SULTAN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 117 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-12Read full judgment →
- SAJID NAZIR vs THE STATE1986 PLD AZAD J & K 53 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-12-18Read full judgment →
- SAJID HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2831 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-07Read full judgment →
- SAJAWAL vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2633 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-15Read full judgment →
- SAIN Through Legal Heirs vs BORDER AREA ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE And OTHER1986 CLC 2171 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-27Read full judgment →
- SAIN MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2547 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-24Read full judgment →
- SAIFUR REHMAN vs ADDITIONAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, N.-W. F. P., PESHAWAR AND 4 armas1986 PLD Peshawar 180 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- SAIFULLAH KHAN And 5 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2794 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- SAIFULLAH AND OTHERS vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER-ReSpOndentS1986 PLD Supreme Court 226 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal converted into an appeal, directed against the dismissal of a criminal revision by the High Court. The petitioners, accused of murder alongside a parallel police case and a private complaint, contended that they were prejudiced by the non-supply of copies of certain documents—namely, recovery memos, the post-mortem report, and the site plan—pursuant to section 265-C(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned whether the accused in a private complaint were entitled to copies of documents under section 265-C(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that since the documents in question were already available on the police file and copies thereof had already been supplied to the accused under section 265-C(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the grievance regarding non-supply was meritless, and dismissed the appeal without needing to interpret the broader scope of subsection (2).
Questions settled- Whether the accused in a private complaint are entitled to copies of documents under section 265-C(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when those documents are already supplied through the parallel police case file?
- Does the non-supply of documents already available to the accused on the police record cause prejudice in a trial based on a private complaint?
- SAIFULLAH and another vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2629 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-05-28Read full judgment →
- SAIFUL MALOOK vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 348 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-09-02Read full judgment →
- SAIF UR REHMAN And Others vs Ch. NAZIR AHMAD1986 CLC 843 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-18Read full judgment →
- SAID SHAH vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 379 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-14Read full judgment →
- SAID MUHAMMAD vs NAZAR HUSSAIN1986 PLD Rev. 66 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1986-01-08Read full judgment →
- SAID MUHAMMAD vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD, MULTAN REGION And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 683 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-07-16Read full judgment →
- SAID MDHAMMAD vs RAJA HAQ NAWAZ and others-1986 P Cr. L J 1418 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-14Read full judgment →
- SAID KHAN And Another vs The STATE1986 SCMR 481 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the convictions of the petitioners under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Rafiq. The trial court and the Peshawar High Court relied on the testimony of a sole eye-witness and the judicial confession of one petitioner to sustain the convictions, rejecting the petitioners' plea of grave and sudden provocation. The Supreme Court examined whether the eye-witness, whose presence at the scene was unexplained, qualified as a chance witness and whether the High Court correctly evaluated the plea of grave and sudden provocation in light of the unretracted judicial confession. The Court observed that the eye-witness did not observe the infliction of injuries by a sharp-cutting weapon, raising doubts about the consistency of the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the case warranted a deeper examination of the evidence to ensure the safe administration of criminal justice. Leave to appeal was granted to determine if the conviction was sustainable and if the plea of provocation was erroneously rejected.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of a witness whose presence at the scene of the crime is unexplained?
- Does a judicial confession raising a plea of grave and sudden provocation require corroboration when the prosecution's eye-witness account is contested?
- Under what circumstances should a court grant leave to appeal against a concurrent finding of guilt in a murder case?
- SAID AMIR AND OTHERS vs ASHRAF KHAN AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court whereby a civil revision was allowed and the appellants' suit for possession of land was dismissed based on the respondents' maturity of title through adverse possession. The core legal questions involve whether the High Court correctly interpreted revenue entries in the Jamabandi, specifically giving preference to the Lagan column over the cultivation and ownership columns, and whether concurrent findings of fact regarding adverse possession could be lawfully upset in revision. The Supreme Court held that entries in the cultivation and ownership columns of the Jamabandi cannot be overridden by isolated entries in the Lagan column, and that a tenant recorded as such cannot claim adverse possession against the true owner. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that non-payment of rent does not alter the character of a tenant, and that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be lightly disturbed in revisional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether entries in the Lagan column of a Jamabandi take precedence over entries in the cultivation and ownership columns?
