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.
- NAZIR AHMAD vs DISTRICT JUDGE, LEIAH AND 9 OTHERS1986 PLD Lahore 137 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order of the District Judge, which upheld a trial court's decision to proceed with evidence after the defendant refused to deny the plaintiff's claim on oath. The core legal question was whether a plaintiff’s suit must be automatically decreed if a defendant fails to deny the claim on oath under Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, and whether Order X, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandates judgment against a party for such failure. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Article 163 does not prescribe automatic decreeing of a suit upon a defendant's refusal to take an oath. The Court established that in the absence of specific statutory consequences for a defendant's failure to deny a claim on oath, the trial court retains discretion to proceed with evidence, and the plaintiff's oath may be considered as evidence during the trial. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Order X, Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is discretionary and does not mandate an automatic judgment against a party for non-appearance.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a defendant to deny a plaintiff's claim on oath under Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, result in the automatic decreeing of the suit?
- Is the trial court required to pronounce judgment against a party under Order X, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if they fail to appear in person to answer questions?
- Does a trial court have the discretion to proceed with evidence when a defendant refuses to take an oath to deny a plaintiff's claim?
- NAZIR AHMAD vs D.I.-G.OF POLICE, FAISALABAD And 30 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 228 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-10-12Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs CHIEF ENGINEER, HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB, LAHORE And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 170(2) · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs BASHIR AHMAD And OTHER1986 CLC 595 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-09Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT, RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE And Another1986 PLC 681 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs ASSISTANT DIRECTOR REFUGEES GOVERNMENT OF J & K And Other1986 SCMR 768(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the inheritance and allotment of evacuee land originally granted to a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir, one Shahabuddin. The petitioners, claiming to be the nephew and nieces of the deceased, sought to be included in the allotment of his land. The Settlement Authorities, however, determined that only the widow and the direct children of the deceased were entitled to inherit his allotment, noting that the petitioners were already beneficiaries of an allotment made in favour of their own mother, Mst. Aisha Bibi. The High Court upheld this exclusion, reasoning that the petitioners could not claim inheritance from their uncle while he had direct heirs. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the petitioners were not entitled to deprive the respondents of their rightful share in their father's inheritance, especially given that the petitioners were already provided for through their mother's allotment. The petition was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Are nephews and nieces entitled to inherit the allotment of an evacuee land holder when the deceased has left behind a widow and children?
- Can beneficiaries of an allotment made in favour of their mother also claim a share in the allotment of their uncle?
- NAZIR AHMAD vs ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (GENERAL), LAHORE1986 PLC (C.S.) 681 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-03-06Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD MALLAH vs PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION Ltd.1986 PLC 850 · Labour Court · 1986-04-11Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD And Other vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB LOCAL1986 PLC (C.S.) 28 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-11-03Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD And Other vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ ZAHID And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 752 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-13Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1538 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-01Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD And Another vs Mst. SIDDIQAH BEGUM And Other1986 SCMR 625 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition in limine. The petition was filed with a delay of 195 days, and the petitioners sought condonation of this delay under the Supreme Court Rules. The petitioners contended that the delay occurred because the High Court failed to deliver the certified copy of the impugned order until May 14, 1974, despite the copy being ready on November 1, 1973. The Court examined the evidence and found that, beyond the petitioners' bare affidavit, there was no record to substantiate the claim that the Copying Agency had failed to deliver the copy upon request. Furthermore, the Court noted that even after receiving the copy, the petitioners delayed filing the appeal for over a month without any explanation. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners failed to discharge the onus of proving sufficient cause for the delay. The petition was dismissed as time-barred.
Questions settled- Does a bare affidavit suffice to prove that a delay in filing an appeal was caused by the negligence of a court's copying agency?
- Is a petition for special leave to appeal maintainable when filed significantly beyond the limitation period without a satisfactory explanation for the entire duration of the delay?
- NAZIR AHMAD And 139 Others vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through Secretary, Government Of The Punjab And Other1986 SCMR 216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed a civil miscellaneous application stating that subsequent to interlocutory orders passed by the Supreme Court, the Government of Punjab issued and implemented a final order on August 1, 1985, which was challenged by the petitioners via an appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Public Service Tribunal Act, 1974. Consequently, the petitioners' learned counsel sought permission to withdraw the main petition to pursue the appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal while reserving all legal contentions and pleas. The Supreme Court found the request justified, granted the permission, and dismissed the civil petition as withdrawn, while also disposing of the civil miscellaneous petition accordingly.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner withdraw a constitutional or civil petition to pursue an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal when a final order has been passed and implemented during the pendency of the proceedings?
