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.
- LAHORE STEEL ROLLING MILLS Ltd. vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN And Another1986 SCMR 1362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition concerning a customs tariff classification dispute. The petitioner-Company imported iron and scrap, contending it was re-rollable and re-meltable, thus subject to a 10% duty rather than the 20% duty imposed by Customs Authorities. The High Court had affirmed the findings of the customs authorities, concluding that the imported goods met the definition of 'Billets' under Note (h) of Chapter 73 of the Pakistan Customs Tariff and were correctly assessed under heading 73.07. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity or error in the factual findings affirmed by the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the classification was correct, dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, and upheld the lower court's decision. The judgment reinforces the principle that factual findings regarding the classification of goods under customs tariffs, when affirmed by the High Court, will not be disturbed absent a showing of legal infirmity.
Questions settled- Are factual findings regarding the classification of imported goods under the Pakistan Customs Tariff subject to interference if no legal infirmity is shown?
- Does the definition of 'Billets' in Note (h) of Chapter 73 of the Pakistan Customs Tariff apply to imported iron and scrap that meets the specified description?
- LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION vs D. P. EDULJI AND OTHERS1986 PLD Lahore 386 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-28Read full judgment →
- Lahore MUHAMMAD ALI vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1555 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-21Read full judgment →
- LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Raja RIAZ ENTERPRISES Ltd. And ANOTHER1986 CLC 599 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-02Read full judgment →
- LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs MUHAMMAD FAROOQ1986 PLC 443 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-01Read full judgment →
- LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs FAHMEEDA KHATOON And Other1986 SCMR 1478 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves three civil petitions for leave to appeal filed by the Lahore Development Authority against a common order of the Lahore High Court dismissing its Intra-Court Appeals. The core legal questions concern the maintainability of Intra-Court Appeals against an order dismissing a time-barred review petition, the requirement of explaining each day's delay in review applications, and whether the petitioner had locus standi. The Supreme Court held that under Order XXXVII, Rule 7, C.P.C., an order rejecting an application for review is not appealable, rendering the Intra-Court Appeals incompetent. Furthermore, the Court held that the appeals, even if treated as challenging the original writ order, were barred by limitation due to an inadequate explanation of delay. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Is an order of the Court rejecting an application for review appealable under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does an Intra-Court Appeal lie against an order refusing to review an order passed in a writ petition?
- Can a time-barred review petition be entertained without explaining each day's delay?
- LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through its Director General vs MAIIMUD1986 MLD 2122 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-16Read full judgment →
- LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY And Others vs FAYYAZ AHMAD BUTT And OTHER1986 CLC 2119 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-20Read full judgment →
- LADHO AND OTHERS vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1986 PLD Rev. 18 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1979-06-30Read full judgment →
- LABOUR UNION vs Messrs PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY, KARACHI1986 PLC 222 · Labour Court · 1985-11-18Read full judgment →
- KUWAIT AIRWAYSCORPORATION vs UNION SURGICAL COMPANY, DIVISION OF EXCELSIOR INDUSTRIES Ltd1986 CLC 219 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-02Read full judgment →
- KOHINOOR TEXTILE MILLS vs SHAH MUHAMMAD1986 PLC 457 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-29Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LIVESTOCK AND DAIRY1986 PLC (C.S.) 495 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and others1986 MLD 2106 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-04Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD And Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, And OTHER1986 CLC · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-26Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND 9 OTHERS vs THE CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, SIND1986 PLD Karachi 623 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and 4 others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE1986 MLD 999 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-04Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD alias NATHO vs THE STATE1986 PLD Supreme Court 146 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These criminal appeals arise out of a judgment of the Sind High Court upholding the appellant's convictions under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance. The incident involved the appellant firing an unlicensed pistol at the injured complainant, leading to his apprehension at the spot. The core legal questions involved whether ocular testimony and medical evidence sufficiently established the attempt to commit murder, and whether evidence recorded or findings reached in a main criminal case could be legally relied upon to uphold a separate conviction under the Arms Ordinance. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the conviction under section 307, P.P.C., was well-founded based on trustworthy ocular, medical, and motive evidence, but set aside the conviction under the Arms Ordinance. The Court laid down the principle that each case must be judged upon its own facts established by evidence led therein, and that under section 43 of the Evidence Act, findings or judgments in another case are not admissible as evidence of facts to prove a charge in a separate trial.
Questions settled- Whether evidence recorded in a main trial can be utilized to uphold a conviction in a separate connected trial without being produced therein?
- Is a judgment in one case admissible as evidence of findings of fact in another case under section 43 of the Evidence Act?