- Can a tenant recorded as a tenant-at-will claim adverse possession against the true owner?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts on the question of adverse possession can be upset in a civil revision?
- Does the non-payment of rent change the character of a person recorded as a tenant in the cultivation column?
- SAID AHMAD KHAN vs Syed ALTAF HUSSAIN1986 MLD 2283 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-18Read full judgment →
- SAGHEER BAIG vs MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Alias ACHHU And Another1986 SCMR 1735 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that suspended the conviction and sentence of a respondent convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondent had been sentenced to life imprisonment, but the High Court granted bail under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner contends that the High Court erred by focusing exclusively on the respondent's individual act of firing a firearm, while failing to consider the trial court's finding regarding the respondent's shared common intention with others in committing the offence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the High Court's failure to account for the established common intention necessitated further judicial examination. The Court held that the scope and application of powers under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the suspension of sentences in cases involving common intention require a more authoritative pronouncement, warranting a full hearing of the appeal.
Questions settled- Can a court suspend a conviction and sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without considering the established common intention of the accused?
- Does the scope of powers under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require consideration of the entire evidentiary context, including common intention, when suspending a sentence?
- SAFER ALI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2571 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-08Read full judgment →
- SAFDAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2739 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-11Read full judgment →
- SAEEDULLAH KHAN vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1027 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 and Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and the attempted murder of the complainant. The appellant challenged the conviction, primarily arguing that contradictions between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence regarding the trajectory of the fatal gunshot wound rendered the prosecution's case unreliable, suggesting the crime was un-witnessed. The Supreme Court held that while discrepancies existed between the FIR and the trial testimony regarding the direction of the shot, such inconsistencies were attributable to the confusion and traumatic circumstances of the event. The Court affirmed that the presence of the eye-witnesses was corroborated by the fact that one witness was himself injured during the incident. Furthermore, the Court held that the medical evidence regarding the stomach contents of the deceased was consistent with the time of occurrence. The Court reiterated the principle that minor contradictions in testimony under stress do not necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case and that proof of motive, while present, is not strictly incumbent upon the prosecution to secure a conviction.
Questions settled- Does a contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the direction of a gunshot wound automatically render the prosecution's case unreliable?
- Is it incumbent upon the prosecution to prove a motive for the commission of a crime?
- Can the testimony of an eye-witness be accepted despite inconsistencies arising from the confusion and trauma of the crime scene?
- SAEEDULLAH AND ANOTHER vs POLITICAL AGENT, MALAKAND AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Peshawar 131 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-04-11Read full judgment →
- SAEED UN NISA vs LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (M.D.A.), MULTAN And OTHER1986 CLC 2079 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
- SAEED AHMAD KHAN vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION1986 MLD 1232 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-14Read full judgment →
- SAEED AHMAD HAMDANI vs MUHAMMAD IROAN AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 690 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, arising from a petition for leave to appeal by the complainant, examined the correctness of the Lahore High Court's judgment dated November 6, 1979, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of an eight-year-old boy. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including extra-judicial confessions, last-seen evidence, and recoveries. The Supreme Court evaluated the reliability of the extra-judicial confessions, noting significant discrepancies in timings, the absence of prior acquaintance between the accused and the witnesses, and the fact that one confession was made in the immediate presence of police officers in a crowded bazaar. The Court also found critical flaws and unexplained delays concerning the recoveries of items from a locked store-room, and noted that the last-seen evidence was too tenuous to establish guilt. Upholding the High Court's acquittal, the Supreme Court reiterated that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the chain of events must be complete and established beyond reasonable doubt to exclude any hypothesis of innocence. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an extra-judicial confession made to complete strangers without prior acquaintance is reliable for sustaining a murder conviction?