- Whether permission to withdraw a petition can be granted with liberty to raise legal pleas before the Service Tribunal without prejudice to contentions raised in the original petition?
- NAZIR AHMAD Alias NAZIRA vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 709 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-11Read full judgment →
- NAZEER MASIH vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1224 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal application was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking a review of a High Court order that had dismissed the applicant's criminal revision application on merits. The applicant contended that the revision was dismissed without providing him an opportunity of being heard under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as his counsel was absent on the hearing date. The High Court observed that the case was duly listed, but the applicant's counsel failed to appear or seek an adjournment, leading the court to decide the revision on merits with the assistance of the State counsel. The Court held that under Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the High Court is precluded from reviewing or altering its own judgment once signed, except to correct a clerical error. Consequently, the application for review of the order passed on merits was deemed incompetent and dismissed, and the applicant's bail was cancelled.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the power under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to review its own final order passed on merits in a criminal revision?
- Does Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preclude the High Court from altering or reviewing its judgment once it has been signed?
- Is a criminal revision order passed on merits in the absence of the applicant's counsel, after notice was duly served, liable to be set aside on the ground of lack of hearing?
- NAZEER AHMED And Another vs PRESIDING OFFICER And 5 Others1986 PLC 1052 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-12Read full judgment →
- NAZEER AHMAD vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2466 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
- NAZEER AHMAD vs Mst. HUSSAIN BIBI AND 7 OTHERS1986 PLD Lahore 279 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-13Read full judgment →
- NAZEER AHMAD vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES), LAHORE AND 21986 PLD Lahore 101 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-09Read full judgment →
- NAZEER AHMAD alias KUDDA vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2888 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMADAccused vs THE STATE1986 PLD Peshawar 32 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant was convicted under Section 193 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for perjury after resiling from a statement previously recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during a murder trial. The core legal questions were whether the appellant could be convicted for perjury without a definitive finding on which of his two contradictory statements was false, and whether a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on solemn affirmation, rather than oath, constitutes valid evidence for a perjury charge. The Peshawar High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable. The Court reasoned that the trial court failed to determine which statement was false, particularly by proceeding with the perjury trial before the conclusion of the murder case. Furthermore, the Court held that because the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was recorded on solemn affirmation rather than oath, it violated the mandatory requirements of Section 6 of the Oaths Act 1873, rendering it inadmissible as evidence of perjury. The conviction was set aside and the appellant acquitted.
Questions settled- Does a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on solemn affirmation instead of oath constitute valid evidence for a perjury charge under Section 193 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is it legally permissible to convict a witness for perjury based on contradictory statements without a definitive judicial finding as to which of the two statements is false?
- Should a trial court conclude the primary murder trial before initiating perjury proceedings against a witness who resiled from their previous statement?
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1232 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-25Read full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs TAJAMAL HUSSAIN1986 SCMR 1455 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the limitation period for a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the suit, filed on 14-10-1969, was time-barred, given the vendee's contention that physical possession of the land had been taken prior to the attestation of the sale mutation on 14-10-1968. The trial and appellate courts examined the evidence, and the Additional District Judge, Gujrat, concluded that the vendee failed to prove that physical possession was obtained before the attestation of the mutation. This factual finding was subsequently upheld by the High Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the petitioner sought to challenge a concurrent finding of fact without demonstrating any misreading or non-reading of the relevant oral or documentary evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there was no justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the limitation issue. The petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact, absent any misreading of evidence, are generally not subject to interference in appellate jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a finding of fact regarding the date of physical possession be challenged in the Supreme Court if there is no misreading of evidence?
- Does the limitation period for a pre-emption suit commence from the date of attestation of the mutation or the date of taking physical possession?
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs ABDUR RASHID AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Rev. 58 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1985-09-23Read full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD KHAN vs PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1986 PLD Karachi 301 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-09Read full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD BHUTTA And Others vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBE WELL1986 SCMR 1926 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court regarding the interpretation of the term 'employee' under the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973. The core legal question involves determining the scope of the definition of 'employee' for the purpose of entitlement to Cost of Living Allowance benefits. The High Court's impugned judgment interpreted this term in a manner that conflicted with a previous decision by another Single Judge of the same High Court, which had held employees entitled to such benefits. Recognizing the necessity for an authoritative pronouncement to resolve this judicial conflict and clarify the statutory interpretation, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. The Court ordered that the appeals be heard on the existing record, thereby setting the stage for a definitive ruling on the applicability of the Act to the petitioners.
