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.
- JALAL DIN vs ZONAL CHIEF, HABIB BANK Ltd., MUZAFFARABAD And- 2 Others1986 PLC 862 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-01-08Read full judgment →
- JALAL DIN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1003 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-21Read full judgment →
- JALAL DIN vs SAIF ALI And 2 OTHER1986 CLC 2972 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-07-21Read full judgment →
- JALAL DIN vs JAN MUHAMMAD and others1986 MLD 1178 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-24Read full judgment →
- JALAL DIN vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1986 MLD 2035 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-04Read full judgment →
- JALAL DIN vs ATA MUHAMMAD And Other1986 SCMR 589 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a long-standing property dispute concerning the transfer of portions of an evacuee property to the petitioner and respondent No. 1, respectively. The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 1 relied on a forged verification order to obtain his compensation book and property transfer. The Claims Commissioner confiscated the respondent's property portion under section 14(2) of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956. After previous rounds of litigation where superior courts found the Claims Commissioner's order was based on assumptions and 'no evidence'—especially since the respondent was acquitted in criminal proceedings—the petitioner subsequently filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the verification order was a forgery. The lower civil courts rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the High Court dismissed subsequent revisions. Upon a petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a party cannot re-agitate questions and issues already conclusively decided by superior courts through a fresh civil suit. The petition was dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether a Claims Commissioner can order the forfeiture of property under section 14(2) of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956 without a well-considered finding based on evidence that a fraud or false claim was committed?
- Can a party file a fresh civil suit to re-agitate questions and matters already heard and finally decided by superior courts?
- Does a civil court have the jurisdiction to entertain a suit that seeks to challenge findings and decisions already rendered by the High Court and the Supreme Court between the same parties?
- JALAL DIN And 8 Others vs ABDUL QAIYYUM And 8 OTHER1986 CLC 2274 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-06-22Read full judgment →
- JAHANGIR KHAN vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1150 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-18Read full judgment →
- JAHANGIR ALI vs CHENAB TEXTILE MILLS Ltd. Lahore1986 PLC 465 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-05-07Read full judgment →
- JAGGAR MASIH vs Messrs M&B (PAKISTAN) Ltd.1986 PLC 284 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-09-29Read full judgment →
- JAFFAR ALI vs DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, SIALIKOT1986 PLC 994 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- JAFAR And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2855 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-25Read full judgment →
- JABIR ALI vs QURBAN ALI And Another1986 SCMR 524 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land originally mutated as a mortgage in 1961. Subsequently, in 1969, the vendee obtained a declaratory decree stating the transaction was actually a sale, upon an oath taken on the Holy Quran by the vendor. The pre-emptor then filed a suit for possession by pre-emption. The core legal question was whether the limitation period for filing the pre-emption suit commenced from the date of the original mortgage mutation or from the date when the real nature of the transaction as a sale became known through the declaratory decree. The Supreme Court held that where a transaction is disguised to conceal a sale and defeat pre-emption rights, limitation begins from the date the real nature of the transaction comes to the pre-emptor's knowledge, applying principles related to fraudulent concealment and limitation. The Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the trial Court for a fresh decision on merits, laying down that devices used to defeat pre-emption must be legitimate rather than fraudulent.
Questions settled- When does the limitation period commence for filing a pre-emption suit where the original transaction was fraudulently disguised as a mortgage?
- Does the concealment of a sale transaction under the guise of a mortgage amount to fraud for the purpose of extending limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act?
- Whether a pre-emptor has a superior right of pre-emption as a co-sharer when the sale transaction is established through a subsequent declaratory decree?
- J.H. ABRAHAM vs AZIZ ASLAM1986 SCMR 1382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-07Read 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 petition challenging the trial court's decision to allow the respondent-plaintiff to produce unlisted witnesses and documents. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted within its discretion under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when permitting the examination of a witness and the production of documents not included in the original list submitted by the plaintiff. The Supreme Court held that the trial court properly exercised its discretion, and the High Court correctly upheld this decision in its revisional jurisdiction, finding no legal infirmity. The judgment reaffirms the principle that while Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandates the submission of a witness list within seven days of the settlement of issues, the court retains the discretion to permit additional evidence upon showing good cause, provided that the court records its reasons for granting such permission. Finding no merit in the petition, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Can a trial court permit the examination of witnesses not included in the original list submitted under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is the trial court required to record reasons when granting permission to produce unlisted witnesses or documents?
- Does the High Court have the authority in revisional jurisdiction to uphold a trial court's exercise of discretion regarding the production of unlisted evidence?