- Can an extra-judicial confession made in the immediate presence of police officers in a public place be considered voluntary and admissible?
- What standard of proof is required in criminal cases resting entirely on circumstantial evidence to warrant a conviction?
- Whether material discrepancies in the testimonies of witnesses regarding the time of an alleged extra-judicial confession vitiate its credibility?
- SADIQ SAYEED KHAN And Another vs CENTRAL GOVERNMENT Through Defence Secretary And Military Estate Officer, Abbottabad And Other1986 SCMR 1147(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition converted into an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the execution of a decree involving a disputed amount of Rs.10,00,000. The core legal question relates to the conditions under which execution proceedings should be stayed or suspended pending further resolution. The court held that the appeal is allowed subject to specific terms regarding the deposit of the disputed amount. The key principle laid down is that execution proceedings may be suspended upon the judgment-debtor depositing the disputed decretal amount in the executing court within a stipulated timeframe, while permitting the decree-holder to withdraw the deposited funds upon furnishing a sufficient bank guarantee, thereby balancing the interests of both parties during the pendency of the matter.
Questions settled- Under what conditions may the execution of a decree be suspended when a disputed amount is involved?
- Can a decree-holder withdraw a deposited disputed amount from the executing court, and if so, upon what condition?
- SADIQ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 389 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
- SADIQ HUSSAIN SHAH vs ARMY WELFARE ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES1986 PLC 700 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-02-04Read full judgment →
- SADIQ HUSSAIN And Others vs GHULAM RASOOL1986 SCMR 322 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court judgment that refused to entertain a plea of limitation raised by the petitioners. The petitioners had initially filed a suit for possession, which was dismissed by the trial court upon finding that the respondent was the legitimate heir of the deceased and that the suit was filed maliciously to defame him. Consequently, the respondent successfully sued for damages for defamation. In the subsequent proceedings, the petitioners failed to challenge the findings on the merits but attempted to raise the issue of limitation for the first time before the High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that a plea of limitation cannot be raised for the first time at a belated stage if it was not pleaded in the written statement or agitated during the earlier proceedings. The Court held that the High Court was justified in refusing to consider the point, as the petitioners were precluded from introducing new legal arguments that were not part of the original pleadings or trial record.
Questions settled- Can a plea of limitation be raised for the first time before the High Court if it was not pleaded in the written statement or raised during the trial proceedings?
- Is a party entitled to introduce a new legal argument at the appellate stage that was not part of the original pleadings?
- SADIQ FRANCIS vs M/S. MECHANICAL CONSTRUCTION (PAKISTAN) And1986 PLC 634 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- SADIQ ALI And Others vs THE STATE1986 PCr. L J 696(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-18Read full judgment →
- SADDULLAH vs PAK P.W.D. And another1986 MLD 2985 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-02Read full judgment →
- SADA vs Mst. GHAFOORAN BEGUM And OTHER1986 CLC 2819 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-22Read full judgment →
- SAD DULLAH vs PAK P.W.D. and another1986 MLD 2985 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-02Read full judgment →
- SABIR RAZA NADEEM vs THE STATE-1986 P C r. L J 1948 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-16Read full judgment →
- SABIR MASIH And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2027 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-24Read full judgment →
- SABIR HUSSAIN vs SECRETARY, PUNJAB SEED CORPORATION1986 PLC 662 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-12-14Read full judgment →
- SABIR HUSSAIN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others1986 MLD 797 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
- SABIR HUSSAIN KHAN And 2 Other vs CHIEF SECRETARYIAZAD GOVERNMENT1986 PLC (C.S.) 353 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1985-09-29Read full judgment →
- SABIR ALI vs THE STATE1986 PLD Lahore 289 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-11Read full judgment →
- SABIR ALI and others vs Ch. SHAHBAZ KHAN1986 MLD 865 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-15Read full judgment →
- SABER HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1986 PLD Azad J & K 207 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-05-07Read full judgment →
- SABAH AKHTAR and others vs SALAH-UD-DIN and another1986 MLD 1933 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
- SAA DULLAH vs SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHERs1986 PLD Quetta 270 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a relation of the detenu challenging an order of detention issued under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, on the grounds of involvement in anti-State activities. The core legal questions involved the validity of successive detention orders, the alleged vagueness of the grounds of detention, the competency of the officer signing the communication of grounds, and the scope of the High Court's writ jurisdiction in light of an approving opinion by the Review Board. The Balochistan High Court held that the proceedings before the Review Board are quasi-judicial and provide an adequate remedy, and that the superior courts will be reluctant to interfere in the absence of compelling reasons, particularly where State security is involved and privilege is bona fide claimed over sensitive material. The Court further held that a claim of privilege regarding State security justifies withholding detailed facts, rendering the furnished grounds sufficiently specific, and that the communication of grounds by a Joint Secretary does not vitiate an order properly passed by the Home Secretary. The petition was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court will interfere in constitutional jurisdiction with an opinion of the Review Board justifying preventive detention?
