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.
- S. MASOODUL HASSAN NAQVI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1272 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-02Read full judgment →
- S. MARUF AHMAD ALI, ADVOCATE vs PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, LAHORE And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 335 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-30Read full judgment →
- S. M. REHMATULLAH vs THE STATE1986 PLD Karachi 560 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-01Read full judgment →
- S. M. ABDULLAH & SONS vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 2 others1986 MLD 1508 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-18Read full judgment →
- S. M, ABID vs Mst. ZAHIDA YOUSAF1986 SCMR 844 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit filed by a tenant seeking to challenge a compromise agreement regarding the vacation of rented premises. The tenant, having previously agreed to vacate the property by a specific date in exchange for rent adjustments, subsequently filed a suit alleging that the landlord's claim of personal need—which induced the compromise—was fraudulent and based on misrepresentation. The tenant sought interim relief to stay the ejectment order. Both the trial court and the appellate court refused the interim relief, and the High Court declined to interfere in revision. The Supreme Court held that because the tenant had originally contested the landlord's claim of personal need before entering into the compromise, he could not now claim to have been deceived by that same assertion. The Court determined that the tenant failed to establish a prima facie case for interim relief, as he was attempting to resurrect previously settled disputes. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that a party cannot repudiate a compromise based on alleged misrepresentation when they were fully aware of the facts at the time of the agreement.
Questions settled- Can a party to a compromise agreement challenge it on the grounds of fraud if they were aware of the disputed facts at the time of the agreement?
- Is a tenant entitled to interim relief to stay an ejectment order after voluntarily entering into a compromise to vacate the premises?
- Does a denial of a landlord's claim of personal need in initial proceedings preclude a later claim of fraud based on that same personal need after a compromise is reached?
- S. KAMALUDDIN AHMAD vs MAJOR (RETO.) AHMAD ALI KAZMI1986 PLD Karachi 306 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-03Read full judgment →
- S. JAMIL AHMED HASHMI vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, ISLAMABAD And Other1986 SCMR 1671 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 27-2-1984, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld his removal from service. The core legal question concerns the legality and factual justification of the petitioner's removal from service and whether the Service Tribunal erred in upholding the same. The Supreme Court held that no exception could be taken in law or on facts against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, as the petitioner was duly proved guilty of the charges framed against him. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact by the Service Tribunal regarding the guilt of a civil servant in disciplinary matters, when supported by the record, will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with factual findings of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding charges against a civil servant?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be maintained against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal upholding removal from service when charges are proved?
- S. IQBAL HUSSAIN SHAH and others vs Mst. AKHTARI BEGUM and others1986 MLD 1829 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-01Read full judgment →
- S. DAWOOD SHAH vs S. NOOR SHAH and another1986 P Cr. L J 1689 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
- S. BADSHAH QULI vs KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION1986 MLD 1496 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-15Read full judgment →
- S. ASIF Ali vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1060 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-18Read full judgment →
- S. ASGHAR IMAM vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.1986 PLC 718 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-12-08Read full judgment →
- S. AKHTAR SHER vs THE STATE and another1986 MLD 2507 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-09-16Read full judgment →
- S M SARDAR JAFRI vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1859 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-18Read full judgment →
- S .M . SALEEM vs ABDUL MAJID and another1986 MLD 155 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-05Read full judgment →
- RUSTOM KHAN And ANOTHER vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 440 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-30Read full judgment →
- RUSTAM ZAMAN vs THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 21986 MLD 528 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
- RUSTAM vs THE STATE1986 PLD Karachi 561 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-01Read full judgment →
- RUSTAM KHAN vs Messrs Haji GUL HASSAN & Bros.1986 MLD 146 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-20Read full judgment →
- RUSTAM KHAN And Others vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1091 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their revision petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld their conviction under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly forging and registering a sale-deed. The trial court had convicted the petitioners, while acquitting their co-accused, and the Additional Sessions Judge had dismissed their subsequent appeal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction could be sustained when it was mainly based on the report of a finger-print expert who was not examined during the trial, thereby depriving the petitioners of the opportunity to cross-examine him. The Supreme Court held that a re-appraisal of the evidence was necessary under these circumstances. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the conviction based on an unexamined expert's report.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be lawfully based on the report of a finger-print expert who was not examined by the trial court?
- Whether the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine a finger-print expert warrants the grant of leave to appeal?
- Does the re-appraisal of evidence become necessary when crucial expert reports are relied upon without formal examination of the expert?
