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.
- Malik MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs TEHSEEN QURESHI1986 SCMR 1539 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the interim custody (Superdari) of a motor vehicle during the pendency of criminal proceedings. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in granting the custody of the vehicle to the respondent, Tehseen Qureshi, from whom the vehicle had been seized by law enforcement. The Supreme Court observed that the vehicle was admittedly taken into possession from the respondent, who claimed to be a purchaser of the vehicle. While the petitioner contested the respondent's status as a bona fide purchaser, the Court held that the fact of possession at the time of seizure provided sufficient justification for the High Court's order. The Supreme Court found no legal infirmity or justification for interference with the High Court's decision and consequently dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The principle affirmed is that, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, the interim custody of a seized vehicle is appropriately granted to the person from whose possession it was originally recovered.
Questions settled- Does the fact that a vehicle was seized from a person's possession justify granting them interim custody (Superdari) during pending criminal proceedings?
- Is a dispute regarding the bona fide purchase of a vehicle sufficient grounds to overturn an order of Superdari granted to the person from whom the vehicle was seized?
- Malik MUHAMMAD KHAN vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2939 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-07Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs Ch. GHULAM SARWAR, ASSISTANT1986 PCr. L J 2541(2) · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-23Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs Mst. AFRODEN BI And Other1986 SCMR 568 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed his pre-emption suit, holding the subject land was situated within the extended limits of the Campbellpur Cantonment and thus not pre-emptible. The core legal questions concerned whether the High Court erred in setting aside concurrent findings of fact by admitting additional evidence via a Local Commissioner's report, and whether the notification extending the Cantonment limits was validly issued. The Supreme Court held that the High Court acted within its discretion to admit additional evidence to resolve a material factual omission where previous reports were defective. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a notification issued under the Cantonment Act is presumed valid unless proven otherwise. Consequently, the land fell within the Cantonment limits, triggering the bar on pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act. The Supreme Court concluded that the factual controversy was settled by the accepted report of the Local Commissioner and refused leave to appeal, upholding the High Court's decision.
Questions settled- Can a High Court admit additional evidence in second appeal to resolve a material factual omission?
- Is a notification issued under the Cantonment Act presumed to be valid unless the contrary is shown?
- Does the inclusion of land within a Cantonment area bar the right of pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act?
- Malik MUHAMMAD ASHRAF REVENUE DEPARTMENT And Another vs SECRETARY1986 PLC (C.S.) 670 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Malik MIR BASHI And Others vs Haji ALLAH KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 562 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment and decree of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' revision petition concerning a dispute over Shamilat lands in village Naryab, District Kohat. The core legal questions involve whether mere entries in the revenue record and Wajibul Arz can form the basis of title without supporting title deeds, mutations, or conveyances, whether revenue records can be altered to the detriment of original owners without notice, and whether the High Court acting in revisional jurisdiction possesses the power to record additional evidence directly rather than remanding the case to the trial court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these contentions, directing that the auction amount regarding the sale of Mazari by the Government be invested in a Khas Deposit. The key principle noted is that the evidentiary value of revenue entries and the scope of revisional jurisdiction regarding the recording of additional evidence require thorough examination by the apex court.
Questions settled- Can mere entries in the revenue record and Wajibul Arz form the basis of title without supporting title deeds or conveyances?
- Whether revenue records can be changed to the detriment of original owners without notice, knowledge, or consent?
- Does the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court empower it to record additional evidence directly rather than remanding the case to the trial court?
- Malik MAZHARUL HAQ vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Through Secretary, Education Department, Lahore And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 249 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-12-08Read full judgment →
- Malik KATOO And 3 Others vs ALLAH BAKHSH And 2 Other1986 SCMR 1363 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the petitioners' Regular Second Appeal in limine regarding a pre-emption suit. The core legal question is whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts can be disturbed in a second appeal where such findings are based on evidence. The Supreme Court held that a concurrent finding of fact based on evidence, regardless of how meagre that evidence may be, cannot be disturbed in a second appeal. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless a defect such as the misreading of evidence or omission to consider material evidence is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Can a concurrent finding of fact be disturbed in a Second Appeal if it is based on evidence?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the absence of misreading or omission of evidence?
- Malik JIAND KHAN vs PROVINCE OF SIND1986 MLD 2128 · Sindh High Court · 1947-12-21Read full judgment →
- Malik IFTIKHAR ALI vs PAKISTAN Through Secretary To Government Of Pakistan Establishment Division1986 SCMR 1434 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an order of the Service Tribunal, Government of Pakistan, which dismissed the civil servant's appeal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction under the validation provisions of Article 270(4) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The petitioner had been suspended under M.L.R. 58 in 1969 and subsequently dismissed from service in 1970.
The core legal question was whether the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal to entertain an appeal against a dismissal order was ousted by Article 270(4) of the Constitution.
Following its precedent set in Civil Appeal No. K-1 of 1978, the Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal erred in holding that its jurisdiction was ousted by Article 270(4). Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for decision on the merits regarding all questions of law and fact.