Questions settled- What is the correct interpretation of the term 'employee' under the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973?
- Are employees entitled to the benefit of Cost of Living Allowance under the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973?
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD and others vs FARID1986 MLD 2073 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-07Read full judgment →
- NAZAR KHAN vs THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-II, QUETTA AND 2 OTHERS1986 PLD Quetta 214 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-04-28Read full judgment →
- NAZAR KARIM vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 804 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-03Read full judgment →
- NAZAR HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD Alias MUHAMMAD ALI And Other1986 SCMR 1421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal matter involving the murder of Manzoor Hussain. The trial court convicted four respondents under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing one to death and others to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court acquitted two respondents, upheld the conviction of the first respondent but reduced his sentence to life imprisonment, and altered the conviction of the third respondent to Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner challenged the High Court's judgment regarding the sentence reduction of the first respondent and the conviction alteration of the third respondent. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's discretion in reducing the first respondent's sentence, noting the existence of extenuating circumstances related to the motive. However, the Court found prima facie merit in the contention that the third respondent's role warranted liability under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal solely regarding the third respondent while dismissing the petition concerning the others.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment when extenuating circumstances exist?
- Does the participation of an accused in a murder, where common intention is shared, warrant conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than Section 324/34?
- NAZAR HUSSAIN vs ALI HASSAN and others1986 MLD 2292 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-20Read full judgment →
- NAZAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs NOOR SHAH and others1986 MLD 2856 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-01Read full judgment →
- NAZAR HUSSAIN and 5 others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2641 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-24Read full judgment →
- NAZAR DIN vs PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MAKARWAL1986 PLC 683 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- NAZAR BAZ vs SULEMAN And Another1986 SCMR 1542 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court arising from a civil revision regarding a dispute over land possession and ownership. The core legal questions involve whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with a question of fact and misreading evidence, and whether the petitioner matured title through adverse possession or estoppel. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings and the High Court's review of evidence correctly established the respondent as the lawful owner by purchase through a registered sale-deed, and that the petitioner's revenue entries were a result of a mistake rather than establishing adverse possession. The petition was consequently dismissed, affirming that interference with findings of fact is unwarranted where the documentary and oral evidence substantiate ownership.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with a question of fact in exercise of its civil revision jurisdiction?
- Does an entry in the column of cultivation alone establish adverse possession or ownership?
- Can a petitioner claim title to disputed land on the basis of a mistaken entry in the revenue record?
- NAZAR ABBAS QURESHI And Other vs COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 163 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
- NAZAKAT ALI vs MUHAMMAD JAMEEL1986 P Cr. L J 2269 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-08Read full judgment →
- NAYAR KHAN vs Mst. FARHA SHAHWAR1986 MLD 193 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-17Read full judgment →
- NAWAZISH ALI And Others vs BASHIR AHMAD And Other1986 SCMR 215 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the District Judge's order allowing a revision application and permitting the filing of a fresh written statement. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's refusal to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with the interlocutory order of the District Judge regarding pleadings. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly declined to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction because the District Judge acted with ample jurisdiction in granting permission to submit a fresh written statement. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, affirming that discretionary constitutional jurisdiction is properly withheld where a subordinate court possesses and validly exercises its jurisdictional competence over procedural matters.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can refuse to exercise constitutional jurisdiction against an order allowing a fresh written statement?
- Does a District Judge have jurisdiction to permit the submission of a fresh written statement in revision?
- NAWAZ vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2588 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-07Read full judgment →
- NAWAZ ALI Alias MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs THE STATE-.1986 P Cr. L J 2439 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-18Read full judgment →
- Nawab QADIRDAD KHAN and 12 other vs CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL LAND1986 MLD 979 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-16Read full judgment →
- Nawab MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN KHAN AND OTHERS vs SULTAN AHMED1986 PLD Rev. 6 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1976-04-09Read full judgment →
- NAWAB KHAN And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2854 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-24Read full judgment →
- Nawab Haii MUHAMMAD DAWOOD KHAN And Others vs MUHAMMAD USMAN1986 SCMR 1102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court, which affirmed a trial court decree in a suit filed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. The plaintiffs, lessees of agricultural land, alleged they were forcibly dispossessed by the defendants (lessors) without due process of law. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering restoration of possession. The defendants challenged this, arguing the suit was not maintainable, improperly valued, and barred by Martial Law Regulation 115, while also asserting that the lease period had expired, thereby entitling them to re-entry. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine several critical legal questions, including whether the requirements of Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 were satisfied, whether the suit suffered from multifariousness, and whether a lessor’s contractual right of re-entry upon lease expiry constitutes 'due process of law' under the Act. The Court also sought to determine if lessees could maintain a suit for possession against owners when the lease period had expired and whether the trial court should have exercised its discretion to decline relief.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for possession under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 is maintainable by a lessee against a lessor after the expiry of the lease period?