- ISSO And 2 Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 613 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-16Read full judgment →
- ISRAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE and 5 others-1986 P Cr. L J 574 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of a pending criminal case on the sole ground of inordinate delay. The core legal question addressed is whether an inordinate and unjustified delay of over thirteen years in the disposal of a criminal case, with no progress made by the trial court, constitutes an abuse of the process of the court warranting quashment. The court held that a delay of over a decade without framing a formal charge, obtaining prosecution sanction, or examining any witnesses causes severe prejudice and mental agony to the accused, amounting to a gross abuse of the process of the court. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the proceedings pending against the petitioner and co-accused before the Special Judge Anti-Corruption were quashed. The key principle laid down is that criminal cases must be disposed of with utmost speed, and unjustified protraction of proceedings over many years justifies the exercise of inherent powers under Section 561-A to prevent a mockery of justice.
Questions settled- Does an inordinate delay of over thirteen years in the disposal of a criminal case constitute an abuse of the process of the court?
- Can the High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings on the ground of delay?
- Whether the lack of any progress, including failure to frame a charge or examine witnesses for over a decade, justifies quashing a criminal case?
- ISMAT ULLAH vs Khawaja SHARIF BAKHSH And Other1986 SCMR 1486 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from civil petitions filed against a judgment of the High Court dismissing writ petitions challenging tenant ejectment orders. The core legal question concerns whether the landlord's failure to initially file all leaves of the sanctioned reconstruction plan along with the ejectment petition mala fide undermined the bona fides of the ejectment application under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Supreme Court held that the complete sanctioned plan consisting of three leaves was indeed produced in evidence and that the tenants failed to raise this specific objection in their written statements before the Rent Controller, making it a belated attempt to confuse the issue. The court dismissed the petitions, affirming that the landlord's plea for reconstruction was duly substantiated and the concurrent findings below contained no misreading of the record.
Questions settled- Whether failure to initially attach all leaves of a sanctioned reconstruction plan to an ejectment application proves a lack of bona fides on the part of the landlord?
- Can a plea regarding the sanctioned reconstruction plan, not raised in the written statement before the Rent Controller, be permitted to be urged for the first time during writ proceedings?
- ISMAIL vs Sub. GUL INAYAT SHAH1986 MLD 1310 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-21Read full judgment →
- ISMAIL (Deceased) Represented By MUHAMMAD YUSUF vs MUHAMMAD1986 SCMR 1347 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' Regular Second Appeal in a pre-emption suit on the ground that the petitioners had withdrawn the pre-emption money during the pendency of the appeal without waiting for formal court permission, notwithstanding that they later re-deposited the amount pursuant to conditional permission granted by the court. The core legal question concerns the effect of withdrawing pre-emption money during appellate proceedings and the subsequent re-deposit of the amount, as well as the appellate court's power to grant time for depositing pre-emption money. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the questions raised regarding the withdrawal and re-deposit of pre-emption money and the conduct of the proceedings require detailed examination.
Questions settled- Does the withdrawal of pre-emption money during the pendency of an appeal without formal court permission warrant the dismissal of the appeal?
- Can an appellate court permit the re-deposit of pre-emption money previously withdrawn by a pre-emptor?
- Whether an appellate court has the power to grant reasonable time for the deposit of pre-emption money when dealing with a pre-emption appeal?
- ISLAND TEXTILE MILLS Ltd. vs V/O TECHNOEXPORT And Another1986 SCMR 463 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had stayed civil suit proceedings and referred the dispute to arbitration under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940. The petitioner challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that the arbitration clause in the agreement was not applicable to all parties, specifically noting that one defendant was not a signatory to the agreement. Furthermore, the petitioner raised concerns regarding the location of the arbitration in Russia, the location of evidence and property in Pakistan, and allegations of fraud and misrepresentation regarding the machinery's production yield. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal, determining that the case involved substantial questions of law. These questions include whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion to stay the suit, whether an arbitration clause can bind a non-signatory defendant, and whether allegations of fraud and the complexity of the dispute render a matter unsuitable for arbitration. The Court ordered that the stay on arbitration proceedings continue pending the final appeal.
Questions settled- Can an arbitration clause be invoked to bind a defendant who is not a party to the underlying agreement?
- Is a dispute involving complex allegations of fraud and misrepresentation suitable for referral to arbitration?
- Should a court stay civil proceedings in favor of arbitration when the location of evidence and property is in a different jurisdiction than the proposed seat of arbitration?