- RUST AM and 6 others vs Mst. MEHFI and another1986 MLD 1946 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-04Read full judgment →
- ROZEDAR KHAN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2660 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-04Read full judgment →
- ROSHAN ARA ISMAIL and another vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1986 MLD 2359 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-25Read full judgment →
- ROSHAN AND OTHERS vs RABIA BIB! AND OTHERS1986 PLD Rev. 32 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1985-10-08Read full judgment →
- RIZWAN Petitioner vs THE STATE1986 PLD Lahore 222 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioner challenging his conviction under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment, which was upheld by the Sessions Judge. The petitioner raised legal questions regarding whether the omission of the mandatory certificate under Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiated the trial, and whether the amendment to Section 340(2) introduced by Ordinance XII of 1985 applied retrospectively, necessitating the accused to give evidence on oath. The Lahore High Court held that the omission of the Section 364 certificate was a curable irregularity under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as no prejudice or failure of justice was demonstrated. The Court further ruled that Section 340(2), as amended in 1985, operated to the detriment of the accused by compelling testimony on oath and eliminating statutory protections; hence, it was substantive in character and not retrospective. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the omission to append the certificate required under Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is an illegality that vitiates the trial or an irregularity curable under Section 537?
- Whether the amendment to Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 enacted via Ordinance XII of 1985 has retrospective effect in pending criminal cases?
- Can the constitutional vires of an amending criminal statute be challenged collaterally in criminal revisional proceedings?
- Are criminal courts permitted to administer oaths to witnesses on the Holy Qur'an or in forms other than those prescribed under the High Court Rules and Orders?
- RIZWAN HUSSAIN vs REHM DIN1986 CLC 527 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
- RIZWAN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY Ltd. vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE And Other1986 SCMR 418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The dispute relates to a parcel of land measuring 406 Kanals and 1 Marla originally purchased by the petitioner-society via a registered sale-deed in 1964 from the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The Lahore Improvement Trust (predecessor of the Lahore Development Authority) had previously formulated a development scheme and claimed the land, leading to prolonged litigation. Although the Supreme Court in earlier proceedings upheld the development scheme and cancelled the petitioner's sale-deed regarding certain lands, it transpired that the disputed 406 Kanals and 1 Marla were not actually covered by the said development scheme. Consequently, subsequent acquisition notifications issued by the Lahore Development Authority for this area led to a writ petition by the petitioner-society, which was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the society lacked locus standi because its sale-deed had been invalidated. Upon a petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that since the disputed land was never part of the original development scheme, the petitioner's title remained intact, granting it the requisite locus standi to challenge subsequent acquisition proceedings. Leave to appeal was accordingly granted, and the High Court was requested to expedite pending related writ petitions.
Questions settled- Does a property owner retain locus standi to challenge subsequent land acquisition proceedings when their title was mistakenly assumed to have been invalidated by an earlier court judgment?
- Whether land not covered under a validly sanctioned development scheme remains vested in the original purchaser despite prior litigation concerning other tracts?
- RIZWAN ALI vs Messrs DESCON ENGINEERING Ltd. Application No. 84 Of 19851986 PLC 154 · Labour Court · 1985-08-06Read full judgment →
- RITA MARGRETT RANDILL vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1801 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-09-23Read full judgment →
- RICEEXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN Through Its Secretary vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL And Other1986 SCMR 1010 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a company incorporated for exporting rice, challenged the orders of the labor tribunals and the High Court holding it liable to establish a Workers' Participation Fund under the Companies Profits (Workers' Participation) Act, 1968. The core legal question was whether the appellant constituted an 'industrial undertaking' under the Scheme set out in the schedule to the Act. The Supreme Court held that the mechanical processes of cleaning, grading, purifying, and refining raw rice—which removed impurities, husk, and broken grains using electrical machinery—changed the original condition of the commodity and enhanced its value, thereby qualifying the enterprise as an industrial undertaking. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the principle that processing raw agricultural goods through mechanical means to render them export-fit by adding worth and changing their condition satisfies the statutory definition of an industrial undertaking.
Questions settled- Whether a corporation engaged in the procurement, cleaning, and export of rice qualifies as an industrial undertaking under the Companies Profits (Workers' Participation) Act, 1968?
- Does the mechanical processing, cleaning, and grading of raw rice change its original condition or add to its value within the meaning of the industrial undertaking scheme?
- Are companies meeting the asset and worker thresholds of the Companies Profits (Workers' Participation) Act, 1968 required to establish a workers' participation fund?
- RICE EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN vs Messrs M. A. AGENCIES1986 MLD 1 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-25Read full judgment →
- RIAZ vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2878 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-05Read full judgment →
- RIAZ STEEL MILL vs WAPDA and others1986 MLD 745(1) · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-24Read full judgment →
- RIAZ QADEER KHAN LODHI vs SECRETARY, POPULATION PLANNING DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1986 SCMR 1017 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed an application under Order XXVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 seeking contempt proceedings against the Population Planning Division, Government of Pakistan, for alleged non-compliance with the disposal of his Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 501 of 1983. The petitioner claimed he was entitled to be referred to the Public Service Commission and reinstated upon its recommendation. The core legal question was whether the respondent committed contempt of court by refusing to reinstate the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's case fell outside the scope of the conditional offer made by the respondent, as employees already rejected by the Federal Public Service Commission were excluded from re-examination and absorption. Consequently, no disobedience of the court's order was established. The key principle laid down is that contempt proceedings for non-implementation of a judgment cannot succeed where the claimant fails to satisfy the specific qualifying conditions and foundational terms of the settlement or offer incorporated in the court's disposal.