- Does a specific covenant in a lease agreement authorizing a lessor to re-enter upon the expiry of the lease constitute 'due process of law' under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
- Is it necessary for plaintiffs to establish juridical possession to succeed in a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
- Can a trial court exercise discretion to decline relief under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 even if the formal conditions of the statute are satisfied?
- NAWAB DIN vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1986 MLD 921 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-25Read full judgment →
- NAWAB DIN vs GHULAM HUSSAIN And Others1986 P Cr. L J 1400 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-12Read full judgment →
- NAWAB DIN vs BASHARAT ALI1986 MLD 692 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal challenges an order of the Additional District Judge, which dismissed the appellant's first appeal against an eviction order issued by the Rent Controller. The respondent had sought the appellant's eviction from a house on grounds of default in rent payment and property damage. The Rent Controller found that the respondent was the lawful owner and that the appellant had failed to prove an alleged agreement for sale, while also noting the appellant's denial of the landlord-tenant relationship. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as time-barred because the appellant failed to pay the requisite court-fee at the time of filing, despite being notified of the deficiency, and did not rectify it for nearly a year. The High Court upheld this decision, finding the appellant's conduct negligent and contumacious. The Court affirmed that the appellate court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to condone the delay under the Limitation Act, as the appeal was incompetent due to the initial failure to pay proper court-fees.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court is justified in refusing to condone a delay in filing an appeal where the appellant failed to pay the requisite court-fee for nearly a year after being notified of the deficiency?
- Does the failure to pay proper court-fee at the time of filing an appeal render the appeal incompetent?
- Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal as time-barred when the appellant's conduct in rectifying court-fee deficiencies is found to be negligent and contumacious?
- NAWAB And Others vs THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OKARA and others-1986 P Cr. L J 332 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-16Read full judgment →
- NAWAB ALI and another vs KHAN MUHAMMAD and 4 others1986 MLD 105 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-08Read full judgment →
- Nawab AHMAD RAUF KHAN vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN And Other1986 SCMR 1667 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court dated 5-2-1985, whereby the respondents' appeal was allowed and their conviction and sentence under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code were set aside. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court committed any error in law in setting aside the conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court held that the impugned judgment of the High Court was based on well-settled principles of law governing criminal justice and warranted no interference. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that findings based on sound criminal jurisprudence shall remain undisturbed.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court judgment setting aside a conviction that is based on well-settled principles of criminal justice?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed when no exception in law can be taken against the impugned judgment?
- NAUROZE MASIH vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 674 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-15Read full judgment →
- NAUROZ vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 3019 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-09-24Read full judgment →
- NAURANG vs MALIK AYUB And Another1986 P Cr. L J 754 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-16Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION vs STOLT NIELSON INC. and 2 others1986 MLD 1433 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-18Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION vs JUMA KHAN AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Karachi 563 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL FERTILIZER MARKETING LTD. vs MUNAWAR AHMAD SADIQ And Others1986 PLC 922 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-11Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd. vs Messrs CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION CO.1986 MLD 2512 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-09Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BEVERAGE EMPLOYEES' UNION vs REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, GOVERNMENT OF SIND And 2 Others1986 PLC 533 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a registered trade union challenging the registration of a rival trade union by the Registrar of Trade Unions under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The petitioner contended that the registration violated the statutory provisions against dual membership and the minimum membership requirements for establishments with multiple unions. The High Court of Sindh examined the statutory scheme of the Ordinance and held that the registration of a trade union is strictly a matter between the applicant union and the Registrar. The Court ruled that other trade unions have no locus standi to object to or interfere with the registration process, as the law provides a separate mechanism for determining the Collective Bargaining Agent through a secret ballot where membership disputes are resolved. Furthermore, the Court held that factual disputes regarding worker membership cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Does an existing registered trade union have the locus standi to object to or challenge the registration of a new trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Can factual disputes regarding the dual membership of workers in trade unions be adjudicated by the High Court under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction?