- Whether ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence and prompt lodging of the F.I.R. is sufficient to sustain a conviction under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD alias BOGI vs THE STATE1986 PLD Supreme Court 12 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1985-09-13Read full judgment →
- KHUSHAL KHAN And Others vs MATA And OTHER1986 CLC 841 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-14Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID BIBI And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2596 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-14Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID AHMED MUKHTAF vs Syed ABDUL QUDUS and another1986 MLD 1293 · Sindh High Court · 1966-05-19Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID AHMAD vs SARDAR KHAN1986 MLD 2413 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-15Read full judgment →
- KHURSHEED BAIG vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1729 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- KHUDADAD And Others vs MUHAMMAD HABIBULLAH KHAN1986 SCMR 727 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision. The original suit was filed for possession by pre-emption of a share of land. The trial court decreed the suit, and in the first appeal, the defendants pressed only issue No. 6 regarding the sale consideration, while abandoning or not pressing the remaining issues. The Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal, and the High Court dismissed the subsequent revision, holding that issues abandoned or not pressed before the lower appellate court cannot be re-agitated in revision. The core legal question is whether issues abandoned or not pressed before the lower appellate court can be re-agitated in appeal or revision. The Supreme Court held that a party cannot re-agitate issues that were abandoned or not pressed before the lower appellate court. The key principle laid down is that points abandoned or not pressed during earlier appellate proceedings cannot subsequently be reopened in higher forums.
Questions settled- Can an issue abandoned or not pressed before the lower appellate court be re-agitated in a revision petition?
- Whether a party is permitted to raise questions of law in revision that were previously given up during first appeal proceedings?
- KHUDA BUX vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 197 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-02Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BUX vs STATE-1986 PLD Rev. 33 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1977-03-08Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BUX vs PRESIDENT, P.W.R. and another1986 MLD 340 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-03Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BUX And Others vs GHULAM NABI Through Legal Representatives1986 SCMR 1642 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Sind High Court dated 10-11-1985, which dismissed the petitioners' appeal and upheld the Rent Controller's order directing their eviction from the demised premises on the ground of default in rent payment. The core legal question revolves around whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the default in rent payment by the courts below were sustainable in law. The Supreme Court held that no exception in law could be taken against the concurrent factual findings of the two courts below establishing that the petitioners were indeed defaulters in payment of rent, thereby incurring liability for ejectment. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of fact regarding default in rent payment, supported by evidence, warrant no interference in a petition for leave to appeal, leading to the dismissal of the petition on its merits.
Questions settled- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding default in rent payment be interfered with in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Does default in payment of rent incur the liability of ejectment under the law?
- KHUDA BUKHSH And 6 Others vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1146 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court refusing the grant of post-arrest bail to seven petitioners accused of murder and causing injuries. The petitioners were alleged to have been armed with firearms and to have fired indiscriminately, resulting in the deaths of two individuals and injuries to ten others, alongside the destruction of property. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the general nature of the allegations and the absence of specific recovery of weapons or individual role assignments. The Supreme Court held that the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the First Information Report, combined with the specific allegations of indiscriminate firing and property destruction, established a prima facie case of participation in an attack with lethal weapons. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioners were not entitled to the concession of bail. The principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case prima facie establishes participation in a violent attack with lethal weapons, the absence of specific weapon recovery does not automatically entitle the accused to bail.
Questions settled- Does the absence of specific recovery of firearms entitle an accused to bail in a case involving allegations of indiscriminate firing?
- Is the inclusion of an accused's name in the First Information Report with a specific role in an attack sufficient to deny bail?
- Does participation in an attack with lethal weapons constitute sufficient grounds to deny the concession of bail?
- KHUDA BAKHSH and another vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION etc.1986 MLD 801 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-04Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BAKHSH and 4 others vs BORDER AREA ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE and others1986 MLD 2270 (2) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- KHUDA BAKHSH and 2 others vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION etc.1986 MLD 804 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-19Read full judgment →
- KHUBCHAND and others vs ACHARYA TEJENDRA PRASADJI and others1986 MLD 1998 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-15Read full judgment →
- KHOKHAR ENGINEERING COMPANY and 2 others vs HABIB BANK LIMITED1986 MLD 2941 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an interlocutory order passed by a Single Judge in a suit filed under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, which granted the defendant leave to defend subject to furnishing security. The core legal question was whether an appeal against such an interlocutory order is maintainable under Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code Amendment Ordinance, 1980, despite the restrictive provisions of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The Court held that the appeal was incompetent. It reasoned that the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, is a special law that expressly bars appeals against interlocutory orders that do not dispose of the entire case. Consequently, the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 cannot be invoked to circumvent this specific statutory bar. The Court affirmed the principle that where a statute provides a specific procedure for appeals, it must be followed exclusively. Furthermore, the Court held that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to defeat the clear legislative intent of ensuring the speedy recovery of banking loans through summary proceedings.