Questions settled- Can contempt proceedings be initiated for the non-implementation of a judgment when the claimant does not fulfill the qualifying conditions of the underlying offer?
- Are employees previously rejected by the Federal Public Service Commission entitled to re-examination and absorption under a conditional reinstatement offer?
- RIAZ MUHAMMAD vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI And 2 Others1986 PLC 741 · Labour Court · 1986-05-30Read full judgment →
- RIAZ HUSSAIN And Others vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1934 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-09-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These criminal appeals and petitions arise from a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a double murder that occurred on 27-09-1974. The appellants were tried and convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murders of Baqir Ali and Bakhat Nawaz Malli. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness testimony, the establishment of motive arising from a broken marriage engagement, the validity of recoveries of weapons and blood-stained clothing, the plea of right of private defence, and the quantum of sentences including the enhancement of a life sentence to death. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through prompt lodging of the First Information Report, consistent and reliable eyewitness accounts corroborated by medical evidence, and established motive. The Court rejected the plea of private defence as contradictory and deprecated the practice of delayed police re-investigations. Consequently, the convictions and sentences awarded by the High Court were upheld, and all appeals and enhancement petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether minor discrepancies in describing the weapon of offence in the FIR versus the recovery vitiate the ocular testimony?
- Can a delayed police re-investigation report contradicting earlier findings form the sole basis for acquitting an accused?
- Whether the failure to summon certain police officers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 results in a mistrial?
- Is a plea of private defence sustainable when the statements of the accused persons are contradictory and lack supporting physical evidence?
- RIAZ HUSSAIN And Others vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION1986 SCMR 668 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging a suo motu revisional order passed by the Chairman, Federal Land Commission. The core legal question involved the validity of an alienation of land by a declarant under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, which had been set aside by the Commission on the ground that the sale consideration was grossly inadequate compared to the average market price. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly declined to re-examine concurrent findings of fact regarding the adequacy of consideration in its constitutional jurisdiction, and that unargued legal grounds raised in the High Court could not be resurrected. The Court affirmed that questions of fact regarding bona fide transactions are best left to competent authorities, while noting that alienees may protect their lawful interests against the declarant through appropriate remedies.
Questions settled- Whether inadequacy of consideration alone can be a ground for the Federal Land Commission to refuse to validate a transaction of sale under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
- Can questions of fact considered by a competent authority be re-examined by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether legal objections not argued or pressed before the High Court can be raised for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- RIAZ AHMED KHALIL vs HABIB KHAN1986 SCMR 1849 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an ejectment proceeding initiated by the respondent against the petitioner in respect of residential premises in Karachi on the grounds of default in payment of rent, personal requirement, and subletting. The Rent Controller directed the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent and future monthly rent by specified dates. Upon non-compliance, the petitioner's defence was struck off. The petitioner contended that he was unaware of the deposit order due to his counsel's negligence and deposited the rent upon discovery. The High Court found the petitioner's counsel guilty of gross negligence which could not excuse the petitioner. The Supreme Court considered the contentions and found no question of law involved, holding that the petitioner is bound by the conduct and negligence of his counsel. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant can be excused from non-compliance with a rent deposit order due to the negligence of his counsel?
- Does a petition against the striking off of a defence for non-deposit of rent involve a substantial question of law?
- RIAZ AHMAD vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1460 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's murder appeal by the High Court, which had confirmed his death sentence for the murder of Siraj Din. The core legal questions involve the credibility of eye-witness testimony, the impact of non-production of certain witnesses, alleged contradictions between medical and ocular evidence, and the justification of the death sentence. The Supreme Court held that the independent and natural eye-witness corroborated the prosecution's case, that the non-production of related witnesses does not weaken the prosecution where testimony is sufficient, and that minor discrepancies regarding the exact time of death do not outweigh the medical certificate from the hospital. Furthermore, the death sentence was justified given the absence of mitigating circumstances. The key principles laid down relate to the evaluation of ocular testimony supported by independent witnesses and the assessment of mitigating circumstances in capital punishment cases.
Questions settled- Does the non-production of certain eye-witnesses adversely affect the prosecution case when other sufficient eye-witness testimony is available?
- Does a discrepancy between the medical opinion on time of death and ocular evidence vitiate the conviction?
- Can a death sentence be maintained when no mitigating circumstances are pointed out by the defence?
- RIAZ AHMAD vs GHAIRMAN, WAPDA1986 PLC (C.S.) 643 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-12-14Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AHMAD MALIK vs GOVERNOR OF PUNJAB And 2 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 863 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-01-12Read full judgment →
- RIASAT ALI and 7 others vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KASUR and 13 other1986 MLD 1028 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-19Read full judgment →
- REHMATULLAH KHAN vs JAMIL KHAN And Another1986 SCMR 941 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent, Jamil Khan, who was previously convicted by the trial court for the murder of Saadullah Khan. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's appraisal of evidence leading to the acquittal, specifically regarding the reliability of ocular testimony, the establishment of motive, and the weight attached to a brief period of abscondence. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to point out any material error in the High Court's appraisal of the evidence, noting that the High Court had fully considered the testimony and provided cogent reasons for doubting the prosecution's case. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with an acquittal order based on a plausible and well-reasoned appraisal of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal based on the appraisal of ocular testimony?