- Is the registration of a trade union strictly a bilateral matter between the applicant union and the Registrar of Trade Unions under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs UNITED COTTON MILLS Ltd.1986 CLC 803 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs SENIOR MEMBER, N.I.R.C. And Another1986 PLC 985 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 by the National Bank of Pakistan challenging an interim order passed by the Senior Member, National Industrial Relations Commission, which kept in abeyance the transfer order of an employee from Hyderabad to Mirpurkhas. The core legal question concerned the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission to suspend an administrative transfer order under Section 22-A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 read with Regulation 32(2) of the National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Function) Regulations, 1973, when the transfer had already been completed and final. Following previous Division Bench judgments of the High Court, the court held that since the transfer order was complete and final with no threat of an intended transfer, the interim order passed by the Commission was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The key principle laid down is that the National Industrial Relations Commission cannot interfere with a completed and final transfer order under its interim regulatory powers where no element of an intended or threatened unfair labour practice relating to a pending complaint exists.
Questions settled- Whether the National Industrial Relations Commission has the jurisdiction to suspend a completed and final employee transfer order under Section 22-A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Can an employee maintain a complaint against a transfer order that has already been fully executed and implemented?
- Does an interim prohibitory order passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission under Regulation 32(2) survive when the underlying transfer is complete?
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs SARFRAZ KHAN and another1986 MLD 24 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-06Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL1986 SCMR 234 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the dismissal of the respondent from service at the National Bank of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the departmental enquiry proceedings were vitiated by the denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses. The High Court had found that although the Enquiry Officer examined numerous witnesses, the respondent was denied the opportunity to cross-examine them, and their statements were subsequently used against him. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, confirming that the record supported the finding that the respondent was denied this essential right. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that in departmental enquiries, the failure to provide an accused employee the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are used against them renders the resulting dismissal order illegal and without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Does the failure of an Enquiry Officer to allow an accused employee to cross-examine witnesses render a dismissal order illegal?
- Is the right to cross-examine witnesses a mandatory requirement in departmental enquiry proceedings?
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs MUHAMMAD AMIR KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 1230 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of civil revisions by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld decrees in favor of the respondents declaring their dismissal from service by the petitioner Bank as illegal. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in law by refusing to allow the production of additional evidence—specifically the inquiry file and related proceedings—which the Bank argued would prove that the dismissal followed due process. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts failed to exercise their jurisdiction properly and acted with material irregularity by declining the Bank's application to produce this official record, especially given that the respondents had previously acknowledged the existence of the file in their own list of reliance. The Court established the principle that where official records are central to determining the legality of disciplinary proceedings, and their existence is not genuinely disputed, courts should exercise their discretion to admit such additional evidence to ensure a just and fair adjudication of the controversy. Consequently, the cases were remanded for fresh decisions following the admission of the additional evidence.
Questions settled- Whether a court acts with material irregularity by refusing to admit official inquiry records as additional evidence when such records are central to the dispute?
- Does a party's prior acknowledgment of the existence of a document in their list of reliance support the admission of that document as additional evidence?
- Is a challenge to the legality of disciplinary proceedings distinct from a denial that such proceedings ever took place?
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN EMPLOYEES FRONT SIND KARACHI vs THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SIND LABOUR COURT No.V And 2 Others1986 PLC 939 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-05Read full judgment →
- NATHU KHAN vs THE STATE1986 PLD Supreme Court 82 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a High Court judgment that exercised suo motu revisional jurisdiction to enhance the petitioner's sentence from two years to eight years of rigorous imprisonment following a conviction for rape. The petitioner, convicted under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, contended that his advanced age should serve as a mitigating factor for sentence reduction. The Supreme Court addressed whether the petitioner's age warranted leniency in the context of a heinous crime. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that advanced age is not a mitigating factor but rather an aggravating one, as greater responsibility is expected of older individuals. The Court affirmed the High Court's enhancement of the sentence, emphasizing that once guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, courts must impose exemplary and deterrent punishments for heinous offenses. The ratio establishes that lenient sentencing for serious crimes fosters public insecurity and the perception of impunity; therefore, judicial responses must be robust to demonstrate that society and the State do not tolerate such conduct.
Questions settled- Does the advanced age of an accused convicted of a heinous crime constitute a mitigating circumstance for sentencing purposes?
- Is the High Court empowered to exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction to enhance a sentence imposed by a lower court?
- What is the judicial policy regarding the imposition of deterrent sentences for heinous offenses once guilt is established?