Questions settled- Whether the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal is ousted by the validation provisions of Article 270(4) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Malik HMI NAZAR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs WATER AND POWER1986 PLD Lahore 126 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-18Read full judgment →
- MALIK GUL HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD AYUB And Other1986 SCMR 1349 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a suit for possession by pre-emption. The petitioner's suit was originally dismissed by the trial court under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, due to the petitioner's failure to produce evidence despite being granted opportunities to do so. The appellate court and the High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's appeal and revision petition in limine. The core legal question was whether a court, when refusing a request for an adjournment under Order XVII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, is restricted from dismissing the suit under Order XVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the trial court acted within its authority. The ratio established is that where a party fails to produce evidence despite previous adjournments, the court is empowered to proceed under Order XVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and dismiss the suit for failure to produce evidence, rather than being limited solely to refusing the adjournment request.
Questions settled- Can a court dismiss a suit under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if a party fails to produce evidence after being granted adjournments?
- Does a court have the power to dismiss a suit when refusing a request for adjournment under Order XVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Malik FA1Z ALAM vs Malik MUHAMMAD ARSHAD KHAN AND ANOTHER- s1986 PLD SC (A J & K) 65 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-04-22Read full judgment →
- MALIK AMAN vs The STATE1986 SCMR 17 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-09-15Read full judgment →
- Malik AMAN vs Mst. BIB! AMRA1ZAN1986 PLD Peshawar 58 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-12-06Read full judgment →
- Malik ABDULLAH And Others vs MULTAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY And OTHER1986 CLC 2073 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-17Read full judgment →
- Malik ABDUL RAZAQ vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN1986 PLC 504 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MAKHNO vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 15 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-15Read full judgment →
- MAKHNI BI vs MUHAMMAD YASIN AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 94 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Mst. Makhni Bi seeking the enhancement of sentences of the respondents who were tried for the murder of Ashiq Hussain arising out of a sudden fight. The trial court convicted the respondents under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Upon appeal, the High Court altered the convictions, reducing the sentences for the accused to varying terms under sections 304, 323, and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court examined the participation of the accused, finding sufficient grounds to maintain the dismissal of the petition regarding one respondent, but granted leave to appeal to consider the propriety and enhancement of sentences for Muhammad Yasin and Muhammad Ayyub due to the brutal nature of the attack over a trivial matter. The Court laid down that misplaced leniency in awarding minor sentences in violent crimes undermines public confidence in the administration of justice.
Questions settled- Whether the sentences awarded for culpable homicide and hurt are sufficient to meet the ends of justice in a sudden fight?
- Can leave to appeal be granted for the enhancement of sentences where the High Court has reduced them?
- Whether the participation of an accused who sustained injuries during the same occurrence can be doubted?
- MAKHMAD And Another vs SHADI KHAN Through His Legal Heirs1986 SCMR 1018 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had set aside concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts regarding the validity of a property sale. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, could reappraise evidence and decide the matter itself rather than remanding the case upon finding that lower courts had ignored or misread vital evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court acted within its jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that when a High Court identifies that lower courts have ignored or misread material evidence, it falls under the scope of Section 115(c), allowing the High Court to pass any order it deems fit, including correcting the error directly rather than mandating a remand. The principle laid down is that the High Court possesses the discretion to either remand a case or resolve the matter itself upon discovering material errors in the lower courts' appreciation of evidence, thereby avoiding unnecessary litigation.
Questions settled- Can a High Court, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, reappraise evidence in its revisional jurisdiction?
- Does the High Court have the discretion to decide a case itself rather than remanding it when it finds that lower courts have ignored or misread material evidence?
- Is the High Court's power to pass 'such order as it thinks fit' under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 limited to remanding the case?
- MAKHDOOM FAZAL HAQUE and 6 others vs MAKHDOOM NIZAMUDDIN1986 MLD 128 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-05Read full judgment →
- MAK CONSTRUCTION' LIMITED vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1986 SCMR 1788 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute between a construction company and the National Bank of Pakistan regarding a contract for constructing a building in Gujranwala. Following differences over whether the construction was to be completed in phases, the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator rejected the petitioner's claim, prompting the petitioner to file an objection petition before the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore. The trial court dismissed the objections and made the award the Rule of the Court, holding that the objections concerned questions of fact and did not constitute misconduct by the arbitrator. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no misreading of evidence and noting that the petitioner never pressed for framing issues or adducing evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the concurrent findings of the courts below, holding that the factual determinations of the arbitrator were correct and that there was no merit in the petition. The Court laid down the principle that courts will not interfere with an arbitrator's factual findings unless misconduct or misreading of evidence is clearly established.
Questions settled- Can a civil court interfere with an arbitrator's findings on questions of fact in the absence of misconduct or misreading of evidence?
- Is a party entitled to object to the non-framing of issues by the trial court if it failed to press for the framing of issues or the adducing of evidence during the proceedings?
- Whether concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court upholding an arbitration award can be overturned by the Supreme Court without proof of jurisdictional error or material irregularity?