- Does a brief period of abscondence with a plausible explanation suffice to sustain a murder conviction?
- Whether variances in the statements of eyewitnesses on material points render their testimony unreliable?
- REHMATULLAH And Others vs PAKISTAN And 2 Other1986 SCMR 1418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-08-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their second appeal by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to challenge the cancellation of their land allotment. The petitioners had originally received an allotment of land in 1948, which was later treated as evacuee trust property. The core legal question concerned the jurisdiction of civil courts over evacuee trust property disputes and the validity of the allotment. The Supreme Court held that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred and that the allotment of trust property was a nullity. The Court clarified that observations made by the lower courts regarding the merits or status of the property only determined the question of jurisdiction and would not operate as a bar to the petitioners seeking relief from designated authorities under Section 10 of Act XIII of 1975 if otherwise entitled. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the cancellation of an allotment of evacuee trust property?
- Does an allotment of evacuee trust property under a rehabilitation scheme have any legal sanctity?
- Whether findings on jurisdiction by lower courts operate as a bar to seeking relief from designated statutory authorities?
- REHMATULLAH And Others vs Mst. HAMEEDA BEGUM And Other1986 SCMR 1561 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a High Court judgment in a constitutional petition that set aside an order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner regarding the transfer of an evacuee shop. The shop was originally allotted to a partnership firm. A dispute arose between partners regarding whether the allotment and physical possession pertained to individual partners or to the firm as a whole. The Settlement Commissioner transferred the entire shop to one partner, but the Chief Settlement Commissioner in second revision divided the property among three contesting partners. The High Court declared the Chief Settlement Commissioner's order without jurisdiction due to statutory amendments barring second revisions. The Supreme Court held that allotment to a firm enures to the benefit of all partners in possession on the target date, entitling them to a joint transfer. Furthermore, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and will not be exercised to set aside an order, even if passed without jurisdiction, where doing so would revive an unjust or illegal order. The appeal was allowed and a joint transfer was ordered.
Questions settled- Whether an allotment of evacuee property in the name of a partnership firm enures to the benefit of all partners in possession on the statutory target date for entitlement to transfer?
- Whether the High Court in exercising its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 can refuse to set aside an order passed without jurisdiction if setting it aside would revive an unjust or illegal order?
- Whether a revisional order modifying an allotment order relates back to and substitutes the original order from the date it was made?
- REHMATULLAH AND 2 OTHERS vs LAL MUHAMMAD1986 PLD Quetta 121 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the dismissal of a suit in default and the subsequent rejection of a restoration application. The suit was dismissed on a date fixed solely for the filing of a list of witnesses. The core legal question is whether a date fixed for a procedural step, such as filing a list of witnesses, constitutes a 'date of hearing' under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, thereby justifying dismissal in default for non-appearance. The Court held that a 'date of hearing' implies an effective proceeding germane to the progress of the case. Since the date in question was merely for a procedural filing, it did not constitute a 'date of hearing', and the dismissal order was void ab initio. The Court established that where a dismissal order is void, the limitation period for restoration does not apply, and the Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to set aside the illegal order and restore the suit.
Questions settled- Does a date fixed merely for filing a list of witnesses constitute a 'date of hearing' under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a court dismiss a suit in default if the parties fail to appear on a date not fixed for an effective hearing?
- Is an application for restoration of a suit dismissed on a void order subject to the standard limitation period?
- When can a court invoke its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to restore a suit?
- REHMAT ULLAH vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT (WORKSHOPS), PAKISTAN1986 PLC 1070 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- REHMAT ULLAH vs ABDUL GHANI1986 CLC 858 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-08Read full judgment →
- REHMAT KHAN vs KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Rev. 69 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1986-02-23Read full judgment →
- REHMAT KHAN vs ALLAH RAKHA and others1986 MLD 781 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
- REHMAT And Others vs THE STATE And Other1986 SCMR 1512 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comprises criminal petitions and jail petitions filed against convictions, sentences, and the enhancement of sentences. The core legal question involves the sustainability of the convictions and sentences awarded to the petitioners, as well as the propriety of the sentence enhancement sought by the state or complainants. The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard the counsel for the parties, noted the withdrawal of one petition, and evaluated the remaining petitions and jail petitions on their merits. The court held that no good grounds for interference were made out by the petitioners and that the jail petitions lacked merit. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed all four petitions. The key principle laid down is that where petitions against conviction, sentence, or sentence enhancement fail to disclose valid legal grounds or merits warranting interference, the Supreme Court will uphold the lower forum's determination and dismiss the petitions.