- NATHO And Another vs THE STATE--1986 P Cr. L J 2049 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-18Read full judgment →
- NASSER NAB! AND 4 OTHERS vs GHULAM NAB! KHAN AND ANOTHERS1986 PLD Azad J & K 121 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-01-25Read full judgment →
- NASRULLAH KHAN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2856 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-22Read full judgment →
- NASRULLAH KHAN and 8 others vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION, SARGODHA and 4 others1986 MLD 2519 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- NASRULLAH JAN And 3 Other vs MUHAMMAD KARIM And 14 OTHER1986 CLC 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-08-24Read full judgment →
- NASRA NASEEM vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS1986 PLC 687 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-20Read full judgment →
- NASIRUDDIN and 3 others vs NAJMUDDIN and 6 others1986 MLD 163 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-27Read full judgment →
- NASIR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 920 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-27Read full judgment →
- NASIR vs MUHAMMAD ALI and 3 others1986 MLD 1140 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-05Read full judgment →
- NASIR UD DIN And Another vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER MULTAN AND BAHAWALPUR DIVISION And Other1986 SCMR 448 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute over the transfer of a composite property comprising shops and residential units under settlement laws. The core legal question examined was whether the appellants possessed any entitlement to the transfer of a residential unit within the property. The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to substantiate the filing of the requisite N.C.H. Form for the transfer and lacked locus standi to challenge the transfer of the property to the respondents, who had lawfully acquired it through an agreement of association and compensation adjustment. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a party without a substantiated application or legal entitlement to property transfer cannot challenge the transfer of composite property made in favour of eligible claimants and associates in accordance with settlement laws.
Questions settled- Whether the appellants had any entitlement to the transfer of a residential unit of the composite property?
- Does a party lacking a substantiated N.C.H. Form have the locus standi to challenge the transfer of settlement properties?
- Is the transfer of a composite property in favour of a claimant and non-claimant through an agreement of association in consonance with the settlement laws?
- NASIR SAEED vs CHAIRMAN WAPDA And 4 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 394 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-11-12Read full judgment →
- NASIR PERVAIZ vs THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE And 2 Other1986 SCMR 1709 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition challenging an eviction order. The petitioner-landlord sought the eviction of the respondent-tenant on the grounds of personal requirement and default in rent payment. The appellate court and the High Court rejected the eviction application, primarily reasoning that the landlord's failure to prove the default ground undermined the bona fides of his personal requirement claim. Furthermore, the courts below found that the landlord's previous possession of a rented shop, which he vacated in favor of his father or brother, indicated a lack of bona fide intent. The core legal question is whether a landlord's possession of a rented shop, or the possession of such a shop by a family member, legally bars the landlord from seeking eviction of a tenant from their own property on the grounds of personal requirement. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower courts erred in law by treating these factors as a bar to establishing bona fide personal requirement.
Questions settled- Does a landlord's failure to prove the ground of default in rent payment necessarily invalidate the bona fides of a claim for personal requirement?
- Does a landlord's possession of a rented shop, or the possession of such a shop by a family member, legally preclude the landlord from seeking eviction of a tenant from their own property on the ground of personal requirement?
- NASIR KHAN vs TAHIRA RASHIDA1986 CLC 2381 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the orders passed by the lower authorities in execution of a family court decree, which included committing him to civil prison. The core legal question was whether a judgment debtor under a money decree passed by a Family Court can be committed to civil prison in the manner of ordinary civil process, disregarding the specific mode of recovery provided under the statute. The Lahore High Court held that the procedure for executing money decrees passed by Family Courts is strictly governed by Section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, which mandates recovery as arrears of land revenue rather than detention in civil prison. The Court ruled that committing the petitioner to civil prison was illegal and without jurisdiction, setting aside the impugned orders. The key principle laid down is that execution of money decrees passed by Family Courts must strictly follow the statutory mode prescribed in Section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964.
Questions settled- How is a money decree passed by a Family Court required to be executed under the law?
- Can a judgment debtor in a family court money decree be committed to civil prison?
- What is the legal consequence of executing a Family Court money decree through the arrest and detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison?
- NASIR HUSSAIN SHAMSI vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, R AWALPINDI1986 PLC (C .S.) 106 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-08-29Read full judgment →
- NASIR alias SHADA and another vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1765 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-11Read full judgment →
- NASIR AHMAD SHAIKH vs Mrs. NAHID A. SHAIKH And Other1986 SCMR 1621 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged a High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition against a maintenance decree. The petitioner, a husband, sought to challenge a 1982 family court maintenance decree by claiming, for the first time in constitutional proceedings, that he was an Ahmadi and thus his marriage to a Muslim woman was void, rendering the Family Court's jurisdiction inapplicable. The High Court rejected this plea, noting that the petitioner had previously admitted in his written statement to being a Sunni Muslim and had not raised this issue during the original trial or subsequent appellate proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that a party cannot raise entirely new factual pleas for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court held that the original maintenance decree had attained finality as it was not challenged in the appropriate appellate forum, and the petitioner’s attempt to reopen the matter through collateral proceedings was impermissible. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a new factual plea for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction that contradicts their earlier pleadings?