- Major Retd. SULTAN AHMAD KHAN vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN And Another1986 SCMR 1847 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his compulsory retirement from service on the ground of ill-health. The core legal question concerns whether the compulsory retirement of the petitioner—an Operational Manager in the Plant Protection Department—was justified due to the non-renewal of his commercial pilot licence on medical grounds, and whether his duties were distinguishable from those of a co-employee whose appeal had been previously dismissed. The Supreme Court held that since the points involved were identical to those in a connected pending matter where leave to appeal had already been granted, leave to appeal should likewise be granted in the present case. The Court ordered that both appeals be heard together on the existing record with liberty to file additional documents.
Questions settled- Whether compulsory retirement from service is justified when an employee is unable to renew a commercial pilot licence required for the post due to ill-health?
- Does an Operational Manager whose duties allegedly involve managerial functions stand on a different footing regarding the necessity of holding a commercial pilot licence?
- Should appeals involving identical legal questions and arising from the same department be heard together by the Supreme Court?
- Major ABDUL LATIF And Another vs LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR And Other1986 SCMR 1228 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which set aside the enhanced compensation awarded by the Additional District Judge for houses acquired for the Tarbela Dam. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court erred in restoring the Land Acquisition Collector's valuation based on an unproduced report, despite the respondent-department failing to produce any rebuttal evidence before the trial court where the petitioners' evidence remained unrebutted. The Supreme Court held that the contention raised significant force and granted leave to appeal, noting that the respondent-department's failure to produce evidence or the underlying report before the trial court rendered the High Court's reliance improper. The key principle laid down is that where a party fails to produce evidence in rebuttal before the trial court, the unrebutted evidence of the opposing party cannot be lightly disregarded on the basis of unproduced departmental reports.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can rely on a report not produced in evidence before the trial court?
- What is the legal effect of a party failing to produce rebuttal evidence before the trial court?
- Can the valuation determined by a Land Acquisition Collector be restored when the opposing party leads no evidence in court?
- Major (Rtd.) MUHAMMAD SABIR KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Through Secretary,1986 CLC 930 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-12-24Read full judgment →
- Major (Rtd) S.A. QAYYUM vs THE SECRETARY (URBAN) TO THE GOVERNMENT1986 MLD 1539 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-05Read full judgment →
- MAJNOON vs JUMAN1986 PLD Rev. 61 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1974-06-27Read full judgment →
- MAJID AHMAD vs CHAIRMAN, MARKET COMMITTEE, BADDU MALHI And 21986 PLC (C.S.) 474 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-11-14Read full judgment →
- Maj. MEHBOOB HUSSAIN vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (PLOTS) And 2 Other1986 SCMR 368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a dispute over the transfer of an urban plot between the petitioner and respondents, both claiming entitlement through separate auction processes. The petitioner, holding a Provisional Transfer Order (P.T.O.) and Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.), challenged the jurisdiction of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Plots) to entertain the respondents' application for transfer documents, arguing that the relevant settlement law had been repealed and the respondents' claim was neither pending nor genuine. Conversely, the respondents contended that they had completed necessary formalities and their case remained pending before the Settlement Authorities at the time of repeal. Both parties alleged fraud and forgery against each other regarding the documents supporting their respective claims. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, refusing to interfere in its discretionary jurisdiction. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that given the conflicting factual allegations of fraud and the complexity surrounding the status of the pending proceedings, the High Court's refusal to grant relief was unexceptionable. The petition was dismissed, as no justification for interference was established.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the discretion to refuse relief in a writ petition concerning disputed property transfers involving allegations of fraud?
- Can a Deputy Settlement Commissioner proceed with an application for transfer documents after the repeal of the relevant settlement law?
- MAHMOODAZIZ vs SHUJAAT MUHAMMAD KHAN by his Leagal Heirs1986 MLD 316 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-04Read full judgment →
- MAHMOODA BEGUM etc. vs Major Malik MUHAMMAD ISHAQ etc.1986 MLD 806 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-25Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 714 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-06Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD KHAN SHEERANI vs THE STATE1986 PLD Supreme Court 29 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a High Court judgment that modified the petitioner’s conviction from Section 302 to Section 304-II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contends that the High Court erred by upholding the conviction based solely on the testimony of one eye-witness, despite the trial court having disbelieved the dying declaration and other eye-witnesses. Furthermore, the petitioner argues that the sole eye-witness was an interested party and that the lack of incriminating recovery or other corroboratory evidence renders the conviction unsafe. The Supreme Court, finding the petitioner's arguments regarding the appreciation of evidence to have considerable weight, granted leave to appeal. The Court held that the case necessitates a thorough reappraisal of the evidence to ensure compliance with established legal principles governing criminal trials. Specifically, the Court highlighted the critical need for independent corroboration when relying on the testimony of an interested witness, especially where other prosecution evidence has been discredited by the lower courts. The request for interim bail was rejected, though an early hearing was directed.
Questions settled- Does the testimony of an interested witness require independent corroboration to sustain a conviction?
- Can a conviction be maintained when the trial court has disbelieved the dying declaration and other primary eye-witnesses?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal to reappraise evidence in a criminal case?
