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.
- RANA DAUD And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1405 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-22Read full judgment →
- Rana ATA MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1783 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-23Read full judgment →
- RANA ABDUL GHAFFAR vs THE PUNJAB GOVERNMENT Through Additional Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore1986 PLC (C.S.) 157 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
- RAMZAN vs AMIR1986 MLD 562 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-11Read full judgment →
- RAMZAN MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, RAWALPINDI And Another1986 PLC (C.S .) 575 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-10-09Read full judgment →
- RAMZAN MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 360 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-10-09Read full judgment →
- RAMZAN MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN And Other1986 SCMR 1795 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that upheld the petitioner's retirement from civil service under Section 13(ii) of the Civil Servants Act 1973. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had completed 25 years of service qualifying for pension, specifically whether prior service in the North Western Railway (NWR) and Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) could be aggregated with his federal service to meet this threshold. The petitioner further alleged that the retirement order was mala fide. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal correctly determined that the petitioner's service with the NWR, being paid from General Revenues, qualified for pension purposes, thereby satisfying the 25-year requirement. Consequently, the retirement order was valid. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to examine the retirement order once the 25-year qualifying service threshold was met, noting that allegations of mala fides in such contexts are subject to scrutiny by higher courts rather than the Service Tribunal. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does service rendered in the North Western Railway qualify as service paid from General Revenues for pension purposes?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to examine the validity of a retirement order after a civil servant has completed 25 years of qualifying service?
- Can a Service Tribunal revise or reverse its own majority judgment?
- RAMZAN BIBI AND 14 OTHERS vs AHMED DIN1986 PLD Lahore 402 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-02Read full judgment →
- RAMZAN And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1649 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-11Read full judgment →
- RAJASAB KHAN, vs MAHMOOD HUSSAIN And ANOTHER1986 CLC 1859 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
- Raja SHAHID NAWAZ AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1986 PLD Sh. C (A J & K) 43 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-10-25Read full judgment →
- Raja MUHAMMAD ZULFIQAR vs THE STATE1986 PLD Supreme Court 481 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the High Court's dismissal of his application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking to quash criminal proceedings under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner had previously been acquitted of criminal breach of trust, but a subsequent departmental audit revealed further alleged financial irregularities leading to fresh charges under section 409, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The petitioner contended that although section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was not strictly applicable, the principles underlying it should be attracted as the subsequent offence was similar and relied on the same evidence. The Supreme Court noted this was a case of first impression lacking a prior authoritative ruling from the apex court and granted leave to consider whether the principles of section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply in such circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether the principles of section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are attracted to a subsequent trial where the offence is similar in nature and based on the same evidence as a previous trial resulting in acquittal?
- Can criminal proceedings be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground of a previous acquittal for a similar offence?
- Raja MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs THE DISTRICT FOOD CONTROLLER, JHELUM And Other1986 SCMR 1468 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a writ petition challenging the decision of the District Allotment Board, which refused to confirm the petitioner's temporary depot authorisation and instead decided to draw lots pursuant to Martial Law Instruction No. 22. The petitioner, having participated in the drawing of lots and remained unsuccessful, challenged the process after failing to secure the allotment. The core legal questions involve whether a temporary or ad hoc authorisation creates a vested right to confirmation, whether changes in policy through Martial Law Instructions can be judicially controlled, and whether a party participating in a selection process can subsequently challenge it upon an unfavorable outcome. The Supreme Court held that no vested right had accrued from a temporary authorisation, that matters of policy change are not subject to court interference, and that an unsuccessful participant cannot challenge the outcome of a process they voluntarily took part in. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a temporary or ad hoc depot authorisation create a vested right for confirmation by the District Allotment Board?
- Can a change in policy implemented through Martial Law Instructions be interfered with or controlled by the courts?
- Is an unsuccessful participant who voluntarily took part in the drawing of lots permitted to subsequently challenge the result?