Questions settled- Does an appeal lie against an interlocutory order passed by a Single Judge under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Can the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code Amendment Ordinance, 1980 be used to circumvent the appellate restrictions contained in the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Is the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 considered a special law that prevails over the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can constitutional jurisdiction be invoked to challenge an interlocutory order when the governing statute expressly bars such appeals?
- KHIZAR HAYAT BHATTI vs THE DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION AND TECHNICAL1986 SCMR 1236 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a civil servant dismissed from service following departmental proceedings for receiving illegal gratification and making a written confession, sought leave to appeal against the Service Tribunal's decision upholding his dismissal. The petitioner challenged the dismissal on procedural grounds, alleging he was not supplied with a copy of the enquiry report, was denied a personal hearing, evidence was recorded in his absence, and no second show-cause notice was served. Furthermore, he claimed his confession was obtained under duress. While the Service Tribunal acknowledged these procedural irregularities, it concluded that the petitioner suffered no prejudice. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the failure to serve a second show-cause notice was a mandatory legal requirement and that the failure to provide the enquiry report prejudiced his defense. Finding that the case involved substantial questions of law of public importance requiring authoritative pronouncement, and noting that leave had been granted in a similar case arising from the same occurrence, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Is the service of a second show-cause notice a mandatory requirement in departmental proceedings against a civil servant?
- Does the failure to supply a copy of the enquiry report to a civil servant necessarily prejudice their defense in departmental proceedings?
- Under what circumstances does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against a judgment of the Service Tribunal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
- Khawaja MUHAMMAD IDREES vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1986 MLD 409 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-28Read full judgment →
- Khawaja HAUSAR SHAHEEN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 875 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-24Read full judgment →
- Khawaja FAZAL KARIM vs THE STATE And Other1986 SCMR 483 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arose from the dismissal of a petition under section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant, a farm manager, for storing excess wheat without a licence under the West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Ordinance, 1957. The core legal questions were whether producers are entirely exempt from licensing and quantity restrictions regarding food grains produced by them, and whether criminal proceedings should be quashed when an FIR erroneously cites a repealed law whose provisions are identical to the repealing Act. The Supreme Court held that while a producer is exempt from obtaining a licence to store or sell food grains produced by them under clause 3 of the West Pakistan Foodgrains (Licensing Control) Order, 1957, they are nevertheless prohibited under clause 5 from possessing stocks exceeding the defined 'normal quantity' without written permission from the licensing authority, and must submit stock statements. Furthermore, an erroneous reference to a repealed enactment in the FIR does not vitiate proceedings if identical provisions exist in the repealing statute. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a producer is entirely exempt from all restrictions on the possession and storage of food grains produced by them under the West Pakistan Foodgrains (Licensing Control) Order, 1957?
- Does an erroneous reference to a repealed law in an FIR vitiate criminal proceedings when the provisions of the repealing statute are identical?
- Can the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be invoked to cut short a trial on matters requiring the recording of evidence?
- Khawaja FAROOQ BAKHSH And Others vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB And Other1986 SCMR 1385 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing their writ petition concerning the levy of property tax by the Excise and Taxation Department on a hotel. The core legal question involved the manner in which the Department is empowered to assess the rent received by the landlord for property tax purposes, specifically whether assessment based on presumed income of the hotel management is permissible under the law. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioners regarding the method of assessment require further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the proper interpretation and application of Section 5 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and related rules.
Questions settled- Is the Department empowered to assess property tax rent on the basis of income presumed to have been earned by a hotel management?
- Whether the method of assessing rent for property tax purposes complies with Section 5 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Khawaja AMMAR HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD SHABBIRUDDIN KHAN1986 PLD Karachi 74 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 challenged an order dismissing an eviction application on the ground that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties due to an execution of a sale agreement in favour of the respondent. The core legal question was whether an agreement of sale of immovable property terminates the pre-existing relationship of landlord and tenant and whether the tenant's continued possession is protected under the doctrine of part-performance. The High Court held that a mere contract of sale does not create any interest in or charge on the property, and under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a tenant already in possession must show that he continues in possession expressly in part performance of the contract, which must be supported by terms such as cessation of rent or clear intent. The Court established that entering into a sale agreement does not automatically sever the landlord-tenant relationship unless expressly or impliedly provided, and thus allowed the appeal, remanding the matter for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Does an agreement to sell immovable property automatically terminate the pre-existing relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?
- Can a tenant already in possession of premises claim the protection of part-performance under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act without showing that his continued possession is referable to the agreement of sale?