- MAHMOOD BAKHSH And Others vs SECRETARY, IRRIGATION GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE And OTHER1986 CLC 286 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-13Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD ANWAR vs WEST PAKISTAN COOPERATIVE CONSUMERS SOCIETY1986 PLC 452 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-01Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD And 8 Others vs IRSHAD UL HAQ1986 CLC 428 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-29Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD AKHTAR vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB LABOUR1986 PLC (C.S.) 548 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1973-07-12Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD AKHTAR And ANOTHER vs Ch. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN NAQSHBANDI,1986 CLC 1451 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-04Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD AHMED vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1614 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-14Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD AHMED AKHTAR And ANOTHER vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN1986 CLC 262 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-08-13Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD AHMAD vs DISTRICT COLLECTOR, LAHORE And Other1986 SCMR 1354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissing an Intra-Court Appeal after refusing to re-admit an appeal dismissed in default. The core legal question revolves around whether the High Court took a too technical view in dismissing the appeal based on the appellant's counsel failing to locate the case in the cause list due to an alleged omission. The Supreme Court examined the contentions and found the factual premise raised by the petitioner—that the case was not listed in the regular cause list provided to the Bar Room—to be incorrect upon verification of the records by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the case was duly listed in the regular cause list in compliance with the rules, and no grounds existed to interfere with the High Court's order. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that failure to appear due to an unverified claim of a missing cause list entry does not warrant the restoration of an appeal dismissed in default.
Questions settled- Whether an Intra-Court Appeal dismissed in default can be re-admitted when the counsel fails to trace the case in the cause list?
- Does a listing of a case in the regular cause list distributed to the Bar Room satisfy the procedural requirements for notice?
- MAHMOOD AHMAD MALIK And 3 Other vs Messrs ICI PAKISTAN1986 PLC 1143 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MAHMA vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2826 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-23Read full judgment →
- MAHBOOB IQBAL vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2522 · Sindh High Court · 1984-07-31Read full judgment →
- MAHBOOB ELAHI vs Mst. IQBAL JAN1986 SCMR 214 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which dismissed the petitioner's revision application and upheld the decree passed by the Civil Judge in favor of the respondents for declaration of title, possession of a shop, and perpetual injunction. The core legal question revolves around the propriety of interfering with concurrent findings of fact reached by the lower courts based on the appreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court held that since the findings of fact reached by the lower court are solidly rooted in the evidence on record, there is no valid justification for the apex court to interfere. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact concurrent in nature that are duly supported by evidence on the record.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact that are rooted in evidence?
- Can a revision application challenge a decree for declaration of title and possession based on factual appreciation?
- MAHBOOB ELAHI And Others vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL1986 SCMR 1619 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning an agreement to sell a house. The respondent filed a suit for specific performance after the petitioners, who had entered into an agreement to sell the property, failed to complete the transaction, citing the refusal of other co-sharers. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, a decision upheld by the Additional District Judge and subsequently the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the agreement to sell was enforceable given the petitioners' claim that other co-sharers had not consented, and whether the property could be subject to such an agreement. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding that the evidence established the petitioners were the owners in possession and that one petitioner held a special power of attorney for the other. The Court held that the petitioners failed to prove the existence of other co-sharers or their lack of consent, and that a transferee pendente lite could not evade liability under the Specific Relief Act. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Can a contract for the sale of property be enforced if the seller holds a power of attorney for the other owner?
- Is a transferee pendente lite liable under the Specific Relief Act for a prior agreement to sell?
- Does the failure to plead and prove the existence of other co-sharers preclude a defendant from raising such an objection in appeal?
- MABUSUL WARIS And Another vs ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF N. W.F.P. And Other1986 SCMR 1024 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition arises out of a previous judgment of the Supreme Court in a civil appeal which had set aside a High Court finding regarding an administrative order passed by the Additional Secretary, Home and Tribal Affairs Department, but instead of remanding the matter, had directly restored an earlier order dated 7-6-1970. The core legal question addressed in the review is whether the Supreme Court, upon finding the High Court's dismissal of a writ petition in limine to be erroneous, should have remanded the case to the High Court for a hearing on merits rather than substituting its own final decision. The Supreme Court held that the inadvertent restoration of the administrative order was erroneous, allowed the review petition, and remanded the case back to the High Court to hear the writ petition afresh on merits. The key principle laid down is that where a writ petition is dismissed in limine and the appellate court finds the preliminary dismissal improper, the appropriate course is to remand the matter to the High Court for adjudication on merits rather than deciding the merits directly.
Questions settled- What is the appropriate course of action for an appellate court when it sets aside a High Court's limine dismissal of a writ petition?
- Can the Supreme Court substitute its own final finding of fact instead of remanding the case to the High Court or tribunal?
- Under what circumstances will a review petition be allowed when an order is inadvertently recorded?