- ISLAMUDDIN vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN And Another1986 SCMR 1192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-08-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court dismissing the petitioner-tenant's appeal against an order striking off his defence and directing his eviction for non-compliance with a rent deposit order under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question concerns whether the tenant committed default in depositing monthly rent pursuant to the Rent Controller's order under section 16(1) of the Ordinance, and whether such default justified striking off his defence under section 16(2). The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower fora regarding the tenant's unexcused delay in depositing the rent for August 1980 were unexceptionable, and that the question of exercising discretion did not arise as no sufficient cause or plea of circumstances beyond control was established. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether failure to deposit monthly rent by the prescribed date warrants striking off the tenant's defence under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance?
- Can a concurrent finding of fact regarding a default in rent deposit be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Is a tenant entitled to the exercise of judicial discretion in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for failing to deposit rent on time?
- ISLAMUDDIN vs ABDUL REHMAN AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Karachi 70 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This rent appeal challenges an order by the Rent Controller dismissing the appellant's (intervenor's) claim to tenancy rights during execution proceedings of an ejectment order. The landlord had obtained an ex parte ejectment order against the original tenant, Nizamuddin. Subsequently, the appellant, the tenant's brother, intervened, claiming he, not Nizamuddin, was the actual tenant in possession. The core legal question was whether an intervenor claiming independent tenancy rights could obstruct execution proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The Court held that the appellant failed to prove tenancy, as he produced no rent receipts and failed to call his brother as a witness, while the landlord produced a valid tenancy agreement. The Court further held that the scope of execution proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is limited; the Rent Controller cannot entertain objections from third parties claiming independent tenancy rights, as such disputes are foreign to rent execution proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that the Rent Controller lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate such third-party claims during execution.
Questions settled- Can a third party intervene in rent execution proceedings to claim independent tenancy rights?
- Does the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to execution proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Does a Rent Controller have the authority to adjudicate claims of independent tenancy raised by an intervenor during the execution of an ejectment order?
- ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS vs KARACHI1986 SCMR 1851 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Sind High Court, which had modified a temporary injunction granted by a trial court regarding a land dispute. The petitioner, claiming ownership of 357.58 acres, sought a perpetual injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with its possession or undertaking construction activities on the land. The High Court had permitted the respondent to continue certain development works, such as laying roads and sewerage lines, while restraining alienation of the property. The core legal question concerned the appropriate interim relief pending the final adjudication of the suit. Upon review, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal. The Court held that in disputes involving potential irreparable harm and the risk of costly future removal of structures, the maintenance of the status quo is the preferred legal course. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, directed the parties to seek expeditious disposal of the suit within six months, and ordered the maintenance of the status quo regarding the disputed land until the suit's final determination.
Questions settled- When should a court order the maintenance of status quo in a land dispute involving potential construction?
- Is the Supreme Court generally inclined to interfere with interim injunction orders?
- What is the appropriate judicial response when construction on disputed land might cause irreparable loss to the successful party?
- ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE1986 SCMR 898 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan challenged the judgment of the Service Tribunal regarding the seniority, pay, and allowances of direct recruits versus promotees to the posts of Aerodrome Officers in the Civil Aviation Department. The core legal questions involved the correctness of the Tribunal's decision to anti-date the appointments of direct recruits, the operation of recruitment quotas, and the absorption and regularization of Airport Managers Grade-III. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal erred in anti-dating appointments by ignoring the date of assumption of charge under Fundamental Rule 17, misinterpreting the quota rules and departmental instructions governing the sequence of recruitment and roster operation, and failing to account for the relaxation of rules regarding the absorption of Airport Managers. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the Service Tribunal, establishing that direct recruits cannot claim seniority or pay prior to assuming charge and that established departmental instructions and statutory recruitment rules regarding quotas and regularization must be strictly followed.
Questions settled- Whether direct recruits can claim seniority, pay, and allowances from the date of selection or recommendation by the Public Service Commission, ignoring the date of assumption of charge?
- How should the roster of vacancies be operated in a cadre with fixed quotas for departmental promotion and direct recruitment?
- Whether the Service Tribunal can set aside the regularization of promotees and absorption of officers made by the competent authority in accordance with relaxed recruitment rules?
- ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN Through SECRETARY MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS And Others vs ABDUL KARIM SHAIKH And 2 Other1986 SCMR 421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves three appeals arising from a consolidated judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding disciplinary proceedings initiated against government servants under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. Leave to appeal was initially granted to examine whether the same person could be designated as both the 'Authority' and the 'Authorised Officer'. However, the Supreme Court deemed it unnecessary to decide this specific question, instead disposing of the appeals on a short ground. The Service Tribunal had set aside the penalty orders because the civil servants were deprived of the examination of their cases at two distinct stages, thereby prejudicing their interests and violating principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court found the Tribunal's view unexceptionable, noting that no prejudice was caused to the appellants as the Tribunal had left the matter open for further lawful consideration. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the same person can be designated as both the Authority and the Authorised Officer under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Does the combination of the functions of the Authority and the Authorised Officer prejudice the fair trial and defence of a government servant in disciplinary proceedings?
- ISLAMABAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, ISLAMABAD vs RAWALPINDI CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, RAWALPINDI1986 PLD Labore 393 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-06Read full judgment →
- ISLAM HUSSAIN vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1986 PLD Federal Shariat Court 3 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- ISLAM BARI And Others vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN1986 CLC 2412 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-04Read full judgment →
- ISHTIAQ HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1101 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-25Read full judgment →
- ISHTIAQ AHMAD vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1590 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-23Read full judgment →
- ISHFAQ vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 397 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
- IRSHAD vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 242 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-07Read full judgment →
- IRFAN ASHIQ vs GENERAL MANAGER, KUNDIAN NUCLEAR COMPLEX And Other1986 SCMR 1820(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that had accepted the Government's appeal against the petitioner's acquittal. The petitioner was originally charged under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the Government's appeal against the acquittal was barred by limitation. The petitioner contended that even after excluding the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the trial court's judgment, the appeal was filed one day beyond the prescribed sixty-day limitation period. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the timeline—noting the acquittal date of 10-8-1981, the application for a certified copy, and the subsequent filing date of 26-11-1981—found that the petitioner's contention regarding the limitation period raised a substantial issue requiring further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to specifically consider the question of limitation. The holding establishes that where a prima facie case is made out that an appeal was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation, leave to appeal should be granted to adjudicate the issue.
Questions settled- Does the calculation of the limitation period for filing an appeal against an acquittal include the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the judgment?
- Is an appeal filed one day beyond the statutory sixty-day limitation period considered time-barred?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal regarding a question of limitation?
- IQBAL vs The STATE1986 SCMR 982 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Rehmatullah. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and his father, an absconder, fired at the deceased due to prior enmity. The trial court convicted the appellant but acquitted his co-accused, citing a tendency to implicate relatives. The High Court maintained the conviction, relying on ocular testimony and the appellant's abscondence. The Supreme Court, in a majority decision, set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that the prosecution's case contained significant inconsistencies, particularly regarding the role of the deceased's revolver and the lack of a plausible motive for the appellant. It emphasized that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution, and the accused is not required to specifically plead self-defence to benefit from facts emerging from the prosecution's own evidence. The Court concluded that the interested witnesses were unreliable, and abscondence alone, in the absence of other corroborative evidence, was insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Questions settled- Does the failure of an accused to formally plead self-defence preclude the court from considering evidence of self-defence emerging from the prosecution's own case?
- Can abscondence serve as sufficient corroboration for the testimony of interested witnesses in a criminal trial?
- Is the doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus applicable to the testimony of witnesses who are found to be partially unreliable?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused based on the unreliability of prosecution evidence regarding their involvement necessitate the acquittal of the remaining accused if the evidence against them is similarly tainted?
- IQBAL SULAIMAN and 8 others vs Mst. SHAGUFTA1986 MLD 1385 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-18Read full judgment →
- IQBAL SANAM vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2326 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
- IQBAL HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 821 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-12Read full judgment →
- IQBAL HUSSAIN vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (HQ), LAHORE1986 PLC (C. S.) 854 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-05-16Read full judgment →
- IQBAL HUSSAIN MALIK vs THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA (ENEMY BANK), LAHORE-1986 P Cr. L J 2681 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-04Read full judgment →
- IQBAL AHMAD SIDDIQUI vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 449 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-07Read full judgment →
- IQBAL AHMAD SIDDIQUI vs FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD And Other1986 SCMR 553 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's appeal regarding his seniority and threatened reversion in government service. The petitioner, an Accountant Superintendent, challenged a revised seniority list issued following a prior judgment of the Service Tribunal in another case holding that ordinary and selection grade Upper Division Clerks constitute separate cadres. The core legal question is whether a judgment of the Service Tribunal rendered in a case to which an employee was not a party can automatically form the basis for altering their long-standing seniority and causing their reversion without independent adjudication of their own departmental cadre status. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that substantial questions of law of general importance were raised and noting that the correctness of the basic judgment of the Service Tribunal was already under consideration by the Court in a connected matter. The Court ordered that status quo be maintained pending the interim relief decision.
