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.
- MEHR DIN And Another vs MANAGER, MILITARY FARM, JHELUM1986 PLC 664 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-12-10Read full judgment →
- MEHNGA vs NAWAB DIN And Other1986 SCMR 1023 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an unprosecuted matter where the appellant passed away on 3rd March 1980, and an application for substitution of legal representatives was filed belatedly on 29th July 1985 without showing sufficient cause or justifying the inordinate delay of nearly five years. The core legal question concerned whether such prolonged delay in seeking substitution without valid justification could be condoned. The Court held that the delay could not be condoned, noting that the excuses regarding illiteracy, lack of knowledge, and counsel were unsubstantiated and omitted from the condonation application. The established principle is that an inordinate delay in filing a substitution application without showing sufficient cause renders the appeal defective and imperfect, resulting in its disposal in the absence of the deceased appellant.
Questions settled- Whether an inordinate delay of nearly five years in filing an application for substitution of legal representatives can be condoned without showing sufficient cause?
- Does an appeal abate or become imperfect when no timely steps are taken to substitute the legal representatives of a deceased appellant?
- MEHNATKASH UNION vs Messrs ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTORS LIMITED1986 PLC 257 · Labour Court · 1983-10-11Read full judgment →
- MEHMOOD vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 360 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-12Read full judgment →
- MEHMOOD vs Messrs SIND ALKALIS Ltd.1986 PLC 70 · Labour Court · 1985-07-15Read full judgment →
- MEHMOOD HABIBULLAH vs Khawaja SAMIUL HASSAN and another1986 MLD 1450 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-16Read full judgment →
- MEHDI KHAN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2537 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-18Read full judgment →
- MEHDI ALI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2053 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-09Read full judgment →
- MECHANISED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN vs WAZIR KHAN1986 PLC 737 · Labour Court · 1986-05-19Read full judgment →
- MECHANISED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN vs MAHMOODUL HASSAN And 351986 PLC 779 · Labour Court · 1986-05-24Read full judgment →
- MECHANISED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN Ltd. vs REHMAN ALI1986 PLC 844 · Labour Court · 1986-03-25Read full judgment →
- MAZHARUL HAQ vs MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ And Other1986 SCMR 696 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a suit for possession by pre-emption filed by the petitioner, claiming a superior right as a co-sharer in the suit land. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner. However, the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, set aside these concurrent findings, concluding that the defendants, despite being minors, had permanently settled in the village where the land was purchased, thereby qualifying for the exemption under the pre-emption law. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the defendants' residence and the validity of the land purchase. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the evidence supported the conclusion that the defendants' guardian had permanently settled in the village. The Court affirmed that the law of pre-emption does not bar a minor from purchasing land for house construction, thus allowing the exemption provided under the relevant statute. The petition was consequently dismissed as meritless.
Questions settled- Does the law of pre-emption bar a minor from purchasing land for the construction of a house?
- Can a High Court in revision interfere with concurrent findings of fact if the evidence supports the conclusion reached by the High Court?
- Does the purchase of land by a minor for the construction of a house qualify for exemption under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act?
- MAZHAR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1841 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-13Read full judgment →
- MAZHAR SAEED QURESHI vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Through Secretary, Irrigation And Power Department, Lahore And 49 Other1986 SCMR 12 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three consolidated appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding seniority disputes among Executive Engineers. The core legal questions were whether the Tribunal correctly applied the principles of res judicata and limitation to the appellants' claims, and whether it properly interpreted the applicable Service Rules. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeals. Regarding the first appellant, the Court affirmed that his claims were barred by the principle of constructive res judicata, as he attempted to re-litigate issues that were either previously decided or could have been raised in earlier proceedings. Regarding the other two appellants, the Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that their challenges to the seniority lists were hopelessly time-barred, noting that no sufficient justification was provided to condone a six-year delay. The key principle laid down is that service appeals cannot be used to circumvent the finality of previous adjudications through miscellaneous applications, nor can significant delays in challenging seniority lists be condoned without valid justification.
Questions settled- Can a party revive previously decided issues in a service appeal through a miscellaneous application?
- Does the principle of constructive res judicata apply to matters that could have been raised in earlier service litigation?
- Is a Service Tribunal's refusal to condone a significant delay in filing an appeal subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does the jurisdiction of a Service Tribunal extend to events occurring prior to July 1969?
- MAZHAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2359 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for bail by police officials accused in a private complaint case involving murder charges. The core legal question was whether an accused person appearing in court in response to a summons issued under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should be treated as seeking pre-arrest bail, and whether the threshold for issuing process under Section 204 CrPC is equivalent to the 'reasonable grounds' test for bail refusal under Section 497 CrPC. The High Court held that the Sessions Judge erred in treating the application as one for pre-arrest bail. When an accused appears in response to a summons, the court is required to proceed under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by requiring the execution of appearance bonds. The Court established that the opinion of 'sufficient ground for proceeding' under Section 204 CrPC, which justifies the issuance of process, cannot be equated with the existence of 'reasonable grounds' for believing an accused is guilty of a non-bailable offence under Section 497 CrPC. Consequently, the petitioners were entitled to bail.
Questions settled- Does the issuance of a summons under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require the court to treat the appearance of the accused as a pre-arrest bail application?
- Is the standard of 'sufficient ground for proceeding' under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 equivalent to the 'reasonable grounds' test for bail refusal under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the correct procedure for a court to follow under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an accused appears in response to a summons?
- MAZHAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, MULTAN REGION And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 283 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-06-26Read full judgment →
- MAZHAR HUSSAIN And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2842 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-15Read full judgment →
- MAZHAR And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1991 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-15Read full judgment →
- MAZDOOR UNION vs Messrs PLASTICRAFTERS LTD.1986 PLC 798 · Labour Court · 1986-03-28Read full judgment →
- MAYOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, QUETTA vs ABDUL NABI And 95 Others1986 PLC 764 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-19Read full judgment →
- MAYO and 2 others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1213 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-27Read full judgment →
- Maulvi GHULAM RASOOL vs KHAYAL GUL KHAN1986 MLD 329 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-06Read full judgment →
- MATTO and another- vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1043 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-18Read full judgment →
- MATLOOB KHAWAR And Others vs Malik KARAM ILAHI And Other1986 SCMR 1254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had remanded a criminal case to the trial court following an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioners, initially acquitted by the trial court under Section 249-A, had their acquittal set aside by the Sessions Court in revision. Subsequently, the petitioners invoked the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A to challenge the Sessions Court's order. The High Court, treating the matter as a challenge to the acquittal, remanded the case for further proceedings. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise such powers of remand under Section 561-A. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that because the petitioners themselves invoked the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 561-A, they were estopped from challenging the High Court's authority to pass necessary orders to secure the ends of justice. The Court declined to decide the broader question regarding the scope of Section 561-A in correcting revisional orders, emphasizing the principle that a party cannot approbate and reprobate.
Questions settled- Can a party who invokes the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subsequently challenge the court's authority to pass orders necessary to secure the ends of justice?
- Does the principle of approbate and reprobate prevent a petitioner from challenging a High Court order passed in proceedings they themselves initiated?
- MATLOOB AHMED vs NOORUDDIN And 2 Others1986 P Cr. L J 45 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-05Read full judgment →
- MATEEULLAH vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2186 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-17Read full judgment →
- Mat. RASHIDA Alias BENGALLAN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2316 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-11Read full judgment →
- Mat. HAMIDA FIDA HUSSAIN KHOJA and another vs Mat. ANEES IQBAL1986 MLD 443 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-26Read full judgment →
- MASTAK vs LAL And Other1986 SCMR 764 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition regarding the redemption of mortgaged land. The core legal question concerns whether revisional proceedings pending before the Commissioner stood transferred to the Majlis-e-Shoora upon the enforcement of the Baluchistan Civil Disputes (Shariat Application) Regulation, 1976, and whether the petitioner was estopped from challenging the Commissioner's jurisdiction having invoked it himself. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the question of the Commissioner's jurisdiction after the constitution of the Majlis-e-Shoora is of considerable public importance and warrants a full hearing. The key principle laid down is that subsequent legislation taking away jurisdiction can be raised regardless of a party having initially invoked the prior forum, and proper constitution of statutory bodies affects the transfer of pending proceedings.
Questions settled- Did pending revisional proceedings before the Commissioner stand transferred to the Majlis-e-Shoora upon the enforcement of the Baluchistan Civil Disputes (Shariat Application) Regulation, 1976?
- Can a party be estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of an authority if subsequent legislation has taken away that jurisdiction?
- Whether the Majlis-e-Shoora can be deemed properly constituted when no Chairman has been notified?