- Does a contract for the sale of immovable property create any interest in or charge upon such property under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
- Khawaja ABDUL KHALIQ vs AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT1986 PLC (C. S.) 343 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-11-21Read full judgment →
- KHAPIM HUSSAIN KHALID vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 674 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-01-02Read full judgment →
- KHANI ZAMAN AND OTHERS vs GHULAM HAIDER AND OTHERS1986 PLD Peshawar 167 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
- KHAN, And Others vs HUMAYUN And Others1986 P Cr. L J 394 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-15Read full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMAD vs The STATE1986 SCMR 2017 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 12-10-1985, whereby the petitioner's bail granted by the Sessions Judge, Khushab, was cancelled. The petitioner stands accused along with three others in a criminal case registered under section 354-A read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, which is currently pending trial. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in law in cancelling the pre-trial bail granted to the petitioner. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and examining the available record, the Supreme Court held that the learned Judge of the High Court did not violate any provision or principle of law in cancelling the bail. Consequently, finding no valid justification to interfere with the impugned order, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the cancellation of bail.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in cancelling bail granted by the Sessions Court when no principle of law is violated?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of the High Court cancelling bail?
- KHAN MUHAMMAD vs NASEER AHMAD NIAZ11986 CLC 2671 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-17Read full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMAD BAKHSH ARSHAD vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BRIGADE1986 P Cr. L J 814 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-10Read full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs MIR ZAMAN1986 PLD Peshawar 109 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent challenging a land transaction effected through an exchange mutation, claiming it to be an ostensible sale. The core legal questions involved whether the transaction constituted a genuine exchange or a sale subject to pre-emption, and whether the pre-emptor validly deposited the pre-emption money within the prescribed period under a conditional decree. The Peshawar High Court held that the transaction was a genuine exchange and not a sale, as price is an essential element of sale and no cash consideration had passed, nor was there sufficient evidence of disparity in value or location to convert the exchange into a sale. Furthermore, the Court held that the pre-emptor failed to deposit the required pre-emption money within the stipulated period, thereby causing his suit to stand dismissed by operation of law. The key principles laid down are that a transfer of property in consideration of another property rather than a cash price constitutes an exchange and is not liable to pre-emption, and that failure to deposit pre-emption money within the prescribed time results in the automatic dismissal of the suit.
Questions settled- Whether a transaction involving the transfer of land in exchange for another property constitutes a sale subject to pre-emption or a genuine exchange?
- What is the legal effect under Order XX Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a pre-emptor fails to deposit the balance purchase price within the prescribed period?
- Can the benefit of section 10 of the General Clauses Act 1897 be claimed for depositing pre-emption money due to bank rush without demonstrating immediate vigilance and approaching the Court?
- Is the payment of a cash price an essential prerequisite for a transaction to be classified as a sale in the eyes of the law?
- KHAN GUL vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1209 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
- KHAN GUL alias KHANOO vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER_S.D.M., BIN KASSIM, KARACHI1986 MLD 1210 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
- KHAN BEG vs RAB NAWAZ And Another1986 SCMR 507 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the conviction and death sentence awarded to respondent No. 1 by the Sessions Judge, Jhelum, and acquitted him of murder and other charges. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court committed any substantial error or unjustified reasoning in setting aside the conviction and acquitting the respondent based on doubts in the prosecution case and the unreliability of witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's counsel failed to establish that the High Court's treatment of the case or its reasoning was palpably wrong or unjustified. The Court laid down the principle that an order of acquittal by a High Court will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court unless the petitioner demonstrates a substantial error or that the appraisal of evidence and reasoning adopted by the High Court was palpably wrong or unjustified.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court when the reasoning is found to be justified?
- Does the unreliability of eyewitness testimony provide a sufficient ground for the High Court to acquit an accused in a murder case?
- Whether the petitioner can succeed in a petition for leave to appeal against acquittal without showing a substantial error in the High Court judgment?
- KHAN BEG And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 950 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-26Read full judgment →
- KHAN BAHADUR KHAN vs ABDUL RAZZAQ And Other1986 SCMR 700 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision concerning land rights and occupancy tenancy. The core legal question revolves around whether the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents could benefit from amended tenancy laws after selling his occupancy rights and whether execution proceedings and related mutations were validly conducted. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the execution of possession and compliance with legal formalities carried a presumption of truth and could not be displaced in the absence of cogent rebuttal evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that official revenue reports and execution proceedings carry a presumption of truth, and questions of fact concurrently determined against a party cannot be reopened without substantial rebutting evidence.
Questions settled- Can an occupancy tenant who sold his rights benefit from subsequent amendments if he was not in occupation of the land?
- Does a revenue official's report regarding the delivery of possession carry a presumption of truth in the absence of cogent rebuttal evidence?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding execution proceedings can be interfered with in civil revision?
- Khan BAHADUR KHAN And Others vs PAZAL DAD (Represented By Legal Heir)1986 SCMR 694 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of partition proceedings initiated under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, wherein the petitioners obtained a larger share of land, prompting the respondents to file a civil suit challenging the partition. The lower courts and the Lahore High Court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, finding that their share had been unlawfully and drastically reduced without any legal relinquishment of title. The core legal question concerns the extent of the civil court's jurisdiction to review revenue partition proceedings where questions of title and grave reduction of a co-sharer's legitimate share are involved. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that where partition proceedings result in the unlawful deprivation of a party's statutory share without proper relinquishment, such proceedings can be assailed through a civil suit as a question of title is involved. The key principle laid down is that revenue partition modes cannot arbitrarily extinguish the substantive property rights and statutory shares of co-sharers or occupancy tenants.