Questions settled- Whether a judgment of the Service Tribunal delivered in a case to which an employee was not a party is binding upon them for the purpose of refixing their seniority?
- Does the introduction of national pay scales legally separate the cadres of ordinary and selection grade Upper Division Clerks?
- Can an employee be subjected to reversion on the basis of a revised seniority list formulated pursuant to a judicial precedent rendered in a different department or case?
- INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Supreme Court 74 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This direct appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court accepting an appeal against an ad interim attachment order passed by a District Judge under section 39 of the Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance, 1961. The core legal questions involved whether an ad interim attachment order is appealable under the Ordinance and the proper interpretation of the court's power to order ad interim attachment of properties. The Supreme Court held that the appeal before the High Court was incompetent because section 39 of the Ordinance provides a complete code and allows appeals only against specific final orders under subsections (7) and (9), whereas an order disposing of an application to recall an ad interim attachment is interlocutory and not appealable. Furthermore, the Court interpreted subsection (3) of section 39, establishing that the power of the District Judge to order interim attachment of hypothecated and surety properties is circumscribed by the requirement to estimate the value needed to cover the outstanding claim and costs, preventing the mechanical attachment of all properties regardless of value. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court judgment was set aside.
Questions settled- Whether an order refusing to recall an ad interim attachment under section 39 of the Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance, 1961 is appealable?
- Does section 39 of the Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance, 1961 provide a complete code for the enforcement of claims by the bank excluding general procedural laws?
- Is a District Judge legally required to estimate the value of properties before ordering ad interim attachment under section 39(3) of the Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance, 1961?
- INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS CORPORATION LTD. vs ZIAULLAH SAJID1986 PLC 1128 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-07-22Read full judgment →
- INCOME TAX OFFICER, COMPANY CIRCLE XII, KARACHI vs Messrs SHAIKH MIRAN BUX KARAM BUX Ltd. And 25 Other1986 SCMR 1255 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns twenty-six petitions for leave to appeal filed by the Income Tax Officer against a judgment of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, which had invalidated a notification issued by the Central Board of Revenue regarding the definition of the 'previous year' for rice exporters under the Income-tax Act, 1922. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner had established 'sufficient cause' to condone the significant delay in filing these petitions. The Supreme Court observed that the petitions were filed well after the limitation period and the petitioner's admission order in a related case. The petitioner attributed the delay to the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the admission order, secure sanction for funds, and prepare the petitions. The Court held that the explanation provided for the delay was unsatisfactory and lacked necessary details, particularly regarding the time spent securing funds. Consequently, the Court dismissed all petitions as time-barred, emphasizing the requirement for a petitioner to explain each day of delay to establish sufficient cause.
Questions settled- Does the time taken to obtain sanction for funds constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing a petition?
- Is a petitioner required to explain each day of delay to satisfy the court for condonation?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed solely on the ground of being time-barred when the explanation for delay is unsatisfactory?
- Income Tax Officer vs AssesseePTCL 1986 CL. 404 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1986-09-27Read full judgment →
- INAYATULLAH vs AHMAD DIN And OTHER1986 CLC 1265 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-29Read full judgment →
- INAYATULLAH And Others vs Mst. KHURSHID AKHTAR1986 SCMR 687 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a revision petition, which had upheld an appellate order extending the time for a pre-emptor to deposit Zar-e-Panjum (1/5th of the sale price). The core legal question was whether the lower appellate court and the High Court properly exercised their discretion in extending the time for depositing the pre-emption money upon a finding of a bona fide mistake. The Supreme Court held that the extension of time for depositing Zar-e-Panjum falls within the discretion of the court, and where the appellate court has exercised this discretion on the material available to take a view different from the trial court, such exercise of discretion does not warrant interference by the Supreme Court in the absence of any important question of law or compelling reasons. The key principle laid down is that the appellate court is competent to review and extend the time for depositing pre-emption money upon sufficient cause or bona fide mistake, and its discretionary orders in this regard will not be lightly interfered with.
Questions settled- Whether the appellate court is competent to extend the time for depositing Zar-e-Panjum in a pre-emption suit?
- Does the extension of time for depositing pre-emption money require the showing of a bona fide mistake or sufficient cause?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the concurrent exercise of discretion by the lower appellate court and the High Court regarding the extension of time?