Questions settled- Whether a criminal petition against enhancement of sentence is maintainable without establishing valid grounds for interference?
- Do jail petitions against conviction and sentence warrant interference when found to be without merit?
- What is the consequence when a petitioner withdraws a criminal petition for enhancement of sentence upon instructions?
- REHMAT ALI vs The STATE1986 SCMR 446 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act read with Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979, which were based on his plea of guilt. The petitioner contended that the trial was vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 241-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as he was not supplied with the statements of witnesses nor was a seven-day period allowed to elapse before his charge-sheeting and sentencing. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, no finding, sentence, or order can be reversed or altered due to a procedural omission or irregularity unless it has occasioned a failure of justice. Since the petitioner had voluntarily pleaded guilty and raised no objection before the trial magistrate, no prejudice or failure of justice was established.
Questions settled- Does the non-supply of copies under Section 241-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically vitiate a trial where the accused has voluntarily pleaded guilty?
- How does Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 affect procedural omissions or irregularities during a criminal trial?
- Is an accused required to raise an objection regarding procedural violations at the earliest stage of the proceedings to assert a failure of justice?
- REHMAT ALI vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1394 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-23Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ALI vs HAMEED MASEEH And Other1986 SCMR 1505 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves three criminal petitions seeking the cancellation of bail granted by the Lahore High Court to respondents Hameed Maseeh, Muhammad Iqbal, and Muhammad Afzal, whose sentences of imprisonment for life under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Jameel were suspended pending their appeals. The core legal question is whether the High Court exercised its discretion improperly or arbitrarily in suspending the respondents' sentences and granting them bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the learned Judge in the High Court did not exercise the discretion allowed under the law either illegally or arbitrarily. Additionally, the Court noted that the petition for the cancellation of bail regarding Muhammad Afzal was time-barred. The key principle laid down is that appellate discretion exercised under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for suspension of sentence will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court unless shown to be illegal or arbitrary.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court exercised its discretion illegally or arbitrarily in suspending the respondents' sentences?
- Can a petition for cancellation of bail be dismissed on the ground of being time-barred?
- Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with the suspension of sentence granted by the High Court under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without proof of illegal or arbitrary exercise of discretion?
- REHMAT ALI KOHAR vs Mist. SARDARAN BIBI AND 15 OTHERS1986 PLD Lahore 283 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition impugned the validity of an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Sialkot, remanding a civil suit touching the inheritance of land back to the trial court. In appeal against the dismissal of their suit by the trial court, the respondents had filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for permission to produce additional evidence. The appellate court set aside the trial court's judgment and decree, remanding the entire suit alongside the application to the trial court for decision. The High Court accepted the revision petition, holding that an appellate court cannot delegate or abdicate its statutory authority to decide an application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 to a trial court. The High Court set aside the impugned remand order and remanded the appeal back to the District Judge for fresh disposal of both the appeal and the additional evidence application in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court remand an application for additional evidence filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to the trial court for decision?
- Does a trial court have jurisdiction to entertain and decide an application for additional evidence filed under Order XLI Rule 27 during appellate proceedings?
- REHMAT ALI And Others vs SARDAR KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 1647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court in a pre-emption suit. The petitioners, claiming to be collaterals of the vendor, sought to pre-empt a sale of land. The trial and appellate courts had ruled in their favor based on a pedigree table. However, the High Court, in second appeal, reversed this decision, holding that the petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding their relationship with the vendor, as the pedigree table was not sufficiently linked to the parties by positive evidence. The Supreme Court examined the petitioners' contention that the High Court had misread the evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had properly considered the evidence and that the issue of the petitioners' relationship with the vendor was a question of fact. Finding no error of law or misappraisal warranting interference, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that it would not undertake a fresh reappraisal of evidence on pure questions of fact.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal where no question of law is raised?
- Is a pedigree table sufficient proof of collateral relationship without positive evidence linking the parties to the common ancestor?
- Does the misreading of evidence by a High Court constitute a sufficient ground for the Supreme Court to re-evaluate factual findings?
- REHMAT ALI And ANOTHER vs GHULAM NABI1986 CLC 2176 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-20Read full judgment →
- REHMANIA TEXTILE MILLS Ltd., FAISALABAD vs MUHAMMAD YOUSUF And Another1986 PLC 317 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- REHMAN SHAH AFRIDI vs THE BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION and another1986 MLD 2616 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- REGIONALUNION, CENTRAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS REGION, LAHORE, PAKISTAN1986 PLC 503 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- RAZZAK HUSSAIN SHAH vs KAZI WITH POWERS OF FAMILY COURT And ANOTHER1986 CLC 1691 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-03-25Read full judgment →
- RAZZ BEGUM vs MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN,SISLAMABAD1986 PLC (C.S.) 754 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-06-23Read full judgment →
- RAZIUL HASSAN vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1728 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-20Read full judgment →
- RAZIA BEGUM vs GHULAM SARWAR MALIK1986 PLD Karachi 341 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-14Read full judgment →
- RAZI And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2553 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-03Read full judgment →
- RAZAUL HAQ vs MUHAMMAD HANIF1986 SCMR 1678 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court, which upheld a Rent Controller's order directing the petitioner's eviction for failing to deposit rent in compliance with a previous court order. The petitioner contended that he had consistently paid rent via money order since 1977, which the respondent-landlord accepted until November 1984, and that he was unaware of the Rent Controller's specific order dated 9-12-1984 because his counsel failed to communicate it. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner's history of regular payments via money order, even after the ejectment application was filed, and the claim regarding the lack of communication of the Rent Controller's order, presented a substantial question requiring deeper examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, stayed the eviction order subject to the condition that the petitioner continues to deposit rent regularly in court, and allowed the parties to file additional documents for the final hearing.