- Raja MUHAMMAD ASHRAF BHATTI vs THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 582 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-12-28Read full judgment →
- Raja MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR1986 PLC (C.S.) 119 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1985-10-28Read full judgment →
- Raja MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs Ch. MUHAMMAD ALTAF HUSSAIN And Other1986 SCMR 1736 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from the judgment of the Election Tribunal which declared the appellant's election to the National Assembly void, found him disqualified under Article 10 of the President's (Post Proclamation) Order No. 5 of 1977, held him guilty of corrupt practices, and declared the election petitioner as duly elected. The core legal questions involved the finality of orders passed during the scrutiny of nomination papers, the standard of proof required to establish disqualification and corrupt practices in election petitions, the evidentiary value of First Information Reports (FIRs) and newspaper reports where makers were not produced, and the interpretation of constitutional and statutory qualifications regarding character, reputation, and being an 'Ameen'. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, setting aside the Election Tribunal's judgment and dismissing the election petition. The Court held that summary proceedings at the scrutiny stage do not bar an election petition, that strict proof similar to criminal standards is required to disqualify a candidate or prove corrupt practices, that FIRs and police registers without examination of their makers are inadmissible as substantive evidence of the truth of their contents, and that past acquittals and remote events cannot override positive evidence of good character and reputation.
Questions settled- Does the finality of an order passed during the summary scrutiny of nomination papers bar the trial of an election petition under the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976?
- What is the standard of proof required to establish the disqualification of a returned candidate or the commission of corrupt practices in an election petition?
- Are First Information Reports and entries in police registers admissible as substantive evidence of the truth of their contents when the makers or scribes are not produced as witnesses?
- Can past criminal cases ending in acquittal or discharge be treated as substantive proof of bad character or lack of qualification to contest an election?
- Raja KHUSHBAKHTURREHMAN AND ANOTHER vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1986 PLD Federal Shariat Court 49 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- Raja KHURSHID ALI vs Dr. ABDUL MALIK And 5 OTHER1986 CLC 2995 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-08-09Read full judgment →
- RAJA KHIZAR HAYAT AND OTHERS vs SALEH MUHAMMAD1986 PLD Lahore 242 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Regular First Appeal challenged a decree for possession through pre-emption granted by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff, claiming a superior right of pre-emption based on ownership in the estate, maintained that status despite the land forming the basis of the claim having been converted into a residential site. The Court held that the land had lost its agricultural character due to permanent construction and residential use, thereby ceasing to be part of the estate. Consequently, the plaintiff was no longer an owner of the estate and lacked the requisite qualification to claim pre-emption. The Court emphasized that a pre-emptor must retain their qualification until the date of the decree. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Khasra Girdawaris not formally exhibited in evidence cannot be relied upon to rebut existing records. The principle established is that when land is converted to non-agricultural use, its owner effectively walks out of the estate, losing pre-emption rights, regardless of whether the land remains assessed to land revenue. The trial court's decree was set aside, and the suit dismissed.
Questions settled- Does land assessed to land revenue necessarily retain its character as agricultural land for the purposes of pre-emption?
- Can a pre-emptor claim a superior right of pre-emption if the land forming the basis of that right has been converted into a residential site?
- Is a Khasra Girdawari that has not been formally exhibited in evidence admissible for judicial reliance?
- Must a pre-emptor retain their qualification for pre-emption until the date of the decree?
- Raja JAVED IQBAL vs HABIB BANK LTD., MUZAFFARABAD1986 PLC 527 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-01-07Read full judgment →
- Raja HUMAYUN KHAN vs HABIB BANK Ltd.1986 SCMR 78(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a civil miscellaneous petition filed as an appeal under Order V, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules against the Registrar's refusal to entertain a petition. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the Registrar's refusal to entertain a petition filed under Article 186-A of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Registrar rightly refused to entertain the petition as no ground was made out for interference in the order. The key principle laid down is that interference with the Registrar's refusal requires valid grounds establishing error or legal infirmity.
Questions settled- Whether the Registrar is justified in refusing to entertain a petition under Article 186-A of the Constitution when no ground for interference is made out?