- INAYATULLA H vs THE STATE1986 PCr. L J 1378(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-18Read full judgment →
- INAYAT ULLAH KHAN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2630 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-06Read full judgment →
- INAYAT MASIH vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1058 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-17Read full judgment →
- INAYAT KHAN vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SIALKOT And 2 Others1986 P Cr. L J 2023 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-25Read full judgment →
- INAYAT KHAN MALIK vs N. W.F.P. Through Secretary, Forest Department And Other1986 SCMR 1970(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought a declaration of exclusive entitlement to royalty payments derived from tree-cutting in specific forest compartments, relying on partition deeds dated 1932 and 1961. The trial court rejected this claim, finding that the 1932 partition deed only addressed the 'Bandajat' (pasture lands) of the village and did not partition the forest area, which remained the joint property of three tribes. This finding was affirmed on appeal by a Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the petition for leave to appeal against these concurrent findings. The Court held that the lower courts' determinations were based on questions of fact. As the petitioner failed to demonstrate that these findings were vitiated by misreading or non-reading of material evidence, the Court declined to interfere with the concurrent judgments. The key principle affirmed is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless the petitioner can establish that such findings resulted from a misreading or non-reading of material evidence.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Can a partition deed limited to pasture lands be construed as a partition of forest property?
- INAYAT BAIG vs THE STATE--Opponent1986 P Cr. L J 2526 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-01Read full judgment →
- INAYAT ALI vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2407 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-14Read full judgment →
- INAYAT ALI vs MUNAWAR AHMAD And 5 Others1986 P Cr. L J 1619 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-02Read full judgment →
- INAYAT ALI SHAH vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI1986 PLC 493 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- INAYAT ALI HASHMI vs ASSISTANT SECRETARY (GENERAL), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 132 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-09-05Read full judgment →
- INAMULLAH ZAIDI And Others vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1986 CLC 2416 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-30Read full judgment →
- INAMULLAH vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2649 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-20Read full judgment →
- INAM-UR-RAHIM vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD, MULTAN REGION And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 650 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-06-19Read full judgment →
- in the matter of Mst.SULTAN JEHAN vs NOT1986 MLD 1441 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-20Read full judgment →
- In re: Sher Hassan Khan, Messrs Hassan Tanneries Limited, Peshawar. vsPTCL 1986 CL. 349 · Monopoly Control Authority · 1977-06-15Read full judgment →
- In re: Shafiq Hanif Limited, Karachi. vs N/APTCL 1986 CL. 345 · Monopoly Control Authority · 1977-06-03Read full judgment →
- In Re: REPRESENTATION FILED BY SHAIKH LIAQUAT HUSSAIN vs No1986 CLC 2189 · Election Commission of Pakistan · 1986-06-27Read full judgment →
- In Re: Messrs ALLIED COMMERCIAL FINANCE LIMITED vs No1986 CLC 2408 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-17Read full judgment →
- In re: Kh. Muhammad Yousaf, Managing Director, Kohinoor Spinning MillsPTCL 1986 CL. 347 · Monopoly Control Authority · 1977-03-08Read full judgment →
- In re: Hyesons Sugar Mills Ltd., Karachi. vs N/APTCL 1986 CL. 4 · Corporate Law Authority · 1985-10-09Read full judgment →
- IN RE: HYESONS SUGAR MILLS LTD. vs NOT1986 MLD 2555 · Corporate Law Authority · 1985-10-09Read full judgment →
- In re: EXPRESS COMMERCIAL FINANCE LTD. vs NOT1986 MLD 613 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-30Read full judgment →
- In Re: AHAD YUSUF (Candidate In By Elections Of Constituency PS 261986 CLC 1284 · Chief Election CommissionerRead full judgment →
- In re : MUHAMMAD KHAN vs NOT1986 PLD Lahore 294 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-13Read full judgment →
- In re : Mst. ZAINAB AND OTHERS vs NOT1986 PLD Karachi 269 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-13Read full judgment →
- In re _ ISLAMIZATION OF LAWS vs NOT1986 PLD Federal Shariat Court 29 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- IMTIAZ AHMED Alias IMTIAZ RASOOL And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 190 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-29Read full judgment →
- IMTIAZ AHMAD And Others vs The STATE1986 SCMR 192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order refusing bail to three individuals accused of murder. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in denying bail when the Investigating Officer, in a subsequent complete challan, had declared the petitioners innocent and placed them in Column 2, contrary to an earlier incomplete challan. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing bail. The Court affirmed that the opinion of an Investigating Officer regarding the innocence of an accused is not binding upon the court. The key principle laid down is that the Investigating Officer cannot act as the final judge of guilt or innocence; rather, it is the duty of the trial court to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of an accused after recording and evaluating the evidence of eye-witnesses. Given the specific allegations of active participation and the firing of fatal shots by the petitioners, the High Court’s refusal to grant bail was justified.