Questions settled- Does the consistent acceptance of rent via money order by a landlord after the filing of an ejectment application constitute a valid defense against eviction for non-payment?
- Can an eviction order based on a failure to comply with a court directive be challenged if the tenant claims the order was never communicated to them by counsel?
- RAZA MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH through his Legal Heirs vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and another1986 MLD 252 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an order of an Arbitrator dismissing a landowner's claim for enhanced compensation following the compulsory acquisition of his land for the extension of an airport. The core legal question was whether the appellant had voluntarily agreed to a fixed compensation rate, thereby waiving his right to challenge the award, or whether his acceptance of the payment was conditional and made under protest. The High Court held that the appellant’s explicit endorsement of the receipt as being "under protest" and the surrounding circumstances demonstrated that there was no final, conclusive, or voluntary settlement regarding the compensation. Consequently, the Arbitrator erred by dismissing the claim on the assumption of an agreed rate without examining the merits of the case. The court set aside the order and remanded the matter for a fresh determination of compensation. The key principle established is that where ambiguity exists regarding the interpretation of a statement or receipt concerning compensation, such doubt must be resolved in favor of the subject, ensuring that claims are adjudicated on their merits.
Questions settled- Does the acceptance of compensation 'under protest' constitute a final and voluntary settlement of a land acquisition claim?
- Is an arbitrator required to examine the merits of a compensation claim even if there is a disputed assertion of a prior agreement on the rate?
- How should a court resolve ambiguities in the interpretation of a document regarding the waiver of a right to claim enhanced compensation?
- RAZA HUSSAIN vs DISTRICT JUDGE, VEHARI And Other1986 SCMR 1267 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Raza Hussain sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the lower forum's refusal to implead him as a party in an ejectment petition. The original ejectment petition was filed by Shah Muhammad against Muhammad Akram regarding a shop. The petitioner claimed to be impleaded as a party based on a sale-deed executed in his favour by the brothers of the alleged tenant, asserting ownership and possession. The Rent Controller and District Judge rejected his application on the grounds that he sought to litigate title and that the property numbers differed, and the High Court dismissed his constitutional petition. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a person claiming to be an owner or co-sharer cannot be impleaded as a party in rent control proceedings, which are strictly confined to the landlord and tenant and those deriving interest from them, as such proceedings cannot be converted into a determination of title. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, leaving the petitioner to seek his remedy through appropriate legal steps for title determination.
Questions settled- Can a third party claiming ownership or co-ownership be impleaded as a party in rent control proceedings between a landlord and tenant?
- Whether rent proceedings can be converted into a suit for determination of title.
- Does the refusal to implead a person claiming independent title in rent proceedings preclude them from taking appropriate legal steps to establish their title?
- RAZA HUSSAIN and 3 others vs THE STATE and another1986 MLD 1221 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-08Read full judgment →
- Rayasat Rasool Qadri. vs Dubai Bank Limited & 28 OtherPTCL 1986 CL. 310 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-28Read full judgment →
- RAYASAT RASOOL QADRI vs DUBAI BANK LTD. AND 28 OTHERS1986 PLD Karachi 297 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-01Read full judgment →
- RASUL BAKHSH vs RAB NAWAZ KHAN And 3 OTHER1986 CLC 2151 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-28Read full judgment →
- RASOOL BAKHSH And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2294 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-28Read full judgment →
- RASHIDA KHATOON vs Syed HAMID ALI NAQVI1986 SCMR 256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises out of eviction proceedings initiated against a tenant who died during the pendency of the proceedings, prior to the passing of the eviction order. The core legal question was whether an eviction order passed against a deceased person is a complete nullity in law and unexecutable, and whether the legal representatives can plead nullity when the death was concealed from the court. The Supreme Court held that while ordinarily an order against a dead person is void, the legal representatives and counsel who remained silent about the death and allowed the order to be passed cannot take advantage of their own fraud. The key principle laid down is that a party or its representatives will not be permitted by the court to benefit from their own fraudulent concealment of a party's death during ongoing judicial proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether an eviction order passed against a dead person is a nullity in law?
- Can legal representatives take advantage of their own silence regarding the death of a party to claim an order is void?