- MASOOD KHAN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER MULTAN AND BAHAWALPUR1986 CLC 515 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-24Read full judgment →
- MASOOD AKHTAR And Others vs Agha INAMUR RAHIM KHAN And OTHER1986 CLC 1806 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
- MASOOD AKBAR KHAN vs ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY To GOVTERNMENT OF PUNJAB S G A & I DEPARTMENT And 2 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 481 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-10-27Read full judgment →
- MASHRIQ Ltd. vs MUMTAZ AHMED And 2 Others1986 PLC 607 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-12-22Read full judgment →
- MAROOF AHMAD vs Dr.Capt. SUALEHA ALI1986 MLD 2508 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-28Read full judgment →
- MARKER EMPLOYEES' UNION And 6 Other vs GHULAM QADIR1986 PLC 573 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-03-14Read full judgment →
- MARGHOOB ALAM And Another vs SHAMAS DIN And Another1986 SCMR 303 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged an order of the Lahore High Court which refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them under sections 406, 420, and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners argued that the dispute arose from a business agreement and was essentially civil in nature, contending that the criminal prosecution constituted an abuse of the court's process. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly refused to exercise its inherent powers to quash the proceedings. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the complaint filed by the respondent disclosed a prima facie case of criminal offences. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are designed to prevent the abuse of the process of the court, but are not intended to stifle legitimate criminal prosecutions. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as the allegations in the complaint warranted a trial.
Questions settled- Can criminal proceedings be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the complaint discloses a prima facie criminal offence?
- Does the existence of a parallel civil suit automatically render criminal proceedings an abuse of the process of the court?
- What is the scope of the High Court's inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the stifling of prosecutions?
- MARGALLA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED vs MUHAMMAD YOUNAS1986 PLC 339 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
- MAQSOODA BEGUM vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1986 MLD 1976 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-19Read full judgment →
- MAQSOOD ALI vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 787(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-11Read full judgment →
- MAQSOOD AHMED vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SUKKUR and 41986 MLD 1581 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-24Read full judgment →
- MAQSOOD AHMAD vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2273 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-07Read full judgment →
- MAQSOOD AHMAD And Others vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1986 CLC 2369 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-27Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL HUSSAIN vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, T&T, ISLAMABAD And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 695 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-09-16Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL HUSSAIN QURESHI vs THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1986 PLD Federal Shariat Court 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-10-21Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL AHMED And 3 Other vs MILLAT TRACTORS Ltd.1986 PLC 934 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-03-30Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL AHMAD vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1560 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-04Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL AHMAD vs THE MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1986 SCMR 1371 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition relating to a Land Grant Scheme under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912. The petitioner held a temporary lease of land which was allegedly subject to extension and future grant of proprietary rights through subsequent notifications. Meanwhile, the disputed land was allotted to the respondent-respondents as alternate land under the Grow More Food Scheme. The petitioner challenged this allotment unsuccessfully before the revenue authorities and subsequently the High Court. The core question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to interference in discretionary constitutional jurisdiction despite having instituted parallel civil litigation which was abandoned. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner did not approach the courts with clean hands due to the abandonment of multiple prior civil suits concerning the same subject matter. The Court laid down the principle that the jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal is highly discretionary and will be withheld where a party engages in parallel, abandoned litigation and fails to act with utmost good faith.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the dismissal of a constitutional petition when the petitioner has pursued and abandoned parallel civil suits regarding the same subject-matter?
- Does a temporary lessee acquire a vested right to extension of lease and proprietary rights based on subsequent notifications to preclude alternate allotment under the Grow More Food Scheme?
- MAQBOOL AHMAD vs SETTLEMENT DEPARTMENT1986 CLC 2419 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court challenging a notice issued by the Administrative Officer of the Settlement Department regarding a property transferred to the petitioner as a claimant displaced person in 1959. The core legal question was whether proceedings regarding the transfer of the property could be initiated or re-agitated before the Settlement Authorities after the issuance of the Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) in the petitioner's favour and after the enactment of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. The court held that the impugned notice and subsequent proceedings initiated at the instance of a private respondent were illegal and without jurisdiction. The court established the key principle that once a P.T.D. is issued and previous objections regarding the transfer are rejected by competent authority, further proceedings challenging the property's transfer cannot be initiated before settlement authorities, and a threatened action by such authorities can be legally challenged through a writ petition.
Questions settled- Can proceedings challenging the transfer of a property be initiated before settlement authorities after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
- Is a writ petition challenging a threatened administrative notice premature if no final adverse order has been made yet?