Questions settled- Can revenue partition proceedings be challenged in a civil suit when a question of title is involved?
- Does a Revenue Officer have the exclusive jurisdiction to distribute land in a partition manner that reduces a co-sharer's statutory share without relinquishment?
- Whether a joint owner can apply for partition of their share in land under the Land Revenue Act?
- KHAN BAHADUR AND OTHERS vs Mst. SALIMA AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a civil revision in a pre-emption matter. The respondent-plaintiff filed a pre-emption suit wherein the trial court's order-sheet initially recorded the date for depositing pre-emption money as 22-7-1975 instead of 22-9-1975 due to a clerical mistake, effectively allowing only twenty-four hours for the deposit. Subsequently, upon an application by the plaintiff, the trial court permitted the deposit, which was made on 18-9-1975. A successor judge later rejected the plaint under section 23(5)(b) of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act for default in timely deposit. The District Judge and the High Court concurrently held that the original date was a clerical error and that the extension and subsequent acceptance of the deposit were lawful exercises of judicial discretion. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that courts possess the discretionary power to extend time or correct clerical mistakes regarding pre-emption deposits to meet the ends of justice, and that no procedural impediment should stifle discretionary relief unless expressly mandated by statute.
Questions settled- Whether a court has the jurisdiction to correct a clerical mistake regarding the date fixed for depositing pre-emption money?
- Can a court extend the time for depositing pre-emption money upon an application made after the expiry of the originally fixed period?
- Is a formal application a condition precedent for a court to exercise its discretionary power to extend time for depositing pre-emption money?
- KHAN ASHFAQUE UR REHMAN KHAN vs MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE And Another1986 SCMR 129 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court judgment dismissing the petitioner's writ petition regarding the auction of Government land. The auction, conducted on September 5, 1977, was approved by the Deputy Commissioner but subsequently refused confirmation by the Board of Revenue, whose review dismissal led to a constitutional petition in the High Court. The core legal question is whether the Board of Revenue is bound by the rules of natural justice to afford a hearing to the auction purchaser before refusing to confirm a land auction. The Supreme Court held that the confirmation or refusal to confirm an auction falls within the discretion of the Board of Revenue, which can be exercised without granting a hearing to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that the confirmation of a government land auction is a matter of administrative discretion exercisable without affording a mandatory opportunity of hearing to the auction purchaser.
Questions settled- Whether the Board of Revenue is required to afford a hearing to an auction purchaser before refusing to confirm a government land auction?
- Is the confirmation or refusal to confirm a government land auction by the Board of Revenue a matter of administrative discretion?
- Does the failure to hear an auction purchaser prior to refusing auction confirmation violate the rules of natural justice?
- KHAMOON vs PIR DAD1986 PLD Rev. 44 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1978-01-14Read full judgment →
- KHAMISO vs BACHAYO1986 PLD Rev. 113 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1971-04-26Read full judgment →
- KHALO KHAN And Others vs Sh. ABDUL RAHIM1986 SCMR 692 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a suit for possession through pre-emption filed by the respondent against the petitioners, who had purchased land via a registered agreement to sell. The petitioners contended that the respondent had waived his right of pre-emption by demanding and accepting a mortgage payment of Rs. 2,000 from them prior to the sale, arguing that this conduct, along with the delivery of possession, estopped the respondent from asserting a pre-emption claim. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the Additional District Judge reversed this decision, and the High Court maintained that reversal. The core legal question was whether the respondent's acceptance of the mortgage money and his conduct constituted a waiver or estoppel regarding his right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to produce cogent evidence of acquiescence. The Court affirmed the principle that the mere receipt of mortgage money by a pre-emptor after a sale does not necessarily constitute a waiver of the right of pre-emption, as such acts do not inherently demonstrate an intention to abandon that statutory right.
Questions settled- Does the acceptance of mortgage money by a potential pre-emptor after a sale constitute a waiver of the right of pre-emption?
- Can a pre-emptor be estopped from filing a suit for pre-emption based on their conduct regarding the mortgage of the suit property?
- KHALIQDAD KHAN vs Syed ALTAF HUSSAIN SHAH And Another1986 SCMR 1975 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against an order of the Lahore High Court suspending the death sentence of respondent No. 1, a police sub-inspector convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Sessions Judge, Khushab. The core legal question concerns the proper exercise of judicial discretion under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in suspending a sentence of death, and whether a detailed order of this nature might prejudice the final appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the case exhibits unusual features and necessitates an authoritative pronouncement regarding the parameters and exercise of powers under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that the suspension of a capital sentence requires a careful and proper exercise of discretionary powers under Section 426, ensuring that detailed premature findings do not adversely impact the final hearing and disposal of the pending appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the suspension of a death sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was a proper exercise of judicial discretion?