- Does concealment of a party's death during judicial proceedings amount to fraud precluding a challenge to the resulting order?
- RASHID UR RAHMAN SHAMI vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN And Other1986 SCMR 1009 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a decision of a Service Tribunal which dismissed the petitioner's appeal on grounds of limitation and lack of maintainability. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having failed to clear the Federal Public Service Commission examination, could be considered a civil servant eligible to file an appeal for reinstatement. The Tribunal held that the appeal was barred by time and, on merits, concluded that the petitioner's failure to qualify through the Federal Public Service Commission precluded him from claiming the status of a civil servant. Consequently, the petitioner lacked the standing to maintain an appeal before the Tribunal. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding it unexceptionable in light of established precedent, specifically Federation of Pakistan and another v. Riaz Ahmad Baig and another (1984 SCMR 759). The key principle laid down is that an individual who has not successfully cleared the requisite Federal Public Service Commission examination cannot claim the status of a civil servant, thereby rendering them ineligible to maintain an appeal before a Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Does a person who fails to clear the Federal Public Service Commission examination qualify as a civil servant?
- Is an appeal maintainable before a Service Tribunal if the appellant has not qualified through the Federal Public Service Commission?
- Can a Service Tribunal dismiss an appeal on the grounds of both limitation and merits?
- RASHID UDDIN vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1831 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Rashid Uddin, along with co-accused, was charged, tried, and convicted under sections 471, 403, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code by the Special Court (Banks) Karachi for entering into a conspiracy to defraud United Bank Limited and fraudulently withdrawing Rs. 6,60,000 using forged cheques. His subsequent appeal before the High Court was dismissed. In the petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that his name was omitted from the F.I.R., that the handwriting expert's report was withheld, and that his conviction rested solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, Muhammad Sadiq. The Supreme Court examined the record and held that the testimony of Muhammad Sadiq, who had worked with the petitioner for years and was familiar with his signatures and duties regarding T.T. messages, was lawfully and correctly relied upon by the lower courts. The Court ruled that the appreciation of evidence was proper, the absence of the handwriting expert's report was inconsequential since the defense failed to summon it, and no substantial question of law arose. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction for bank fraud and forgery can be sustained on the testimony of a single witness familiar with the accused's signature?
- Does the omission of an accused person's name from the First Information Report vitiate a subsequent conviction based on trial evidence?
- What is the legal consequence when an accused fails to summon a handwriting expert's report referred to during trial proceedings?
- RASHID TARIQ KHAN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE And Other1986 SCMR 1556 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition challenging a decree for dower and maintenance. The petitioner contended that the Family Court failed to comply with Section 12 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, which mandates an attempt at reconciliation between parties upon the conclusion of evidence. The Family Court had explicitly recorded reasons for dispensing with this requirement, citing the futility of such an attempt given the parties' conduct. The High Court affirmed this decision, noting the petitioner's obstructive behavior throughout the proceedings, including the repeated failure to present arguments despite being granted nine opportunities. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no legal error in the lower courts' refusal to mandate reconciliation when the circumstances rendered it impossible. The Court held that where the conduct of parties demonstrates that reconciliation is futile, the procedural requirement under Section 12 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 does not necessitate a mechanical or redundant exercise, and the court may proceed to judgment.
Questions settled- Whether a Family Court is strictly bound to attempt reconciliation under Section 12 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 even when such an attempt is clearly futile?
- Can a High Court refuse to issue a writ when the petitioner's conduct demonstrates an abuse of process?
- Does the failure to hold a reconciliation meeting under Section 12 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 automatically vitiate a decree for dower and maintenance?
- RASHID KHAN vs SHUJAHUDDIN1986 MLD 2930 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-28Read full judgment →
- RASHID KHAN And Another vs THE STATE And Other1986 SCMR 933 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These criminal petitions arise out of an order passed by the Peshawar High Court regarding the bail applications of two accused persons facing trial under sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions involved the propriety of granting bail to an accused on medical and age grounds and refusing bail to a co-accused attributed with ineffective firing. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exercised its judicial discretion properly without violating any principles of law or committing any illegality. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the discretionary exercise of bail jurisdiction by the High Court unless there is a clear illegality or violation of established legal principles.
Questions settled- Whether ineffective firing by an accused is sufficient ground for further inquiry warranting the grant of bail?
- Whether advanced age and defective vision constitute sufficient grounds for granting bail in a murder case?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in granting or refusing bail without a showing of illegality?