- Whether the Settlement Authorities retain jurisdiction to re-open property transfer matters after the enactment of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
- MAQBOOL AHMAD vs ASHRAF BIBI And OTHER1986 CLC 2505 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-24Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL AHMAD And 10 Other vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB And 21986 PLC (C.S.) 97 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MANZUR AHMAD vs CH, NAZIR AHMAD, ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT1986 MLD 408 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-03Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR-UL-HASSAN vs THE NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 838 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-01Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR-UL-HAQ vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1986 PLC 462 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-29Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1401 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-11Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR SHAH vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1584 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-20Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1700 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-15Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2267(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-15Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, SIND and 21986 MLD 144 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-12Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs JAFAR KHAN And 2 Others1986 P Cr. L J 2471 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-21Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DISTRIBUTION DIVISION (EAST), SHEIKHUPURA And Others1986 PLC (C. S.) 20 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1978-10-04Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 850 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-05-30Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN SHAH vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAHIWAL And Another1986 PLC (C. S.) 188 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-04-25Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN SHAH And 15 Others vs ALLAH BACHAYA KHAN And 51986 CLC 1813 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges an order of the Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan, which dismissed a civil revision against a trial court's order closing the petitioners' right to produce evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners had repeatedly failed to produce evidence over a four-year period and failed to appear on the date fixed. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing further adjournments and closing the evidence, and whether the revisional court erred in ignoring new evidence regarding a diary mistake. The High Court held that the writ petition against an order passed in revision was not maintainable. Furthermore, the Court determined that the trial court acted within its discretion under Order XVII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to refuse adjournments to a recalcitrant party. The principle laid down is that while Order XVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, is punitive, a court retains discretion to refuse adjournments for a party's persistent failure to produce evidence, especially when the case has been pending for an inordinate duration.
Questions settled- Is an order passed by an Additional District Judge in a civil revision maintainable in a writ petition?
- Can a court refuse an adjournment to a party that has repeatedly failed to produce evidence over a long period?
- Does a trial court have the discretion to refuse an adjournment even if the specific conditions for Order XVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are not fully met?
- Can new evidence regarding a mistake in a counsel's diary be introduced for the first time during a revision petition?
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN And Others vs THE STATE- Respondent1986 P Cr. L J 2877 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-16Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 240 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-18Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN And 4 Others vs CHAKAR And 2 OTHER1986 CLC 2487 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN And 2 Other vs FIRDOUS PRINTING AND DYEING MILLS;1986 PLC 1112 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN Alias SHIKARI vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 959 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-24Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN Alias JOORA And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2285 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-29Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2696 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-17Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR And ANOTHER vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 460 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-09Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR And 2 Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2672 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-17Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1047 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-07Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, MULTAN REGION, MULTAN And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 872 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-06-16Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD vs AHMAD DIN And OTHER1986 CLC 857 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD KHAN And Others vs MOIN NAWAZ JANG And Other1986 SCMR 1859 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Sind High Court, which allowed a constitutional petition concerning an urban settlement dispute. The respondents had purchased a large mansion in an auction, while the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest subsequently obtained a transfer of a disputed portion (a canteen) in his possession through a P.T.O. and P.T.D. The High Court set aside the transfer in favor of the petitioners' predecessor, holding that the disputed portion was part of the mansion previously transferred to the respondents and that the P.T.D. had been issued to them earlier. In the Supreme Court, the petitioners raised a new plea regarding the reduction and lack of demarcation of the mansion's area. The Supreme Court held that a new factual point not urged before the High Court cannot be permitted to be raised at the leave to appeal stage. Consequently, the court found no force in the petition and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a new factual point not urged before the High Court can be allowed to be raised at the leave to appeal stage?
- Does an auction purchaser hold a superior claim to property transferred via P.T.D. compared to a subsequent claimant?
- MANZOOR AHMAD BUTT vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN And Others1986 PLC 355 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-09-23Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad Bhatti And 5 Other vs Haji Noval Khan And 5 OtherPTCL 1986 CL. 371 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-23Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD And Others vs Mian MUHAMMAD ISMAIL And Other1986 SCMR 310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had accepted a regular second appeal, set aside the concurrent judgments of the two lower courts, and decreed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The core legal question concerned the limits of the High Court's jurisdiction in interfering with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in reversing the findings of fact because the lower courts had misread and failed to consider the entire evidence properly, and the legal results flowing from the evidence were not correctly given effect to. The Supreme Court affirmed that where concurrent findings are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence, they are amenable to reversal in second appeal, and consequently dismissed the petitions for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts be reversed by the High Court in a second appeal?