- M.R. KHALID vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Through Chief Secretary, Punjab Secretariat, Lahore1986 PLC (C.S.) 952 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- M.A. OLLA (Muhammad Abul Olla) vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and another1986 MLD 276 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M.A. LATIF vs THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (HQ.) IRRIGATION, FAISALABAD1986 PLC (C.S.) 321 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-12-11Read full judgment →
- M.A. AZIZ KHAN vs MUHAMMAD AHMED KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 1679 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent. The dispute arose from civil litigation regarding a house, leading to an F.I.R. involving allegations of trespass, confinement, and ouster. The respondent had been granted pre-arrest bail in June 1985, and subsequent applications for cancellation were unsuccessful. When additional offences were added to the case, the Sessions Judge granted further pre-arrest bail, a decision the High Court refused to interfere with. The Supreme Court examined the record and noted that the initial grant of pre-arrest bail was not under challenge. The Court held that the extension of pre-arrest bail to cover newly added offences, following a supplementary statement by the complainant, did not present any substantial question of law warranting interference. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the lower court's decision to maintain the bail status.
Questions settled- Does the addition of new offences to an existing F.I.R. automatically necessitate the cancellation of pre-arrest bail previously granted?
- Is the Supreme Court required to interfere with a High Court order refusing to cancel pre-arrest bail when no substantial question of law is involved?
- M.A. AZIZ KHAN vs JAMSHED ALI KHAN MIRZA And 3 OTHER1986 CLC 248 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-27Read full judgment →
- M. SHAHID NAWAZ vs FAZAL ELLAHI SHAIKH AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Karachi 67 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-02Read full judgment →
- M. SHAFIE vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNEMNT OF PAKISTAN HOUSING AND WORKS_ACCOUNTANT GENERAL1986 SCMR 1666 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of limitation. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the Federal Service Tribunal erred in its approach by focusing on the limitation period rather than the fundamental competency of the appeal itself. The Supreme Court observes that the impugned order challenged before the Tribunal was passed prior to 1st July 1969, which renders the appeal incompetent due to the specific statutory bar contained in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Court holds that because the appeal was inherently incompetent under the law, the Tribunal should have dismissed it on that basis rather than on limitation grounds, which would have allowed the petitioner to seek alternative relief in a competent court of law. Consequently, the Supreme Court grants leave to appeal to examine this specific plea regarding the competency of the proceedings and directs that the appeal be heard on the existing record, while permitting the parties to file additional documents.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an order passed before 1st July 1969?
- Should a tribunal dismiss an appeal on the grounds of limitation when the appeal is inherently incompetent under the governing statute?
- Does the bar under Section 4(1)(c) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 preclude an appeal against orders passed prior to 1st July 1969?
- M. SABBAR IDREES And Others vs CLARE BENEDICTA CONVILLE1986 SCMR 1967(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from two petitions for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' civil revisions. The petitioners had purchased disputed land from an attorney appointed by the respondent's guardian, with the mutation attested on March 25, 1982. However, the respondent had attained majority on October 14, 1980. The revenue authorities subsequently cancelled the mutation, prompting the petitioners to file a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction, alongside an application for a temporary injunction. The trial court granted the temporary injunction, but this was reversed by the appellate court and upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether a temporary injunction could be granted where the underlying sale transaction was executed by a guardian's attorney after the minor had attained majority. The Supreme Court held that since the respondent attained majority prior to the sale mutation, the guardianship and the associated power of attorney had terminated. Consequently, the petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case, and the refusal of the temporary injunction was legally justified.
Questions settled- Does a general power of attorney executed by a guardian on behalf of a minor terminate automatically once the minor attains majority?
- Can a temporary injunction be granted to a purchaser of land when the sale transaction was executed by a guardian's attorney after the minor had already attained majority?
- Whether a purchaser of land from an unauthorized attorney can establish a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction during the pendency of a declaratory suit?
- M. S. BAROBA vs MANZOOR AHMED1986 PLD Karachi 407 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal and connected first rent appeals arose from a common order passed by the Third Senior Civil Judge and Controller, Karachi South, allowing eviction applications under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Due to a conflict of judicial opinion regarding whether the question of bona fide or good faith can be investigated under section 14, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller can examine the genuineness or good faith of the landlord's personal need when dealing with an eviction application filed by specific privileged classes of landlords, such as widows, orphans, or retiring employees, under section 14 of the Ordinance. The court held that the question of good faith or bona fides is not to be inquired into under section 14, provided the statutory conditions explicitly mentioned in the section are fulfilled by the landlord. The key principle laid down is that the object of section 14 is to relieve specified classes of landlords from the rigours of an elaborate inquiry regarding good faith, allowing them to recover possession swiftly upon satisfying the distinct conditions stipulated in the provision.
Questions settled- Whether the question of good faith or bona fides can be gone into by the Rent Controller in an application under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- What are the mandatory conditions a landlord must satisfy to obtain an order of eviction under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- M. M. SHARIF vs CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 570 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-01-06Read full judgment →
- M. KAMRAN NASIB HASHMI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2098 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-25Read full judgment →
- M. HANIF NIAZI vs THE DIRECTOR OF FOOD And Other1986 SCMR 1066 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the dismissal of a civil servant, a Junior Clerk, who was terminated by the Deputy Director of Food after an Authorized Officer had initially recommended his exoneration. The core legal question was whether the Authority possessed the power under the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, to interfere with the Authorized Officer's findings and whether the proceedings were vitiated by personal bias. The Supreme Court held that while the Authority generally possesses the power to review proceedings and correct improprieties, the specific dismissal in this case was legally flawed due to clear personal bias. The Deputy Director, who was the subject of the appellant's complaints, acted as the accuser, the initiator of the inquiry, and the final decision-maker. The Court established that such a concentration of power in a biased official vitiates the entire disciplinary proceeding. Consequently, the Court set aside the dismissal order and the Service Tribunal's judgment, directing that the case be examined afresh by a competent authority other than the biased official.