- Raja BASHARAT ALI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1558 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-07Read full judgment →
- Raja ASIM KHAN and another vs MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION and 21986 MLD 134 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-07Read full judgment →
- Raja ABDUL MANAF vs THE STATE---Opponent1986 P Cr. L J 465 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-03Read full judgment →
- RAISUDDIN vs MASHIATULLAH KHAN through his Legal Heirs1986 MLD 948 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-04Read full judgment →
- RAISUDDIN vs FAZLUR REHMAN1986 MLD 1327 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-18Read full judgment →
- RAISUDDIN vs DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION And Other1986 SCMR 1337 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from appeals against a judgment of the Sind Service Tribunal upholding the compulsory retirement of the appellants, who served as Headmasters, following allegations related to illegal appointments. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the departmental inquiry against the appellants violated the provisions of the Sind Service (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, particularly regarding the dispensing with a regular inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the departmental proceedings were fundamentally flawed because the Authorized Officer misconstrued a directive from the Martial Law Authority as a mandatory instruction to impose a penalty rather than an order to proceed in accordance with law, and further failed to record any formal order to dispense with a regular inquiry as required under the rules. The Court laid down the principle that in the absence of a proper recorded order under the relevant rules dispensing with a regular inquiry, an Authorized Officer is not competent to bypass a full-fledged departmental inquiry, rendering subsequent penal action incompetent in law.
Questions settled- Whether an Authorized Officer can dispense with a regular departmental inquiry without recording a formal order under Rule 5 of the Sind Service (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Does a directive from a Martial Law Authority to initiate departmental action in accordance with law bind the Authorized Officer to compulsorily impose a penalty without independent appraisal?
- Are departmental proceedings vitiated if the Authorized Officer misconstrues the nature of instructions received from a superior authority regarding the guilt of the accused?
- RAISHAM BIBI vs UMAR DIN1986 CLC 2354 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-08Read full judgment →
- RAIS KHAN vs THE SECRETARY, HOUSING AND WORKS DIVISION, ISLAMABAD1986 PLC (C .S.) 637 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-01-07Read full judgment →
- RAIS AHMAD SIDDIQUI and 3 others vs PROGRESSIVE TOBACCO Ltd. and 111986 MLD 41 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-16Read full judgment →
- Rai SHABBIR AHMAD vs SHAMAS RAZA KHAN1986 MLD 2158 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-12Read full judgment →
- RAI MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 736 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-02Read full judgment →
- RAHMAN HAFEEZ and 4 others vs S.M. YUSUF and 2 others1986 MLD 261 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-30Read full judgment →
- RAHM DIN vs COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS AND 21986 PLD Quetta 305 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-06-02Read full judgment →
- RAHIM JAN vs AHMAD JAN Andanother1986 P Cr. L J 122 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking to review and set aside an order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in a criminal reference. The petitioner contended that the reference was incompetent because the Sessions Judge had merely forwarded the case file without making a formal reference under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rendering the High Court's subsequent order without jurisdiction. The respondents argued that the review petition was barred under Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 contains an express prohibition against reviewing a signed judgment in criminal matters, which cannot be bypassed by invoking the inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court further ruled that the right of review is a substantive statutory right, akin to an appeal, and cannot be exercised unless explicitly conferred by statute.
Questions settled- Can the High Court invoke its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to review its own signed judgment in a criminal matter despite the express bar in Section 369?
- Is the right of review in criminal proceedings a substantive right that requires express statutory conferment?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to pass orders under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if a Sessions Judge forwards a case file without a formal reference under Section 438?