- Does a detailed order suspending a sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 risk affecting the final hearing and disposal of the appeal?
- KHALILULLAH BAIG vs PAKISTAN NAVY and another1986 MLD 1741 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
- KHALIL AKHTAR vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA And 3 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 5 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-08-20Read full judgment →
- KHALIL AHMAD KERSHI vs NOOR MUHAMMAD1986 SCMR 1464 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of Sind, which had upheld an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller. The landlord initially sought eviction under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, but subsequently amended the application to include grounds under Section 15 of the same Ordinance, specifically citing default in rent payment and bona fide personal requirement. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the application but, following a remand order by the High Court, ultimately ordered eviction. The petitioner challenged the propriety of the initial remand order and questioned the bona fide nature of the landlord's personal requirement claim. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner could not challenge the remand order in the appeal against the final decision, as the remand order itself had not been contested at the relevant time. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the determination of the landlord's bona fide personal requirement is a question of fact conclusively decided by the lower forums, providing no grounds for interference. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge a remand order in an appeal against the final order passed after the remand if the remand order itself was not challenged earlier?
- Is the determination of a landlord's bona fide personal requirement a question of fact that cannot be reopened in appeal?
- KHALIL AHMAD And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2728 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-11Read full judgment →
- KHALID ZAHEER vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 238 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-01Read full judgment →
- KHALID TAWAB and another vs Shaikh MAQBOOL AHMED and 2 others1986 MLD 335 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-04Read full judgment →
- KHALID PARVEZ vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SARGODHA And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 420 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-04-14Read full judgment →
- KHALID MAHMOOD vs DISTRICT JUDGE, JHELUM AND 6 OTHERS1986 PLD Lahore 272 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-25Read full judgment →
- KHALID MAHMOOD SOOMRO vs PROVINCE OF SIND Through Chief Secretary1986 SCMR 1341 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Assistant Commissioner, challenged a decision by the Sind Service Tribunal regarding the seniority of a colleague, respondent Khuslomal. Khuslomal had previously filed a civil suit against the Provincial Government to have his name included in a 1959 select list for Mukhtiarkars, which was decreed in his favour after the Government admitted his claim. This decree resulted in the petitioner being relegated in seniority. The petitioner argued that the civil decree was not binding on him as he was not impleaded as a party in that suit, despite being directly affected. The Service Tribunal declined to interfere, citing lack of jurisdiction to review a civil court decree and noting that the matter was sub judice in the High Court and Civil Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, primarily to consider the petitioner's contention that a judgment and decree obtained in a suit where necessary parties were not joined is not binding on those affected parties. The Court held that the legal issues raised regarding the binding nature of the ex parte civil decree warranted further examination.
Questions settled- Is a civil court decree binding on a person who was not joined as a party to the suit but is directly affected by the judgment?
- Does a Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to review or sit in appeal over a decree passed by a Civil Court?
- Can a government department's admission of a claim in a civil suit bind third parties whose seniority is adversely affected by the resulting decree?
- KHALID IKRAMULLAH, DIRECTOR, SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, LYALLPUR (FAISALABAD) vs PUNJAB EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY (NON GAZETTED) STAFF UNION, FAISALABAD Through Its G.S. And 2 Other1986 SCMR 618 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal arising from a judgment of the High Court concerning whether the Social Security Institution established under West Pakistan Ordinance X of 1965 constitutes an "industry" under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and whether an application under section 34 of the same Ordinance by the Employees Staff Union was competent. The respondent Union had sought enforcement of a settlement regarding allowances before the Labour Court, which initially granted relief. The Labour Appellate Tribunal subsequently dismissed the application, holding the institution was not an industry. The High Court reversed this on constitutional petition. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant raised a preliminary ground that the registration of the respondent Union had been cancelled by the Labour Court, a decision that attained finality and rendered the application under section 34 incompetent and infructuous. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal and set aside the High Court judgment on the preliminary ground that the cancellation of the Union's registration deprived it of the status of a Collective Bargaining Agent, making its proceedings under the Industrial Relations Ordinance untenable.
Questions settled- Whether an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 remains competent after the cancellation of the registration of the Collective Bargaining Agent Union?
- Does the cancellation of a trade union's registration render its pending claims and petitions under the Industrial Relations Ordinance infructuous?