Questions settled- Is the opinion of an Investigating Officer regarding the innocence of an accused binding on the court when deciding a bail application?
- Can a court refuse bail to an accused person if the police have placed them in Column 2 of the challan?
- Does the filing of an incomplete challan followed by a complete challan declaring an accused innocent preclude the court from assessing the evidence independently?
- IMRAN alias POMA vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2913 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-01Read full judgment →
- IMDAD ALI KHAN vs PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Supreme Court 349 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed cross-appeals arising from a judgment of the Service Tribunal concerning a civil servant's claims regarding promotion, regularization, and pay emoluments. The core legal questions examined whether a civil servant temporarily transferred to a higher grade post is entitled to regular promotion without a vacant reserved post, and whether such a civil servant is entitled to increments in the higher pay scale during the tenure of that service. The Supreme Court held that a civil servant cannot claim regular promotion to a higher post when no reserved promotion quota post is available and statutory prerequisites have not been fulfilled, meaning the Service Tribunal cannot substitute itself for the Departmental Promotion Committee. However, the Court further held that a civil servant called upon to discharge the full duties of a higher post, and who suffers from no ineligibility or deficiency, is entitled not only to the minimum pay of the higher scale but also to the increments falling due for the period those duties are performed. Both appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant can claim regular promotion to a higher grade post when no reserved promotion quota post is available under the applicable recruitment rules?
- Can the Service Tribunal substitute itself for the Departmental Promotion Committee to assess suitability and regularize a promotion?
- Is a civil servant who is called upon to discharge the full duties of a higher post entitled to increments in the pay scale of the higher post for the duration of such service?
- IMAMUDDIN vs Mst. AMINA and 9 others1986 MLD 1394 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-15Read full judgment →
- IMAMUDDIN vs ABDUL RAUF1986 MLD 357 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-13Read full judgment →
- IMAM BUX vs KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION1986 PLC 792 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-02-04Read full judgment →
- IMAM BUX vs KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI1986 PLC 644 · Labour Court · 1985-01-14Read full judgment →
- IMAM BAKHSH TATARI vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE And Others1986 PLC (C.S) 12 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-30Read full judgment →
- ILAM DIN And Another vs ABDUL MAJID And 2 Other1986 SCMR 1439 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the vendees challenged an order directing the plaintiff to make up a deficiency in court-fee. The petitioners contended that since the limitation period for the pre-emption suit had expired by the time the court ordered the deficiency to be made up under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the plaint should have been rejected rather than allowing the deficiency to be cured. The Supreme Court, relying on established precedents including Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan, held that the question of limitation does not arise when a court exercises its power under Order VII, Rule 11 to determine deficient court-fee. The Court affirmed that a plaintiff has a right to be afforded at least one opportunity to make up such deficiency. Since the respondent complied with the court's order within the specified time, the trial court acted correctly. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, finding no merit in the petitioners' arguments regarding the application of limitation or the court's jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does the limitation period for filing a suit bar a court from granting an opportunity to make up deficient court-fee under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a plaintiff entitled to at least one opportunity to make up a deficiency in court-fee under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- IKRAMUL HAQ, vs THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB And 2 Others1986 PLC (C.S) 929 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-04-16Read full judgment →
- IJAZ HUSSAIN SHAH And Another vs THE STATE And 7 Other1986 SCMR 1631 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-03Read full judgment →
- IJAZ Alias JAJJI And 2 Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1310 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY vs NAZIR HUSSAIN AWAN ADDITIONAL SESSIONS1986 P Cr. L J 2597 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-27Read full judgment →
- IJAZ AHMAD BHATTI And 3 Other vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD, LAHORE REGION1986 PLC (C.S.) 52 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-12-23Read full judgment →
- IHSANURREHMAN vs Mst. NAJMA PARVEEN1986 PLD Supreme Court 14 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave was directed against a Lahore High Court judgment which modified Family Court and District Court orders regarding the custody of minor children on a civil revision filed by the respondent mother. The core legal question was whether a civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or Section 48 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 is maintainable before the High Court against decisions of a Family Court acting as a Guardian Judge, and whether the Supreme Court's prior ruling in Sakhawat Ali v. Mst. Shui Khelay required reconsideration following the 1980 proviso added to Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. Reaffirming Sakhawat Ali, the Supreme Court held that Section 17 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 expressly bars the application of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, including Section 115 revisions, to Family Court proceedings. It further held that Section 25 of the 1964 Act applies procedural rules of the 1890 Act only to the original trial before the Family Court and not to post-decision appellate or revisional forums. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's revisional judgment as passed without jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Is a civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 maintainable against a judgment or order of a Family Court in guardianship and custody matters?