- RAHIM DINO vs BHALLOO1986 PLD Rev. 153 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1976-12-07Read full judgment →
- RAHIM BUX AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1986 PLD Karachi 224 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicants, facing trial under Sections 302, 395, 342, and 332 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 alongside Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance 1965, sought post-arrest bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground of continuous detention exceeding two years without trial delay attributable to them. The trial court refused bail under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1), deeming them hardened and desperate criminals solely based on F.I.R. allegations involving the murder of two persons and injury to police personnel. The High Court considered whether unproven allegations in an F.I.R. suffice to declare an accused a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' under the fourth proviso. Granting bail, the High Court held that the fourth proviso, being an exception, must be construed strictly. The term 'criminal' refers to a person convicted or legally adjudged guilty. Unproven accusations in an F.I.R. cannot classify an under-trial prisoner as a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal.
Questions settled- Whether unproven allegations in an FIR or complaint can classify an under-trial prisoner as a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the word 'criminal' in the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to an accused person who has not yet been convicted?
- Is the grant of bail on the ground of statutory delay under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a matter of right rather than judicial discretion?
- RAHIM BAKHSH vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 827 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-24Read full judgment →
- RAHIM BAKHSH vs MUHAMMAD BAKHSH1986 P Cr. L J 2408(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
- RAHIM BAKHSH vs Mst. NASIM AKHTAR1986 CLC 1041 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-28Read full judgment →
- RAHIM BAKHSH vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And OTHER1986 CLC 1008 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-17Read full judgment →
- RAHIM BAKHSH And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 915 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
- RAHEEM BUX SOOMRO vs THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE And Another1986 SCMR 1583 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of the petitioner's service appeal by the Central Service Tribunal. The petitioner, initially an Upper Division Clerk (U.D.C.) in the Income-tax Department, was appointed as an Inspector in 1972. His service was subsequently terminated after he failed to pass the mandatory departmental examination. The petitioner challenged this termination, arguing that his probationary period had expired, thereby precluding termination on the grounds of failing the examination. The Supreme Court examined whether the failure to extend the probationary period prevented the termination of service. The Court held that since the petitioner's appointment terms stipulated that service was 'until further orders' upon the expiry of the probationary period without extension, the employer retained the authority to terminate the service at any time. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, noting that the failure to extend probation did not absolve the petitioner of the requirement to pass the departmental examination, which was a condition of service. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as it raised no question of law of public importance.
Questions settled- Does the failure to formally extend a probationary period prevent the termination of a government servant's service?
- Can a government employee's service be terminated for failing a mandatory departmental examination if the probationary period has technically expired?
- Does the status of 'until further orders' allow for the termination of a government employee at any time?
- RAHEEL SAJID vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1006 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-11Read full judgment →
- RAHAM DAD KHAN and others vs BORDER ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE, NAROWAL1986 MLD 495 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-21Read full judgment →
- RAFIULLAH vs Messrs AMIN TRADERS1986 MLD 2968 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-01Read full judgment →
- RAFIUDDIN AHMED KHAN vs Mst. NOOR JEHAN1986 MLD 1606 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-14Read full judgment →
- RAFIQUE MUHAMMAD KHAN vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSIONER and others1986 MLD 786 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-30Read full judgment →
- RAFIQUE MUHAMMAD GILL vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And 51986 CLC 817 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-28Read full judgment →
- RAFIQUE MASIH vs DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE And 2 Others1986 PLC 640 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- RAFIQUE AHMED JOKHIO vs Messrs PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION Ltd.1986 PLC 15 · Labour Court · 1984-05-07Read full judgment →
- RAFIQUDDIN AHMED vs KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION and another1986 MLD 1619 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-23Read full judgment →
- RAFIQ AHMAD vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2433 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
- RAFI BAKHT NAFEES SIDDIQUI vs Mst. QAMAR JEHAN1986 MLD 1354 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-19Read full judgment →
- RAFHAN MAIZE PRODUCTS COMPANY LTD. vs MONOPOLY CONTROL1986 PLD Lahore 346 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Rafhan Maize Products Co. Ltd vs Monopoly Control Autho-Rity And 9 OtherPTCL 1986 CL. 373 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-27Read full judgment →
- RAFAQAT MASIH vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, HAFIZABAD1986 PLC 431 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-15Read full judgment →
- RAFAQAT ALI vs HIDAYAT ALI And Others1986 P Cr. L J 989 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition concerns a request to transfer a complaint case pending before a Magistrate to the Court of Session, where a cross-case arising from the same criminal occurrence is already pending. The petitioner argued that separate trials in different courts risk conflicting decisions and prejudice the parties. The respondents opposed the transfer, citing the lack of express statutory provisions and potential loss of appellate rights. The Court held that while the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 contains no express provision mandating the consolidation of cross-cases, it is a long-established rule of prudence and practice that such cases should be tried by the same court. This procedure is essential to avoid the risk of diametrically opposite findings regarding the same incident, which could result in serious injustice. The Court clarified that while evidence must be recorded and weighed independently for each case, trying them simultaneously before the same judge serves the ends of justice. Consequently, the transfer was allowed to ensure consistency and judicial efficiency, rejecting the respondents' concerns regarding the loss of appellate rights.