- Does the claim of privilege on the ground of State security excuse the detaining authority from providing detailed particulars in the grounds of detention?
- Whether an order of detention is vitiated if the grounds are communicated by a Joint Secretary rather than the Home Secretary himself?
- S.MARUF AHMADALI, ADVOCATE vs PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, LAHORE and another1986 MLD 493 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
- S.M. TUFAIL AHMAD vs KAFILUDDIN AHMAD And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 339 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-05Read full judgment →
- S.M. SOHAIL NAQVI vs REGIONAL MANAGER, PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL1986 PLC 613 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- S.M. QASEEM vs THE GENERAL MANAGER, OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATION1986 PLC (C.S.) 115 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-11-12Read full judgment →
- S.M. HAMEED-UD-DIN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT Of PUNJAB, SOCIAL1986 PLC (C.S.) 658 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-01-12Read full judgment →
- S.M. GHARIB NAWAZ DACCAWALA vs SIND BAR COUNCIL and 2 others1986 MLD 2094 (1) · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-20Read full judgment →
- S.M. AURANGZEB ANJUM vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 486 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-12Read full judgment →
- S.K. NASIRUDDIN AHMAD vs MUH AMMAD AKB AR1986 MLD 242 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-02Read full judgment →
- S.A. RIZVI vs PAKISTAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION And Another1986 SCMR 965 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan disposes of two civil appeals arising from decisions of the Service Tribunal, Islamabad, and the Sind Service Tribunal, Karachi. The core legal question addressed was whether Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 (and the corresponding provincial provision under the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973) confers upon the Service Tribunals the power to review or rehear their own final decisions. The Supreme Court held that the legal fiction deeming the Tribunal to be a civil court under Section 5(2) is expressly limited to powers exercised 'for the purpose of deciding an appeal' under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (such as Order XLI). The Court laid down that the power of review is a substantive right created purely by statute, not a mere procedural rule, and cannot be implied or assumed without explicit statutory authorization. Consequently, both appeals seeking review or de novo rehearing were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 confer a power of review on the Service Tribunal?
- Can a power of review be implied as a matter of procedure without an express statutory grant?
- Does the legal fiction deeming a statutory tribunal to be a civil court for the purpose of deciding an appeal automatically grant it review powers under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- S.A. MALIK vs Dr. ASHRAF MAHMOOD1986 MLD 2962 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
- S. SAADAT ALI SHAH vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF PRISONS, PUNJAB And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 176 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-03-13Read full judgment →
- S. MUNAWAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs DIRECTOR OF FOOD, PUNJAB, LAHORE And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 247 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-12-12Read full judgment →
- S. MUHAMMAD QASIM WASTI vs MEMBER (REVENUEVBOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE1986 PLC (C.S.) 268 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-06-11Read full judgment →