- Is the registration of a union a necessary prerequisite for maintaining an action as a Collective Bargaining Agent under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- KHALID HUSSAIN And Another vs I.-G. OF POLICE, PUNJAB And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 409 · Punjab Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- KHALID BASHIR TARAR vs SECRETARY (SERVICES), S.G.A & I DEPARTMENT And 38 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 1040 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- KHALID And Others vs THE STATE1986 PCrLJ 759 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-11Read full judgment →
- KHAIRDI vs Mst. CHANANI And Other1986 SCMR 1318 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-30Read 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 Letters Patent Appeal regarding the inheritance of self-acquired land. The core legal question was whether the inheritance of the deceased's self-acquired property was governed by custom, specifically whether an unmarried daughter inherited to the exclusion of others, and whether the absence of a specific issue on 'custom' in the pleadings prejudiced the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the parties were fully aware that the controversy revolved around Customary Law, as evidenced by the conduct of the proceedings and the evidence led by both sides. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the case was governed by custom, under which the unmarried daughter was the rightful heir. The principle laid down is that where parties have proceeded to trial with full knowledge of the real controversy and have led evidence on the relevant issues, the absence of a specific formal issue in the pleadings does not invalidate the proceedings or cause prejudice.
Questions settled- Does the absence of a specific issue in the pleadings invalidate a judgment where the parties were aware of the real controversy and led evidence on it?
- Can a party raise the plea of prejudice due to the absence of a specific issue for the first time in a Letters Patent Appeal?
- Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of a specific family custom?
- KHAIR MUHAMMAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOT ADU And Another1986 PLC (C. S.) 906 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-12-03Read full judgment →
- KHAIR DIN vs HASHMAT and others1986 MLD 677 · Lahore High Court · 1965-04-29Read full judgment →
- KHAIR DIN And Others vs Ch. QUDRAT ULLAH1986 SCMR 763 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent against the petitioners, who claimed an equal right of pre-emption. The petitioners conceded that the unity of the sale transaction could not be split and that one of the co-vendees, being a stranger, initially possessed an inferior right of pre-emption compared to the plaintiff. However, the petitioners argued that this co-vendee had acquired a co-sharer status prior to the suit's institution through a gift of land from his father, which improved the status of all co-vendees. The lower courts rejected this plea on factual grounds, finding that neither the donor nor the donee testified to prove the essential elements of a valid gift, namely declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld these findings, holding that the case was concluded by a concurrent finding of fact supported by cogent evidence. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the status of co-vendees in a pre-emption suit can be improved by a subsequent gift of land to one of the vendees if the elements of the gift are not factually proven?
- What essential elements must be established by evidence to prove a valid gift in the context of improving a pre-emptor's status?
- Can a concurrent finding of fact disbelieving a transaction of gift be disturbed by the Supreme Court when supported by cogent evidence on record?
- KHAIR DIN And Others vs BARKAT1986 CLC 1415 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-26Read full judgment →
- KHADIM MOHYUDDIN vs SULTAN MAHMOOD and others-1986 P Cr. L J 387 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-19Read full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1986 PLC 677 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-01-28Read full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE1986 PLC 438 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-14Read full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs Ch. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM And Other1986 SCMR 1360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which refused to restore a pre-emption appeal filed by a minor plaintiff. The core legal question concerned the restoration of an appeal dismissed in default due to the death of the minor's next friend, and the subsequent willingness of the petitioner to pay the original pre-emption price fixed by the trial court. The Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal, noting that since the petitioner was now willing to pay the original pre-emption amount of Rs. 14,500, an appropriate application could be made before the High Court for permission and time to deposit the pre-emption money. The Court held that the High Court possesses the power to grant reasonable time to a pre-emptor to make the deposit of pre-emption money upon the disposal of an appeal, and that the time spent pursuing the matter diligently in the Supreme Court would not serve as a bar to such an application.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has the power to grant reasonable time to a pre-emptor to deposit pre-emption money upon the disposal of an appeal?
- Can an application for permission and time to deposit pre-emption money be made after abandoning the contest regarding the pre-emption price?
- Whether time spent in pursuing a bona fide petition for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court acts as a bar to seeking time for depositing pre-emption money in the High Court?
- KHADIM HUSSAIN KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs DR. AKBAR HUSSAIN AND 4 orHERs1986 PLD SC (A J & K) 45 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-01-12Read full judgment →
- Kh. MUHAMMAD NASEER vs THE SECRETARY, EDUCATION And Other1986 SCMR 1828 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Baluchistan Service Tribunal regarding the seniority of a government employee. The petitioner, a Headmaster, challenged the seniority list of Senior English Teachers and Class-II officers, seeking a declaration of seniority over respondents and claiming entitlement to promotion based on his academic qualifications. The core legal questions were whether the Service Tribunal correctly applied the seniority formula approved by the Governor and whether the petitioner's seniority could be determined based on his earlier service as an untrained teacher. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal correctly applied the established seniority formula, which distinguished between trained and untrained teachers and integrated them based on specific length-of-service criteria. The Court affirmed that seniority for promotee officers under the relevant rules is fixed with reference to the date of continuous appointment to the service, not merely length of service in a lower cadre. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision.