Questions settled- Whether cross-cases arising from the same occurrence should be tried by the same court to avoid conflicting decisions?
- Does the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 contain an express provision for the transfer of cross-cases to a single court?
- Is the trial of cross-cases by the same court legally permissible despite the lack of a specific statutory mandate?
- Does the transfer of a complaint case to the Court of Session deprive the accused of their right to appeal?
- RAFAQAT ALI KHAN vs FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN1986 PLD Peshawar 50 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-06-17Read full judgment →
- RAFAQAT ALI And Brothers vs AZMAT ALI And Other1986 SCMR 1692 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by tenants against a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing their constitutional petition, which had challenged an ejectment order passed by the first appellate authority. The core legal question concerned whether the landlords established grounds for eviction, specifically bona fide personal need and subletting, and whether the High Court was justified in refusing interference in its writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the appellate authority's finding regarding the landlords' bona fide personal requirement was based on a proper appreciation of evidence, and since the specific factual plea regarding the landlords' residence raised before the Supreme Court was not urged during the constitutional petition in the High Court, it could not be entertained. The petition lacked merit and leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding personal need by the appellate authority, when affirmed by the High Court and free from legal or jurisdictional infirmity, will not be interfered with, and new factual pleas not raised below cannot be urged for the first time before the apex court.
Questions settled- Can a new factual plea not urged during the constitutional petition in the High Court be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding bona fide personal requirement of landlords warrant interference in writ jurisdiction?
- Does temporary stay of landlords at another place to look after agricultural land deprive them of their right to claim personal need of business premises?
- RAB NAWAZ vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2864 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-17Read full judgment →
- RAB NAWAZ vs THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL & 2ND SIND LABOUR COURT AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Karachi 46 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged an Election Tribunal order unseating him as an elected member of the Karachi District Council and declaring the runner-up candidate (respondent No. 2) elected. The petitioner was disqualified under Section 37(3) of the Sind Local Government Ordinance 1979 for holding office in a political party. He contended that his acceptance during scrutiny by the Returning Officer was final and could not be re-agitated before the Election Tribunal. The High Court held that the Election Tribunal is an original proceeding empowered to independently determine questions of candidate qualification and disqualification regardless of whether an objection was raised at the scrutiny stage or appealed. However, regarding the relief, the Court held that because the petitioner's disqualification was not notorious or within the voters' knowledge, the votes cast for him could not be deemed thrown away to automatically seat the minority candidate. Consequently, the High Court modified the Tribunal's order, unseating the petitioner but declaring the seat vacant to be filled through a fresh election.
Questions settled- Does the failure to appeal a Returning Officer's order accepting a nomination paper bar an election petition before the Election Tribunal challenging the candidate's qualification?
- Is the Election Tribunal bound by determinations made during summary scrutiny proceedings by Returning Officers?
- Can a runner-up candidate be automatically declared elected when the winning candidate is subsequently disqualified for a non-notorious disqualification?
- Under what circumstances are votes cast for a disqualified candidate treated as thrown away to allow the minority candidate to take the seat?