Questions settled- Does the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 allow the Authority to review and set aside the findings of an Authorized Officer?
- Does the participation of an official who is the subject of a civil servant's complaints in the disciplinary process against that servant constitute bias sufficient to vitiate the proceedings?
- Is an Authorized Officer's recommendation in a disciplinary inquiry a final order or a tentative one subject to the Authority's approval?
- M. ASHIQ ZIA vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNEMNT OF PUNJAB, HEALTH1986 PLC (C.S.) 860 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-11-28Read full judgment →
- M. AFZAL MUNIF vs THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ABANDONED PROPERTIES1986 MLD 1235 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-12Read full judgment →
- M UHAMMAD vs HAJI DORO1986 PLD Rev. 34 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1977-11-28Read full judgment →
- M UHAMMAD HANIF vs Lie STATE1986 PLD Karachi 437 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is the fourth bail application filed in the High Court by the applicant, Muhammad Hanif, who is being tried along with others under sections 11, 13, and 14 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for allegedly kidnapping and raping his sister's daughters and forcing them into prostitution. The core legal question concerns the interpretation and application of the fourth proviso to subsection (1) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, specifically whether bail can be refused on the ground of statutory delay by forming an opinion that the accused is a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal based on the material of the case and pending cases, and whether a previous conviction is a prerequisite for such classification. The court held that the fourth proviso is intended to prevent the indiscriminate grant of bail for statutory delay to heinous offenders, and that the court can form a tentative opinion that an accused is a desperate or dangerous criminal based on the material available in the case or extraneous circumstances, without requiring a previous conviction. The court dismissed the bail application.
Questions settled- Whether the fourth proviso to subsection (1) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, requires a previous conviction to classify an accused as a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal?
- Can a court form an opinion under the fourth proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, based on the material of the pending case alone?
- Whether bail can be urged on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the trial court in a bail application?
- What is the legislative intent behind the introduction of the fourth proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- M . C . L EI A H vs Sh. ZAFAR IQBAL1986 CLC 2306 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
- M . A . MUID KHAN vs PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS' HOUSING AUTHORITY, KARACHI1986 MLD 321 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-26Read full judgment →
- LYALLPUR COTTON MILLS, FAISALABAD vs Mat. HASHMAT BIBI1986 PLC 325 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-22Read full judgment →
- LYALLPUR COTTON MILLS vs NIAZ MUHAMMAD1986 PLC 684(2) · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-12-21Read full judgment →
- LUQMAN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1230 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of proceedings initiated against the applicant under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The applicant was alleged to be a habitual offender based on a report by the S.H.O., Panoakil. The core legal question was whether the Magistrate acted lawfully in initiating these proceedings and issuing an order under Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court found that the Magistrate had passed the order in a mechanical, stereotyped manner without applying his judicial mind to the specific allegations. Furthermore, the Court noted that the applicant had been acquitted in the two cases cited as evidence of his habitual criminality, and the witnesses proposed were either police officials or individuals with recorded enmity. Consequently, the Court held that continuing these proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of the court. The proceedings were quashed, establishing that a Magistrate must apply his mind to the facts before issuing orders under Section 112, rather than relying on mechanical or stereotyped reports.
Questions settled- Does the issuance of a stereotyped order under Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without application of mind constitute an abuse of the process of the court?
- Can proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be quashed when the underlying allegations are based on cases where the accused has already been acquitted?
- Lt. Col. SHAH DAD vs BORDER AREA ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE And Other1986 SC MR 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court concerning the cancellation of land allotment within the municipal limits of Kasur by the Border Area Allotment Committee. The core legal questions involved whether land within the border belt could only be allotted by the Border Area Allotment Committee, whether urban land in the border area fell under Martial Law Regulation No. 9 of 1959, and whether the Settlement Department was competent to allot such land to non-claimants. The Supreme Court held that the writ jurisdiction is discretionary, and since the High Court rightly found the original transaction to be a fictitious and fraudulent arrangement orchestrated by the appellant to augment his land holdings beyond permissible limits, no equity existed in his favour. Consequently, the Court recalled the order granting leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, establishing that fraudulent transactions in border area allotments disentitle a party to discretionary constitutional remedies.
Questions settled- Whether an allotment of land within the Border Belt could only be made by the Border Area Allotment Committee?
- Whether urban land within the border area came within the ambit of Martial Law Regulation No. 9 of 1959?
- Whether the Settlement Department was competent after the promulgation of Martial Law Regulation No. 9 of 1959 to allot land to any person other than a claimant?
- Does a party who procures land through a fictitious and fraudulent transaction retain any equity for the exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction?