- RASHID and another vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1698 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-27Read full judgment →
- RASHID AHMAD vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2825 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-07Read full judgment →
- RASHID AHMAD vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1756 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-01Read full judgment →
- RASHID AHMAD vs MESSRS FRIENDS MATCH WORKS1986 PLD Karachi 258 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-10Read full judgment →
- RASHID AHMAD vs ASGHAR ALI AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 737 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside a trial court order and directed that a private criminal complaint in a murder case be tried first, followed by the State challan case, in accordance with the precedent in Nur Elahi v. Ch. Ikram-ul-Haq. The core legal question concerned whether the dictum in Nur Elahi's case—requiring the complaint case to be tried first when there are different versions and different sets of accused—applied to the facts of the present case, and whether subsequent Supreme Court judgments had modified that principle. The Supreme Court held that the principle in Nur Elahi's case remains good law and applies where the sets of accused and the prosecution versions differ between the police report and the private complaint. The Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that where a criminal case involves distinct versions and different arrays of accused persons between the State challan and a private complaint, the precedent in Nur Elahi must govern the precedence of the trials to avoid prejudice.
Questions settled- Whether the principle laid down in Nur Elahi's case regarding the precedence of a private complaint over a State challan has been modified by subsequent judgments?
- Does the rule in Nur Elahi's case apply when the sets of accused persons and the prosecution versions are different in the police report and the private complaint?
- Should a private complaint be tried before the State case when both overlap but contain differing allegations against different accused individuals?
- RASHID AHMAD TAHIR vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD1986 PLC (C.S.) 219 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-10-11Read full judgment →
- RASHID AHMAD KHAN vs WASA (LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1986 PLC 661 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-13Read full judgment →
- RASHID AHMAD BHATTI And Others vs THE SECRETARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB And Another1986 SCMR 975 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the entitlement of former Junior English Teachers to the Senior English Teacher (SET) pay scale retrospectively from the date of nationalization of their schools (1-10-1972). The appellants, previously employed in privately managed schools, sought SET status and pay from the date of nationalization, relying on an administrative order. The core legal question was whether the appellants satisfied the requirements of paragraph 7(2) of Martial Law Regulation No. 118, which guarantees pay parity for teachers of equivalent qualifications and experience as of 1-10-1972. The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to establish they were holding SET posts or working as such on the crucial date of 1-10-1972. The Court affirmed that the initial administrative order granting them SET status retrospectively was incompetent and temporary, creating no vested rights. The ratio established is that the guarantee under Martial Law Regulation No. 118 is contingent upon the teacher actually holding the equivalent post and possessing the required qualifications on the date of nationalization; subsequent adjustment or promotion does not entitle one to retrospective pay fixation.
Questions settled- Does the guarantee under paragraph 7(2) of Martial Law Regulation No. 118 entitle teachers to Senior English Teacher pay scales from the date of nationalization if they were not holding those posts on that date?
- Can an administrative order granting retrospective pay fixation create a vested right if the order itself is incompetent and explicitly temporary?
- Are teachers entitled to the pay scale of a higher post retrospectively based on subsequent adjustment or transfer under the Punjab Nationalized Schools (Men and Women Sections) Teaching Posts Rules 1974?
- RASHID AHMAD Alias BADSHA vs THE STATE and another-1986 P Cr. L J 2199 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-08Read full judgment →
- RASHEEDA BEGUM vs SIND PROVINCE-1986 P Cr. L J 1063 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-15Read full judgment →
- RASAB KHAN And ANOTHER vs ABDUL GHANI And 4 Other1986 CLC 1400 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-03-14Read full judgment →
- Rao MUHAMMAD YASIN KHAN vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION And 21986 PLC (C.S.) 66 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-10-06Read full judgment →
- Rao MANZOOR AHMAD and 5 others vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD and another1986 MLD 569 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-10Read full judgment →
- Rao M. HASHIM KHAN And 4 Others vs MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR ZONE 'A'1986 P Cr. L J 2385 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-13Read full judgment →
- Rana SHAUKAT ALI vs Raja KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and others1986 MLD 2520 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-09Read full judgment →
- Rana SAFEER-UD-DIN vs FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY And Another1986 PLC 706 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-01-21Read full judgment →
- RANA NAYYAR IQBAL vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2180 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-09Read full judgment →
- Rana MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs OKARA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, OKARA1986 PLC 1090 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-01-20Read full judgment →
- Rana MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs PAKISTAN And Other1986 SCMR 1825(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding service matters. The core legal question concerns the proper interpretation and reconciliation of Rule 12(2) and Rule 12(7) of the A.S.F. (Service) Rules, 1978. The Federal Service Tribunal itself acknowledged ambiguity and a lack of clarity in the application of these specific provisions. Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that the Tribunal's attempt to reconcile these conflicting rules requires further judicial examination to ensure correct legal application. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to address the interpretation of these rules, directing that the appeal be heard on the existing record. The matter centers on the necessity of resolving statutory ambiguity within service regulations to determine the rights of the petitioner.
Questions settled- How should Rule 12(2) and Rule 12(7) of the A.S.F. (Service) Rules, 1978 be reconciled when they appear ambiguous?
- Does an ambiguity in the interpretation of service rules warrant the granting of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court?
- Rana MAQBOOL AHMAD And 5 Other vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT1986 PLC 422 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-19Read full judgment →
- Rana ISLAMUDDIN vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ADDL. SETTLEMENT1986 MLD 1654 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-26Read full judgment →