- RAB NAWAZ vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, JHELUM And Other1986 SCMR 1222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the Election Tribunal's decision declaring the local government election void due to interruption of the poll by open violence. The core legal question was whether the Election Tribunal had the jurisdiction to declare the election void on the ground that the poll was interrupted by open violence, given that rule 28 of the Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979 vests power in the Presiding Officer and Election Authority regarding fresh polls. The Supreme Court held that the Election Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction under Rule 15 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979, as the failure of the Presiding Officer to record reasons or report the stoppage of the poll constituted a non-compliance with statutory rules that materially affected the election result. The Court laid down the principle that an Election Tribunal is fully empowered to declare an election void where statutory rules regarding polling have been violated and such failure has materially affected the election outcome.
Questions settled- Does an Election Tribunal have the jurisdiction to declare an election void on the ground that the poll was interrupted by open violence?
- Whether the failure of a Presiding Officer to report the stoppage of a poll constitutes non-compliance with statutory rules under the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979?
- Can an Election Tribunal declare an election void if the result has been materially affected by the failure to comply with election rules?
- RAB NAWAZ And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1911 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-11Read full judgment →
- R A FL U D D IN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others1986 MLD 793 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
- QUTABUDDIN vs SANAULLAH And Other1986 SCMR 43 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as an appeal regarding a dispute over premises. During the pendency of the proceedings, the appellant filed an application before the Court stating that the appeal had become infructuous because the appellant had successfully obtained possession of the disputed premises. Consequently, the core legal question was whether the appeal could proceed given the change in circumstances rendering the relief sought redundant. The Court accepted the appellant's submission regarding the change in status of the subject matter. Holding that the matter had become infructuous, the Court dismissed the appeal. The key principle laid down is that where the underlying cause of action or the relief sought in an appeal is satisfied or rendered redundant by subsequent events—such as the appellant obtaining the disputed possession—the appeal becomes infructuous and is liable to be dismissed without further adjudication on the merits.
Questions settled- Does an appeal become infructuous if the appellant obtains possession of the disputed premises during the pendency of the proceedings?
- Can an appeal be dismissed if the relief sought has already been achieved by the appellant?
- QUTAB ALI and 3 others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1105 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-22Read full judgment →
- QURBAN HUSSAIN vs Mst. BASHIR BEGUM AND 6 OTHERS1986 PLD SC (A J& K) 109 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-05-31Read full judgment →
- QURBAN And Others vs Mst. SAID BIBI And Other1986 SCMR 2012 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Second Appeal by the High Court, which had upheld the appellate judgment decreeing a suit for pre-emption. The suit was originally dismissed by the trial court based on a defense that the suit property was not pre-emptiable under a Government of West Pakistan, Board of Revenue notification dated 15-9-1965, but the District Judge reversed this finding. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended they were entitled to protection under the said notification as affectees of the Mangla Dam Project, supporting their claim with a certificate issued by the Commissioner, Mangla Dam Affairs and relying on precedent. The Supreme Court found that the contentions required examination and granted leave to appeal to determine whether the petitioners were entitled to protection under the notification as Mangla Dam project affectees, while also staying the execution of the decree pending the hearing of the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether petitioners were entitled to protection under the notification as affectees of the Mangla Dam Project?
- Whether the suit property was pre-emptiable in view of the Government of West Pakistan notification dated 15-9-1965?
- QURBAN ALI vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 626 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-24Read full judgment →
- QURBAN ALI vs SHEROO MACHI And Another1986 SCMR 1845 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court, which altered the respondent's conviction from Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (murder) to Section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), reducing the sentence from death to six years' rigorous imprisonment. The respondent had fatally stabbed the deceased once in the chest. While the trial court convicted the respondent for murder, the High Court reasoned that the presence of only a single injury, the lack of a repeated attack despite opportunity, and the specific nature of the wound indicated that the act was committed with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death, rather than the specific intent to kill required for murder. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the evidence, specifically the nature and location of the injury, determined that the High Court's conversion of the conviction and the resulting sentence required further judicial consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the propriety of the High Court's reclassification of the offense.