- Lt. Col. HASSAN AKHTAR And 4 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 599 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-15Read full judgment →
- LOUNG vs Mst. MARYAM1986 PLD Rev. 39 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1977-12-26Read full judgment →
- LICENSING AUTHORITY UNDER CUSTOMS AGENTS LICENSING RULES. 1971 CUM-1986 MLD 1794 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-28Read full judgment →
- LIAQUAT HUSSAIN And Others vs ABDUL MAJID And Other1986 SCMR 1906 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a violent incident involving two related families, resulting in three deaths. The core legal questions concerned the determination of the place of occurrence, the evidentiary value of ballistic reports despite procedural delays, and the sustainability of convictions where the prosecution's narrative of the fight was partially disbelieved. The Supreme Court held that the occurrence took place in the complainant's house, rejecting the defense's counter-version. Although the Court disbelieved the prosecution's specific account of the fight's initiation, it maintained the convictions of the appellants, Muhammad Riaz and Faiz Ali, based on corroborated ballistic evidence linking their weapons to the crime scene. The Court established that delay in sending crime empties to a ballistic expert does not automatically invalidate the evidence if the recovery is otherwise proven and chain of custody is not compromised. Furthermore, it held that in a sudden fight, individual liability applies, and the Court may uphold convictions even when the prosecution withholds the full truth regarding the immediate provocation, provided the guilt is established by independent evidence.
Questions settled- Does a delay in sending crime empties to a ballistic expert automatically invalidate the evidentiary value of the recovery?
- Can a court uphold a conviction when the prosecution's version of the fight's initiation is disbelieved?
- Does the failure to prove the prosecution's specific narrative of the fight necessitate the acquittal of the accused?
- LIAQUAT ALI vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1835 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-12Read full judgment →
- LIAQUAT ALI vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1760 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-30Read full judgment →
- LIAQUAT ALI BUTT vs AHMAD NASIM, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LAHORE And Others1986 P Cr. L J 2846 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-28Read full judgment →
- LIAQUAT ALI Appellant vs THE STATE1986 PLD Lahore 102 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-02Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT ALI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2594 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT ALI vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2584 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-19Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT ALI BAJWA vs THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, FAISALABAD And 4 OTHER1986 CLC 2667 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-20Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT ALI And 5 Others vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND), KASUR And OTHER1986 CLC 2435 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-21Read full judgment →
- Major (Retd.) MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs MEHRAJ UD DIN And Other1986 SCMR 751 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a Constitutional petition challenging the dismissal of an ejectment application under the Rent Restriction Law. The Rent Controller and appellate authorities had dismissed the landlord's application on the sole ground that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed due to the alleged non-service of a statutory notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Supreme Court of Pakistan converted the petition into an appeal and held that the non-service of a Section 13-A notice does not negate the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. Furthermore, the Court ruled that where rent remains unpaid or untendered even after the institution of an eviction application, the filing of the application itself serves as sufficient notice under Section 13-A. Consequently, the Court reversed the findings of the lower forums, established the relationship of landlord and tenant, and ordered the eviction of the respondents.
Questions settled- Does the non-service of a notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 negate the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Can the institution of an eviction application be treated as sufficient notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 if rent is not paid or tendered thereafter?
- LEVER BROTHERS (PAKISTAN) LTD. vs SENIOR MEMBER, NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL1986 PLD Lahore 90 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Intra-Court Appeal and connected writ petition arose from an ad interim order issued by the Senior Member of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The employer challenged the NIRC's jurisdiction to issue interim prohibitory orders restraining the transfer of employees to a reserve pool and preventing further alleged unfair labour practices. The High Court observed that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court should not normally be exercised to interfere with tentative, ad interim, or interlocutory orders, as doing so leads to fragmentary and piecemeal decisions. On the statutory question, the Court held that under Regulation 32(2) of the National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, the Commission possesses the requisite jurisdiction to advise, direct, or prohibit parties from doing acts to prevent unfair labour practices that are likely to occur. The existence of a pending case for past unfair labour practices does not divest the Commission of its preventive powers. Consequently, both the Intra-Court Appeal and the writ petition were dismissed.
Questions settled- Should the High Court exercise its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to interfere with ad interim or interlocutory orders passed by a tribunal of special jurisdiction?
- Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have the jurisdiction under Regulation 32(2) of the NIRC Regulations to issue interim prohibitory orders to prevent unfair labour practices likely to occur?
- Does a pending prosecution or proceeding for past unfair labour practices bar the National Industrial Relations Commission from exercising its preventive powers regarding future apprehended unfair labour practices?
- LAWRENCEPUR WOOLLEN And TEXTILE MILLS vs AURANGZEB KHAN1986 PLC 418 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-27Read full judgment →
- LATA DEVI vs KUNTA BAI and another1986 MLD 1483 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
- LAL vs SAID RASOOL and others1986 P Cr. LJ 2591 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- LAL MUHAMMAD vs Mst. GUL BIBI AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Quetta 185 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the judgment of the Family Court granting dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula and dismissing a counter-suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner argued that Khula was neither specifically pleaded in the plaint nor supported by evidence, and that the trial court erred in granting Khula after rejecting the claim of cruelty. The High Court examined the nature and scope of Khula under Islamic law, emphasizing that the right of a wife to seek Khula is not absolute or arbitrary, but subject to judicial scrutiny and the court's satisfaction regarding extreme incompatibility or deep-seated aversion between the spouses. The High Court held that the trial court's finding was unsupported by evidence, as no severe hatred or disharmony was established on record. Consequently, the High Court declared the decree dissolving the marriage on Khula to be invalid and without lawful authority. The dismissal of the petitioner's suit for restitution of conjugal rights was set aside, and the matter was remanded for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Can a court grant dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula when it is not specifically claimed or pleaded by the wife?