- Does Section 25 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 extend the procedural provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 to appellate and revisional remedies?
- Does the 1980 amendment adding a proviso to Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 alter the appellate jurisdiction defined under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964?
- IFTIKHARULLAH vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FOOD, AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATIVE, FOOD AND AGRICULTURE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD1986 SCMR 1436 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in an appeal filed by Iftikharullah against the Secretary, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Cooperative, Food and Agriculture Division, Islamabad. The core legal question revolves around whether the failure to supply a copy of the inquiry report and to issue a second show-cause notice vitiates the penalty imposed on a civil servant. The Supreme Court accepted the concession made by the learned Deputy Attorney-General, based on precedent, that the omission to furnish the inquiry report and issue a second show-cause notice renders the penalty unsustainable. Consequently, the Court held that the penalty order must be set aside and directed that the proceedings be resumed from the stage of supplying the inquiry report and affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity to show cause. The key principle laid down is that natural justice requires supplying an inquiry report and issuing a second show-cause notice before imposing a penalty in disciplinary proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether failure to supply a copy of the inquiry report to an employee vitiates the penalty imposed?
- Is the issuance of a second show-cause notice mandatory before imposing a penalty in disciplinary proceedings?
- What is the appropriate relief when a penalty is set aside due to procedural non-compliance in disciplinary actions?
- IFTIKHAR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1562 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-18Read full judgment →
- IFTIKHAR AHMAD vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2412 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-07Read full judgment →
- IFTIKHAR AHMAD vs AMIRUDDIN And Another1986 SCMR 804 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a writ petition challenging an order of the Settlement Commissioner regarding the resumption and re-auction of evacuee property. The core question was whether property purchased by respondent No. 1 via auction, for which full payment was made and a Provisional Transfer Order (P.T.O.) issued, could validly be resumed and re-auctioned to the petitioner. The Settlement Commissioner found that respondent No. 1 had paid the full price and that the department's resumption was based on official malfeasance, noting that resumption notices were neither necessary nor served. Consequently, the re-auction and transfer to the petitioner were declared void and illegal. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that where full payment was made and auction confirmed, resumption proceedings without proper basis or notice are entirely void and illegal. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether evacuee property fully paid for by an auction purchaser can be resumed and re-auctioned due to departmental error or malfeasance?
- Whether resumption proceedings conducted without serving notice on the transferee are void and illegal?
- Whether the High Court correctly dismissed a writ petition challenging a Settlement Commissioner's order that set aside an invalid re-auction of property?
- IFTIKHAR AHMAD And Others vs GHULAM FAROOQ And Other1986 SCMR 1794 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an order of the Additional District Judge, Attock, regarding a pre-emption suit. The core legal dispute arose when the pre-emptor sought to amend his plaint under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to correct the Khasra number of the suit property, which differed from the number stated in the registered sale-deed. The trial court initially allowed the amendment, but the Additional District Judge reversed this, holding that such an amendment was impermissible. The High Court subsequently interfered with this revisional order. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the significant legal question of whether a pre-emptor can seek to amend a plaint to correct a property description (Khasra number) that contradicts the registered sale-deed, or whether such an amendment effectively constitutes an unauthorized judicial correction of the underlying sale-deed itself. The Court recognized that this issue requires deeper examination to determine the limits of permissible amendments in pre-emption litigation.
Questions settled- Can a pre-emptor amend a plaint to correct a Khasra number that differs from the description in the registered sale-deed?
- Does an amendment to correct a property description in a pre-emption suit amount to an unauthorized correction of the sale-deed by the Civil Court?
- IFTIKHAR AHMAD And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1894 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-15Read full judgment →
- IFTIKHAR AHMAD Alias MANNA BUTT vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2690 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-26Read full judgment →
- IFTIKHAR AHM4D vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2406 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-17Read full judgment →
- IDREES AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ KHAN1986 MLD 1519 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-15Read full judgment →
- IDREES AHMAD KHAN vs Mst. NOOR FATIMA1986 MLD 462 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-15Read full judgment →
- IBRAHIM vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1270 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-16Read full judgment →