Questions settled- Does a single stab wound to the chest necessarily constitute murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- When does an act resulting in death fall under Section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than Section 302?
- Is the absence of repeated blows a sufficient ground to reduce a conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
- QURBAN ALI and 5 others vs FATEH MUHAMMAD and another1986 MLD 2403 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-04Read full judgment →
- QURB AN ALI and 2 others vs PROVINCE OF SIND and 2 others1986 MLD 312 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-11Read full judgment →
- Qazi SALAHUDDIN vs THE STATE1986 PLD Supreme Court 548 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from two cross-petitions before the Supreme Court of Pakistan: a criminal petition filed by the convict against his conviction and sentence, and a petition filed by the State seeking enhancement of the sentence. The petitioner, a civil servant employed as a supervisor in the Income Tax Department, was convicted under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for demanding and accepting illegal gratification. The trial court sentenced him to three months' rigorous imprisonment and fine. On appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction but set aside the sentence of imprisonment, substituting it with a fine on grounds of service loss and trial delay. The Supreme Court observed that routine set-aside of custodial sentences in corruption cases contravened established precedent. The Court condoned the delay in the State's petition, found the core legal issues of conviction reappraisal and sentence adequacy of considerable importance, and granted leave to appeal in both matters.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside a sentence of imprisonment for a convicted civil servant in a corruption case and replacing it with a fine?
- Can delay in filing a State petition for enhancement of sentence be condoned in special circumstances involving judicial practice inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent?
- Whether the prosecution successfully established the charge of demanding and accepting illegal gratification under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Qazi MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN vs Mst. FAZAL JAN And 2 OTHER1986 CLC 1699 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Qazi KHALID SAIFULLAH vs Sh. LUTFUR REHMAN and another1986 P Cr. L J 2619 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-22Read full judgment →
- Qazi ALTAF HUSSAIN And Another vs ISHFAQ HUSSAIN1986 SCMR 1427 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a dispute between two brothers regarding the ownership of a residential house, following a registered sale deed executed by their father in favor of one brother. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of a suit for possession without seeking cancellation of a registered sale deed, the limitation period for such a challenge, and whether the findings of fact regarding undue influence and lack of consideration were sustainable. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the suit was maintainable and within time, as the limitation period commenced upon the father's death. The Court affirmed the lower appellate court's finding that the sale was vitiated by undue influence and lack of consideration. The Court established that while a presumption of correctness attaches to a registered sale deed under the Registration Act, it is rebuttable by evidence. Furthermore, a party cannot raise a new objection regarding the maintainability of a suit at the final appellate stage if it was not pressed in lower courts and the defect was curable.
Questions settled- Does the presumption of correctness attaching to a registered sale deed under Section 60 of the Registration Act preclude evidence of lack of consideration?
- When does the limitation period under Article 91 of the Limitation Act commence for a suit challenging a sale deed executed by a father during his lifetime?
- Can a defendant raise an objection regarding the maintainability of a suit for possession without cancellation of a deed for the first time at the final appellate stage?
- QASSIM SHAH KHAN And 4 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1265 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-05Read full judgment →
- QASIM and others vs PUNJAB PROVINCE and others1986 MLD 748 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-06Read full judgment →
- QASIM ALI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1016 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-26Read full judgment →
- QASIM ALI and another vs Ch. NEMATULLAH and another1986 MLD 2121 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-02Read full judgment →
- QASIM ALI and 5 others vs FAZAL and another1986 MLD 2997 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-19Read full judgment →
- QASIM ALI AND 2 OTHERS vs ZULPIQAR ALI AND 2 OTHERS1986 PLD Lahore 391 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
- QAMRUL ISLAM And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1705 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-08Read full judgment →
- QAMARUDDIN And Another vs MUHAMMAD AKBAR And Other1986 SCMR 698 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a civil revision against concurrent findings of lower courts. The core legal question involved whether the disputed Deohri and staircase formed part of the property transferred to respondent No. 1 or was used jointly by the parties following the initial allotment of the joint property. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts and the High Court were based on a proper reading of the evidence on record and that no substantial question of law warranted interference. The court affirmed that factual determinations regarding property boundaries and joint usage based on evidence will not be disturbed under revisional or appellate jurisdiction without proof of misreading, laying down the principle that concurrent findings of fact supported by record evidence remain binding before the apex court.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding property boundaries can be interfered with when based on a proper reading of evidence?