- Does the High Court have the power to interfere with findings of fact when the lower courts have misread or failed to consider the evidence?
- What is the effect of a plaintiff discharging the initial onus of proving a prima facie case in a civil matter?
- MANZOOR AHMAD AND OTHERS vs KARIM BUX AND OTHERs1986 PLD Karachi 637 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This First Rent Appeal is directed against the order of the Rent Controller ordering the ejectment of the appellants from the demised premises on the grounds of default in payment of rent and personal bona fide use. The core legal questions involve whether the appellants committed a default in rent payment and whether the respondents established their bona fide personal requirement for the premises, particularly in light of subsequent events where another tenement in the same building was vacated during the proceedings. The court held that the appellants regularly remitted the rent through money orders within the statutory period, thereby committing no default, and that the landlords failed to prove their good faith requirement given that other premises in the building became available to them. The key principle laid down is that the burden lies heavily on the landlord to establish bona fide personal requirement in good faith, and appellate courts can take note of subsequent events such as the vacation of alternative premises during the pendency of proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether the production of money order counterfoils constitutes valid proof of payment of rent under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Can an appellate court take note of subsequent events, such as the vacation of another premises by the landlord during the pendency of ejectment proceedings?
- What constitutes 'requirement in good faith' by a landlord for personal use under rent restriction laws?
- MANTHER and another vs MEMBER (RELIEF & SETTLEMENT), BOARD OF REVENUE, SIND and another1986 MLD 694 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-16Read full judgment →
- MANSIB ALI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 150 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-07-11Read full judgment →
- MANSHAH MASIH vs MAYOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, FAISALABAD1986 PLC 675 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-01-21Read full judgment →
- MANSHA vs The STATE1986 SCMR 543 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, wherein leave was granted exclusively to consider the question of sentence regarding the appellant, Mansha, who argued he acted under the influence of his father while committing double murder. The appellant had been convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to death on two counts by the Sessions Judge, which was upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the appellant's age of thirty years and the initial exchange of abuses over destroyed fodder constituted mitigating circumstances to warrant a reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court held that the principle of influence of elders is confined to offenders of impressionable ages, and given the appellant's age and direct fatal Barchhi blows, no mitigating circumstance existed. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the death sentence.
Questions settled- Whether the influence of a father can be considered a mitigating circumstance to reduce a death sentence for a thirty-year-old offender?
- Does an exchange of abuses over damaged fodder constitute a mitigating circumstance for the imposition of a lesser sentence in a murder case?
- To what category of offenders is the legal principle of the influence of elders strictly confined?
- MANAGING DIRECTOR, PUNJAB INDUSTRIAL, DEVELOPMENT BOARD And Another vs Messrs HABIB SUGAR MILLS Ltd1986 CLC 2044 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-22Read full judgment →
- MANAGER, MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK, CHHATTAR DOMEL BRANCH, MUZAFFARABAD vs MAQSUD KHAN AND 7 OTHERS1986 PLD Azad J & K 215 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-01-29Read full judgment →
- MALOOK And Another vs THE STATE-/Opponent1986 P Cr. L J 632 · Sindh High Court · 1984-07-24Read full judgment →
- Malik WARIS KHAN AND ANOTHER vs ISHTIAQ alias NAGA AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 335 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from cross-appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by both the complainant and the convict against a Lahore High Court judgment that altered the convict's sentence from Section 302 to Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 on grounds of exceeding the right of private defence. The core legal questions pertained to the proper evaluation of an accused's statement when prosecution evidence is completely rejected, and whether the convict had exceeded his right of self-defence. The Supreme Court held that where prosecution evidence is disbelieved in its entirety, the statement of the accused must be accepted substantially unless contradicted by established facts. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that a person acting under imminent threat is not expected to weigh their defensive reaction in golden scales, and the right of private defence persists as long as reasonable apprehension of danger continues. Finding that the convict acted within his lawful right of self-defence while facing an active threat, the Supreme Court allowed his appeal and acquitted him.
Questions settled- How must an accused person's statement of self-defence be evaluated when the prosecution evidence is disbelieved entirely?
- Is a person facing an imminent threat expected to weigh the proportion of their defensive reaction in golden scales?
- When does the right of private defence of the body commence and for how long does it continue?