- Is the right of a wife to seek dissolution of marriage through Khula absolute and uncontrolled, or is it dependent upon judicial scrutiny and satisfaction of extreme incompatibility?
- Can constitutional jurisdiction be exercised to set aside a Family Court decree that is based on no evidence or arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction?
- LAL MUHAMMAD And Others vs DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN And Other1986 SCMR 827 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that dismissed a writ petition challenging an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller. The petitioners, occupants of former evacuee property, faced eviction proceedings for non-payment of rent initiated by the respondent, who had acquired the property via a sale deed from the original transferees. The core legal questions were whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed and whether the petitioners were entitled to statutory protection under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller and the appellate authority correctly determined the relationship of landlord and tenant based on the evidence. The Court affirmed that the petitioners could not simultaneously deny the landlord-tenant relationship while claiming statutory protection under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Furthermore, the Court held that the Rent Controller cannot go behind a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) to adjudicate allegations of fraud regarding the original transfer of property. The petition was dismissed as it sought to re-agitate findings of fact.
Questions settled- Can a tenant simultaneously deny the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and claim statutory protection under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Does a Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to go behind a Permanent Transfer Deed to adjudicate allegations of fraud regarding the original transfer of property?
- Can the High Court interfere with findings of fact recorded by subordinate statutory forums in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- LAL MUHAMMAD And 4 Others vs Messrs RIAZ AKHTAR And OTHER1986 CLC 2783 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-06Read full judgment →
- LAL KHAN vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAHIWAL And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 139 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-09-14Read full judgment →
- LAL KHAN vs FAIZ AHMAD And Another1986 SCMR 1962 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-11Read 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 Civil Revision arising from a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a vendee-defendant, possessed a superior right of pre-emption under the Land Reforms Regulation by virtue of being a tenant on the land in dispute. The petitioner argued that as a tenant on a portion of the joint Khatas, he should be deemed a tenant of the vendors, thereby granting him a preferential right. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's tenancy was recorded under different individuals, not the vendors, and specifically covered only 97 Kanals of a larger 424-Kanal holding. Crucially, the land sold by the vendors did not include the 97 Kanals cultivated by the petitioner. The Court affirmed that under paragraph 25(3)(d) of the Land Reforms Regulation, a tenant can only claim a superior right of pre-emption in respect of the specific land comprised in their tenancy. As the land sold was distinct from the petitioner's tenancy, the pre-emption suit was correctly decreed.
Questions settled- Can a tenant claim a superior right of pre-emption under the Land Reforms Regulation for land that is not comprised within their specific tenancy?
- Does a tenant of specific land within a joint Khata automatically qualify as a tenant of the vendors who sell a different portion of that same Khata?
- LAL JAN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 782(1) · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-30Read full judgment →
- LAL DIN vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD And 2 Other1986 SCMR 487 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a suit for pre-emption that was dismissed for non-prosecution under Order IX, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The trial court had mistakenly listed the case for hearing on July 17, 1967, instead of the actual date of September 17, 1967. The plaintiff's counsel appeared on the incorrect date, stated he had no instructions, and the suit was dismissed. The trial court later restored the suit, but the High Court reversed this, holding that the restoration application was time-barred under Article 163 of the Limitation Act 1908, as Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 did not apply. The Supreme Court examined whether the dismissal was without jurisdiction because it occurred on a date not fixed for hearing. Ultimately, the Court held that even if the dismissal date was irregular, the appellant failed to file a restoration application within the statutory period of 30 days from the actual date of hearing (September 17, 1967). Consequently, the Court revoked the leave to appeal, affirming that the application was time-barred.
Questions settled- Does the Limitation Act 1908 allow for the condonation of delay under Section 5 for applications falling under Article 163?
- Can a suit be validly dismissed for non-prosecution on a date other than the one fixed for hearing?
- Does a party's failure to file a restoration application within the statutory period render the application time-barred, regardless of the irregularity of the dismissal date?
- LAL DIN and 13 others vs THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, COLONIES DEPARTMENT and another1986 MLD 1947 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-26Read full judgment →
- LAL BUX AND OTHERS vs DIN MUHAMMAD1986 PLD Rev. 131 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1971-04-05Read full judgment →
- LAL BUX AND OTHERS vs AMIR BUX AND OTHERS1986 PLD Rev. 76 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1971-03-21Read full judgment →
- LAL BUX And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1066 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-23Read full judgment →
- LAL BAZ vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2805 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-12Read full judgment →
- LAL and 2 others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1190 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-03Read full judgment →
- LAKHANO vs ASHIQ HUSSAIN1986 PLD Rev. 87 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1972-02-15Read full judgment →