- Does a party have a right to appeal against a High Court order dismissing a civil revision when the findings are supported by the record?
- QALANDAR KHAN vs Haji ZAREEF KHAN And 5 OTHER1986 CLC 939 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-30Read full judgment →
- QALANDAR AND 4 oTHets vs MIR HAIDER-1986 PLD Peshawar 75 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-11-29Read full judgment →
- QALAB E HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD NADIM And Other1986 SCMR 1690 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a civil petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition, and a related criminal original petition regarding an alleged violation of a stay order. The petitioner challenged his eviction as a tenant, denying the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship with the respondents, who had purchased the property. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' findings, holding that upon the transfer of ownership, the previous agency arrangement regarding rent collection terminated, and the new owners were entitled to receive rent. The Court rejected the petitioner's plea as flimsy. Regarding the criminal original petition, the petitioner alleged that his dispossession occurred despite a stay order issued by the Supreme Court and a subsequent recall order by the executing court. However, the Court found no evidence that the stay order was communicated to the respondents before the execution process was completed, as the bailiff's report and supporting affidavits indicated the execution was finalized prior to any notice. Consequently, both the civil petition and the criminal original petition were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the agency arrangement for rent collection between a previous owner and an agent terminate upon the transfer of property ownership?
- Are new property owners entitled to receive rent from a tenant after serving notice under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restrictions Ordinance 1959?
- Can a party be held in contempt for violating a stay order if there is no proof the order was communicated before the execution of the decree was completed?
- QAISER SALEEM And 2 Others vs HASHIM HUSSAIN And Another1986 P Cr. L J 133 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-09Read full judgment →
- QAISER JAVED vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA1986 PLC (C.S.) 1055 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-04-05Read full judgment →
- QAISER ALI AND 2 OTHERSs vs KARACHI ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION1986 PLD Karachi 489 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns seven consolidated suits filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, seeking damages for the deaths of seven individuals resulting from a bus accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of an employee of the defendant, Karachi Road Transport Corporation. The core legal questions involved the limitation period for filing such suits, the burden of proof regarding negligence, the impact of prior compensation received under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, on claims under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, and the appropriate method for apportioning damages among legal heirs. The Court held that the suits were within time, the defendant was liable for the negligence of its driver, and the receipt of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, did not bar the present claims but would be deducted from the final award. Crucially, the Court determined that in the absence of specific statutory guidance on apportionment, the distribution of damages among legal heirs should be guided by the principles of Islamic Law of inheritance rather than English common law precedents.
Questions settled- Does the receipt of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, bar a legal heir from pursuing a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
- Is the apportionment of damages awarded under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, governed by the Islamic Law of inheritance?
- Does the burden of proof regarding negligence in a fatal accident claim lie with the plaintiff?
- Can a suit filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, be considered time-barred if the last day of the limitation period is a court holiday?
- QAIM KHAN IHROUGH LEGAL HIERS vs YAQUB AND 25 OTHERS1986 PLD Peshawar 10 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-09-17Read full judgment →
- QADIR BUX vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 481 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-28Read full judgment →
- QADIR BAKHSH vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1926 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-23Read full judgment →
- QADEER AKHTAR vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1334 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-21Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD SAFDAR1986 PLC 469 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-05-11Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE1986 PLC 476 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-05-11Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE vs MEHR KHAN1986 PLC 510 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-18Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs RAHIM DAD1986 PLC 336 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs PERVEZ AKHTAR1986 PLC 421 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-18Read full judgment →