Questions settled- Is a Service Tribunal competent to grant relief regarding promotion or grade entitlement if such relief is barred by the proviso to the governing statute?
- How is the seniority of promotee officers determined under the West Pakistan Education Service Class II Rules 1963?
- Does seniority in a lower cadre (Senior English Teacher) automatically determine seniority in a higher service cadre (Class II) for promotees?
- Kh. GHULAM QADIR vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR1986 PLC (C.S.) 367 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1985-11-25Read full judgment →
- Kh. ABDUL WAHID And Another vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA And Another1986 SCMR 1534 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from two petitions for leave to appeal directed against an interlocutory order of the Federal Service Tribunal rejecting the petitioners' applications to add additional grounds alleging mala fides following a remand by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Service Tribunal had rejected the applications on the basis that the issue had already been considered by the Supreme Court in an earlier round of litigation. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an appeal or petition for leave to appeal lies against an interlocutory order of the Service Tribunal, and whether a plea of mala fides can be considered by the Tribunal on remand. The Supreme Court held that the petitions were incompetent as they were directed against an interlocutory order. However, the Court clarified its intent, laying down the principle that if a party can demonstrate that action against them was actuated by mala fides, the Service Tribunal is not debarred from taking note of such allegations upon remand. Both petitions were accordingly dismissed with observations.
Questions settled- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by a Service Tribunal?
- Is a Service Tribunal debarred from considering allegations of mala fides on remand if supported by evidence?
- KH. ABDUL MAJEED vs CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY AND OTHERS- s1986 PLD Supreme Court 45 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the validity of a property sale involving evacuee property in Karachi. The core legal question was whether an oral partition of joint Hindu family property, which preceded the sale by a widow holding a life interest, was valid, and whether the Custodian of Evacuee Property properly exercised his jurisdiction in refusing to confirm the sale. The Supreme Court held that an oral partition of joint Hindu family property is legally effective and does not require registration, provided it is a bona fide family arrangement. Furthermore, the Court held that the Custodian, while not a court of law, must act judicially and possesses broad discretionary powers under the Administration of Evacuee Property laws to confirm or reject transfers. The Custodian’s decision to refuse confirmation based on factors such as the nature of the vendor's life interest, the lack of required certificates, and doubts regarding the transaction's bona fides was within his lawful authority. Consequently, the High Court erred in interfering with the Custodian's order, as it substituted its own judgment for that of the Custodian without establishing jurisdictional error.
Questions settled- Can an oral partition of joint Hindu family property be legally effective without a registered instrument?
- Does the Custodian of Evacuee Property have the authority to refuse confirmation of a sale based on the nature of the vendor's interest?
- Is the Custodian of Evacuee Property considered a court of law for the purposes of judicial review?
- Under what grounds can the High Court interfere with the findings of the Custodian of Evacuee Property in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- KEHAR vs ISMAIL1986 PLD Rev. 141 · Sindh Revenue Board · 2024-12-23Read full judgment →
- KAZIM RAZA vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2624 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
- KAZIM ALI vs THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER SHEIKHUPURA And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 875 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
- Kazi Sayed TANVEER AZAM vs MUHAMMAD ALI SHAH1986 MLD 82 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-28Read full judgment →
- KASHMIR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. MIRPUR1986 CLC 2279 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · -Read full judgment →
- Khawaja GHULAM QADIR vs BAGOO And 6 OTHER1986. CLC 227 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-10-25Read full judgment →
- Khawaja GHULAM ABBAS DAR vs DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, AZAD JAMMU1986 PLC (C.S 1052 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- KARIM NAWAZ vs MEMBER,BOARD OF REVENUE And 5 OTHER1986 CLC 1026 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-12Read full judgment →
- KARIM HAIDER And Others vs The STATE1986 SCMR 938 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, which had refused bail to one petitioner and suo motu cancelled the bail granted to the other two petitioners by the trial court in a case registered under sections 302, 34, and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with sections 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question concerned the justification for refusing bail and cancelling bail already granted, particularly in the face of an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that the accused petitioners were entitled to bail given the delayed F.I.R. and circumstances of the case. The key principle laid down is that unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. weighs in favor of granting bail to the accused.
Questions settled- Whether bail already granted to an accused by the trial court can be cancelled by the High Court without strong and exceptional grounds?
- Does an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report entitle the accused persons to the concession of bail?
- Whether the Supreme Court can convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal and grant bail in criminal matters?
- KARIM BUX AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1986 PLD Rev. 85 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1971-11-10Read full judgment →
- KARIM BAKHSH And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1014 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-14Read full judgment →
- KARIM BAKHSH And 3 Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2196 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-11Read full judgment →