- Malik TAJ DIN vs Malik ABDUL AZIZ And OTHER1986 CLC 2382 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-20Read full judgment →
- Malik SULTAN AHMAD vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1446 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-10Read full judgment →
- Malik SHAUKAT ALI vs MUHAMMAD DIN And 3 OTHER1986 CLC 2683 · Board of Revenue · 1986-05-04Read full judgment →
- Malik SHAHAB DIN And 4 Others vs IMDAD ALIGHALLU, A.D.C. (G), BAHAWALPUR And 7 OTHER1986 CLC 2194 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Bahawalpur, which restored an allotment of agricultural land to the respondents, effectively cancelling the petitioners' title. The land had originally been allotted to the respondents' predecessor, then cancelled, re-allotted to a displaced person, and subsequently purchased by the petitioners with government sanction. Following the repeal of Evacuee Laws in 1974, the respondents sought relief via a 1979 departmental letter empowering authorities to probe fraudulent allotments. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Authorities retained jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes after the repeal of the relevant Evacuee Laws. The Court held that the impugned order was passed without lawful authority and jurisdiction, as the departmental letter could not override the substantive law repealing the Evacuee Laws. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that even if fraud were alleged, the Settlement Authorities lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate it; rather, the appropriate remedy for the department was to invoke the jurisdiction of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Do Settlement Authorities retain jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding fraudulent allotments after the repeal of the Evacuee Laws?
- Can a departmental letter or notification override the substantive law that repeals a statute?
- What is the appropriate forum for the government to challenge an allotment alleged to be fraudulent after the repeal of the Evacuee Laws?
- Does the mere allegation of fraud empower a non-judicial authority to set aside settled property rights?
- Malik SARDAR KHAN vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1072 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-09Read full judgment →
- Malik RIAZ AHMAD vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, LAHORE1986 PLC 322 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-11Read full judgment →
- Malik REHMATULLAH And Another vs Mian MUHAMMAD SHAFI And Another1986 SCMR 496 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from an order of the Lahore High Court maintaining a single judge's decision that declared a Settlement and Claims Commissioner's order without lawful authority. The core dispute involves the transfer of a residential portion of a property in Lahore under the settlement laws. The appellants, who were locals in possession, challenged the transfer of the middle residential portion to respondent Muhammad Shafi, who had only applied for a shop via a C.S. Form and was not entitled to the residential unit. The Supreme Court considered whether review orders could be passed during the pendency of a revision application under Section 21(1)(c) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Court held that the review order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner during the pendency of the revision suffered from a jurisdictional defect and could not form the basis of a valid transfer. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders and upheld the Settlement and Claims Commissioner's order, laying down that statutory bars on review during pending revisions must be strictly observed and jurisdictional defects can be raised at any stage.
Questions settled- Whether an order in review can be passed during the pendency of a revision application under Section 21(1)(c) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Can a question of jurisdiction be raised at any stage of the proceedings?
- Is a person who only applied for a shop via a C.S. Form entitled to the transfer of a separate residential portion?
- Malik NAZIR AHMAD vs CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, SARGODHA REGION, SARGODHA And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 1002 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Malik NAZAR HUSSAIN vs THE COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE And 3 OTHER1986 CLC 824 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-08Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD YOUNUS vs SAEED AHMAD and 2 others1986 MLD 2673 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-25Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ vs Lt.Col. MUHAMAD RAMZAN SAFDAR And Another1986 P Cr. L J 1569 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-01Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs Messrs GENERAL IRON STORES And Other1986 SCMR 1693 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a landlord's constitutional petition seeking the eviction of a tenant on the grounds of bona fide personal requirement. The Rent Controller had initially allowed the eviction, but the appellate court and the High Court reversed this decision, citing the landlord's lack of bona fides. The lower courts based their findings on three factors: the landlord's operation of a different business in rented premises, the fact that his son and son-in-law occupied other properties owned by him, and his failure to disclose these circumstances in his initial application or examination-in-chief. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether these specific circumstances legally bar a landlord from seeking eviction for personal use. The Court further sought to clarify whether a landlord is legally obligated to proactively disclose all such facts regarding other properties or business activities in their initial eviction application or during their examination-in-chief to establish bona fide personal requirement.
Questions settled- Does a landlord's ownership of other properties occupied by family members constitute a legal bar to seeking eviction on the grounds of personal requirement?
- Does the fact that a landlord operates a business in other rented premises bar them from seeking eviction of a tenant for personal use?
- Is a landlord legally required to disclose all facts regarding other properties or business activities in their initial eviction application or examination-in-chief to prove bona fide personal need?