- Is a maintenance decree that was not challenged in the appropriate appellate forum open to challenge through collateral proceedings?
- Does a party's admission of their religious status in a written statement preclude them from later claiming a different status to invalidate a marriage?
- NASIM MAHMOOD and another Appellants vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1705 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-05Read full judgment →
- NASIM IQBAL vs CH. MUHAMMAD ASLAM and 4 others1986 MLD 1203 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-03Read full judgment →
- NASIM AHMAD vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 203 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-22Read full judgment →
- NASIM AHMAD Siddiqul vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS And Other1986 SCMR 1669 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 21-10-1985, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeals challenging their dismissal from service. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Federal Service Tribunal erred in its adjudication of the petitioners' dismissal, thereby warranting the exercise of the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. Upon reviewing the record and hearing the arguments presented by the petitioners' counsel, the Supreme Court found no valid justification for interference with the Tribunal's decision. The Court held that the Federal Service Tribunal had comprehensively addressed all pleas raised by the petitioners and provided valid, proper reasons for rejecting them. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision and dismissed both petitions. The principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the findings of the Federal Service Tribunal where the Tribunal has duly considered the relevant pleas and provided sound, reasoned justifications for its conclusions in service-related dismissal matters.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court have grounds to interfere with a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal where the Tribunal has already addressed and rejected the petitioner's pleas with valid reasons?
- Is a dismissal from service appealable before the Supreme Court after the Federal Service Tribunal has upheld the dismissal?
- NASIM AHMAD and 4 others vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and 41986 MLD 2382 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-03Read full judgment →
- NASEER vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 733 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-22Read full judgment →
- NASEER MUHAMMAD KHAN vs SALIM SAIFULLAH KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1986 PLD Peshawar 45 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-10-28Read full judgment →
- NASEER AHMAD vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 248 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-26Read full judgment →
- NASEER AHMAD vs DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE,1986 PLC (C.S.) 894 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-04-06Read full judgment →
- NASEEM RAFIQ Alias GOLDI vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 402 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
- NASEEM AHMAD And Others vs Mst. SABIRA BEGUM1986 SCMR 1973 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of Sind which dismissed the petitioners' revision application challenging the appointment of a receiver in a suit for declaration and rendition of accounts. The core legal question concerns the validity of a consent order passed by the lower appellate court appointing the respondent's husband as a receiver based on the agreement of counsel. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of an affidavit from the petitioners' counsel in the High Court denying the consent recorded by the appellate judge, the contention regarding lack of consent cannot be entertained, and contentions against the appointment are barred by the consent order. The key principle laid down is that a consent order recorded by a court cannot be challenged on the ground of absence of consent without proper contemporaneous substantiation such as an affidavit before the reviewing forum, and that grievances regarding the conduct of a receiver or expeditious disposal of the suit must be addressed before the trial court.
Questions settled- Whether an order passed with the consent of parties' counsel can be challenged in revision without an affidavit from the counsel denying such consent?
- Can contentions regarding the suitability of a receiver be entertained when the appointment was made through a consent order?
- What is the appropriate remedy if a court-appointed receiver fails to perform functions satisfactorily?
- NASEEBULLAH KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1986 PLD Karachi 417 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the conviction of two bank cashiers for abetment under Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 403, for allegedly facilitating a bank fraud. The trial court convicted the appellants for criminal negligence in processing cheques without the requisite dual signatures. The core legal questions were whether the Special Court could take suo motu cognizance of the appellants as accused under the Offences in Respect of Banks Ordinance, 1984, and whether criminal negligence constitutes abetment under the Penal Code. The High Court held that the Special Court lacked suo motu powers to join the appellants as accused, as the Ordinance omits the provisions of Section 190(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court held that mere criminal negligence in failing to follow internal bank procedures does not satisfy the requirements of abetment, which necessitates proof of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. Consequently, the convictions were set aside due to insufficient evidence and procedural irregularities in the trial court's handling of the case.
Questions settled- Does the Offences in Respect of Banks Ordinance, 1984, empower a Special Court to take suo motu cognizance of an accused person?
- Can criminal negligence in processing bank cheques be equated with abetment under Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the presence of an accused mandatory during the framing of a charge under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the Special Court under the Offences in Respect of Banks Ordinance, 1984, possess the power to grant bail on oral request?
- NARAIN DAS vs PAKISTAN And Other1986 SCMR 1080 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These two civil petitions for special leave to appeal arise out of suits seeking declarations of Pakistani citizenship and restraint from removal from Pakistan. The trial court dismissed the suits, but the District Judge reversed the findings and decreed the suits in favour of the plaintiffs, holding that they were citizens of Pakistan under Section 3(a) of the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951. Upon second appeals, the High Court set aside the appellate decrees and restored the trial court's dismissal. The petitioners contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court improperly interfered with the appreciation of evidence in second appeal and misinterpreted Section 3 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951. The Supreme Court held that the points raised regarding evidence appreciation and statutory interpretation deserved consideration, and accordingly granted leave to appeal while continuing the interim protective order.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in interfering with findings on appreciation of evidence in a second appeal?
- How should Section 3 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951 be interpreted regarding persons born in territories included in Pakistan?
- Are persons born in Pakistan before independence who hold domicile certificates deemed citizens of Pakistan under the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951?
- NANNU (NANNU KHAN) And 10 Others vs The STATE1986 SCMR 540 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The eleven petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had partly accepted their appeals against convictions under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The dispute arose over an open space where one of the petitioners, having failed in a civil suit for possession under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, stacked hay, leading to an armed clash between the parties resulting in one death and numerous injuries. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners were entitled to the right of private defence and whether the incident constituted a sudden fight attracting exceptions to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioners initiated the conflict through an act of trespass and provoked the occurrence, they could not claim the right of private defence, nor was it a sudden fight. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal refused, establishing that a party provoking a conflict through unlawful intrusion cannot claim self-defence or sudden fight exceptions.
Questions settled- Can a person who initiates a conflict through an act of trespass claim the right of private defence?
- Whether a fight deliberately invited by the accused's own provocative act qualifies as a sudden fight under section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Does the acquittal of some co-accused automatically shake the credibility of the prosecution case against the remaining convicts?
- NAJEEB ULLAH vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM and 2 others1986 MLD 2450 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-13Read full judgment →
- NAIMAT ALI vs Mirza ABDUL RASHID BAIG And Other1986 SCMR 1015 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question concerned the acceptance of apologies tendered by the respondents and their counsel for actions relating to a civil suit and judicial proceedings. The court held that unconditional apologies tendered by the private respondents, along with the withdrawal of the underlying civil suit from the court of the Civil Judge, Lahore, and the contrition shown by counsel, constituted sufficient amends to resolve the matter. Consequently, the court decided to consign the matter to the record regarding both the respondents and the Civil Judge, concluding that no further proceedings were necessary. The key principle laid down is that unconditional apologies and remedial actions, such as the withdrawal of contested proceedings, may be accepted as sufficient amends to close contempt or related proceedings.
Questions settled- Are unconditional apologies and withdrawal of the underlying suit sufficient amends to consign contempt proceedings to the record?
- Whether further proceedings are necessary against a judicial officer when apologies have been accepted and the matter resolved?
- NAIK ABDUL LATIF vs UMAID KHAN And OTHER1986 CLC 1024 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- NAEEM UR REHMAN And Others vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR And Other1986 SCMR 1488 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 14-6-1980, which allowed a civil revision and recalled the trial court's permission allowing the appellants to amend their pre-emption plaint. The core legal question was whether the omission of 5 marlas of land in the original plaint was a deliberate and negligent act barring amendment or a bona fide mistake correctable by law. The Supreme Court held that the omission of the 5 marlas was a bona fide mistake rather than a deliberate act, as the pleadings and the underlying sale mutation clearly manifested the intention to pre-empt the entire land sold. The Court laid down the principle that where an omission to include a small portion of land in a pre-emption suit is shown to be a bona fide mistake apparent from the pleadings and mutation, and an application for amendment is promptly made, the trial court is justified in permitting the amendment under Order VI, Rule 17, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Questions settled- Whether the omission of a small portion of land in a pre-emption plaint constitutes a deliberate act or a bona fide mistake correctable by amendment?
- Can a trial court permit the amendment of a plaint under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to include left-out land in a pre-emption suit?
- Whether a civil revision is maintainable against an order of the trial court allowing the amendment of a plaint for a bona fide omission?