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.
- IBRAHIM ABDUL REHMAN MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1986 PLD Karachi 351 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-05Read full judgment →
- IBNE MASOOD And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1714 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-12Read full judgment →
- I.D. Jehani vs Central Board Of Revenue And OtherPTCL 1986. CL. 146 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-17Read full judgment →
- I.C.I. PAKISTAN MANUFACTURERS LTD. (POLYESTER WORKS), SHEIKHUPURA vs MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR AHMAD1986 PLC 1133 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- I. D. JEHANI vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS1986 PLD Karachi 23 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-17Read full judgment →
- HYESONS SUGAR MILLS Ltd. vs ASHIQ ALI1986 PLC 301 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-09-20Read full judgment →
- HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE vs KARIM BUX and another through L.Rs,1986 MLD 2979 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-23Read full judgment →
- HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE vs JAWEED MURTAZA KHAN1986 MLD 1410 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-15Read full judgment →
- HYDER Alias SINDHI vs THE STATE and another-1986 P Cr. L J 2524 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-23Read full judgment →
- Hussaini. vs StatePTCL 1986 CL. 156 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-23Read full judgment →
- HUSSAIN vs ALLAH BAKHSH1986 SCMR 1155 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for review against the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 17th June, 1984. The petitioner sought review primarily on the ground that the court erroneously noted in its narration of facts that the original owner had redeemed the mortgage prior to alienation, whereas the actual position was that the equity of redemption had been sold, extinguishing the mortgage. The petitioner argued this inaccuracy might expose him to further litigation and affect his mortgagee rights. The petitioner also raised a new plea regarding the revocation of a gift under section 42 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Supreme Court held that since the pointed inaccuracy in the narration of facts was immaterial to the core decision determining the validity of the sale, it did not constitute an error apparent on the record warranting review. Furthermore, the court held that a new plea not raised during the main appeal or leave granting stage cannot be entertained in review. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does an immaterial inaccuracy in the narration of facts in a judgment constitute an error apparent on the record for the purposes of review?
- Can a new plea not raised during the main appeal or leave granting stage be considered at the review stage?
- Does the dismissal of a sale affect the unadjudicated mortgagee rights of a party when no issue regarding them was raised and determined in the main judgment?
- HUSSAIN SUGAR MILLS Ltd., JARANWALA vs DILDAR AHMAD1986 PLC 1151 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-06-21Read full judgment →
- HUSSAIN NAQI and 2 others vs SPECIAL-JUDGE (CENTRAL), LAHORE and another1986 MLD 1107 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-08Read full judgment →
- HUSSAIN HAIDER BOKHARI vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION1986 PLC 482 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
- HUSSAIN and others vs SALAN MUHAMMAD and others1986 MLD 1566 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-10Read full judgment →
- HUSSAIN ALI vs Messrs NOOR ALI and others1986 MLD 714 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-15Read full judgment →
- HUSSAIN ALI SHAH vs Fir Agha MUHAMMAD HASSAN JAN1986 PLD Rev. 84 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1971-10-06Read full judgment →
- HUSEIN SUGAR MILLS Ltd., JARANWALA vs FAQIR MUHAMMAD1986 PLC 277 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-09-22Read full judgment →
- HUSEIN SUGAR MILLS Ltd. vs Syed-SARFRAZ HUSSAIN SHAH1986 PLC 442 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-14Read full judgment →
- HUMMAYYUN vs FEDERAL SHARIAT COURT, ISLAMABAD1986 SCMR 115 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
- HUMAYUN W. MALIK vs The DISTRICT JUDGE, SOUTH KARACHI and 2 others1986 MLD 1781 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-22Read full judgment →
- HUMAYUN And Others vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1987 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the convictions of the petitioners for murder and causing injuries under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the plea of self-defence is available to an accused party in a situation characterized as a free fight. The trial court and the High Court had concurrently found that the incident involved a free fight between the parties over the possession of government-owned land, during which both sides sustained injuries. The Supreme Court declined to re-appraise the evidence regarding the free fight, finding the lower courts' findings based on cogent evidence. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the plea of self-defence is not available to either party in a case of a free fight. This judgment reinforces the established legal principle that when an incident is determined to be a free fight, the right of private defence cannot be invoked by the participants.
Questions settled- Is the plea of self-defence available to an accused in a case of a free fight?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of an incident as a free fight?
- HUMAYUN AKHTAR vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1986 SCMR 1020 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought a review of a judgment of the Supreme Court passed on a civil petition for leave to appeal, contending that his matter was not properly disposed of without a hearing. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could claim to be a civil servant prior to his induction under the relevant ordinance so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal regarding his suspension. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was not a civil servant at the time of his suspension and its extension, as he had not yet been selected and appointed under the Population Welfare Planning Programme Ordinance 1981, and therefore the Service Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant him relief. The petition for review was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a person claim to be a civil servant prior to selection and appointment under the Population Welfare Planning Programme Ordinance 1981?
- Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a person who was not a civil servant at the relevant time of suspension?
- Does the applicability of Government rules with regard to Efficiency and Discipline automatically confer civil servant status for invoking Service Tribunal jurisdiction?
- HIDAYATULLAH vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN And Another1986 SCMR 803 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a former Sub-Divisional Magistrate, challenged his dismissal from service which had been effected under Martial Law Regulation No. 58 on May 30, 1970. Following the dismissal of his appeal by the Service Tribunal on November 18, 1979, the appellant sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. During the pendency of these proceedings, C.M.L.A. Order No. 3 of 1982 was promulgated on August 30, 1982, which introduced Article 13-A into the Provisional Constitution Order. The core legal question before the Court was the effect of this new constitutional provision on pending litigation challenging actions taken under Martial Law Regulation No. 58. The Supreme Court held that Article 13-A(b) of the Provisional Constitution Order explicitly validated all actions taken under Martial Law Regulation No. 58 and mandated that all pending proceedings challenging such actions must abate immediately. Consequently, the Court ruled that the appellant's appeal stood abated by operation of law upon the promulgation of the C.M.L.A. Order, resulting in the disposal of the matter without further adjudication on the merits.
Questions settled- Does the promulgation of Article 13-A of the Provisional Constitution Order cause the abatement of pending appeals challenging dismissals under Martial Law Regulation No. 58?
- What is the legal effect of Article 13-A(b) of the Provisional Constitution Order on proceedings impugning actions taken under Martial Law Regulation No. 58?
- HIDAYATULLAH AND 21 OTHERS vs NOOR.MUHAMMAD AND 49 OTHERS1986 PLD Quetta 107 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by revenue authorities in a civil suit for declaration and partition of land. The core legal questions involved the legality of rejecting a power-of-attorney, the validity of resorting to substituted service under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in proceedings under Ordinance I of 1968, the computation of limitation for an ex parte order, and whether subsequent proceedings fall when a foundational ex parte order is declared void. The Balochistan High Court held that the Assistant Commissioner was not justified in rejecting the power-of-attorney and that substituted service was improperly ordered without establishing that defendants were avoiding service. Consequently, the ex parte order and all consequential orders, including the final decree, were held to be without lawful authority and set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh proceedings. The key principle laid down is that where a foundational ex parte order is illegal and void, the entire superstructure of subsequent orders built upon it falls to the ground.
Questions settled- Whether an Assistant Commissioner acting under Ordinance I of 1968 has the power to order substituted service under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does a power-of-attorney require attestation by a Magistrate under the law to be admissible in legal proceedings?
- When does limitation commence for filing an appeal against an ex parte order passed without proper service?
- What is the legal effect on subsequent orders and decrees when a foundational ex parte order is declared void or illegal?
- HIDAYAT ALI KHAN vs SHAFQAT ALI KHAN and others1986 P Cr. L J 2688 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-01Read full judgment →
- HEESAB vs ELECTION AUTHORITY, SIND AT KARACHI AND 3 OTHERs1986 PLD Karachi 179 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, challenged an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Appellate Authority restoring the nomination papers of respondent No. 3 for local council elections, which had been initially rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that the respondent was under the age of 25 years. The core legal question concerned the determination of a candidate's age and the evidentiary value of a school certificate, identity card, electoral roll entry, and a radiologist's report in establishing age qualifications for local government elections under the Sind Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the appellate authority's decision was based on relevant considerations and evidence, including a radiologist's report, and that even an erroneous decision by a tribunal acting within its jurisdiction does not render its order without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that entries in electoral rolls regarding age are final only for the right to vote and not for determining eligibility as a candidate, and that a tribunal with jurisdiction is competent to decide a matter rightly or wrongly without rendering its decision without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether the date of birth given in a primary school certificate is conclusive for the purpose of disqualifying a candidate from membership of an elective body on the ground of age?
- Do entries in the electoral roll regarding age possess finality for the purpose of determining the eligibility and requisite age of a candidate to stand for election to a local council?
- Can a decision of a tribunal having jurisdiction to decide a matter be declared without lawful authority merely because the decision is incorrect or erroneous?
- What is the evidentiary value of a radiologist's medical report regarding the proof of age of a candidate in election disputes?
- HAZRAT SHAH vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 361 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-05-25Read full judgment →
- HAZRAT GUL vs AJMAL KHAN And 2 Other1986 SCMR 1529 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal sought the cancellation of bail granted to two respondents by the Lahore High Court in a case involving charges under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The respondents, accused of offenses under sections 10, 11, and 16 of the Ordinance, had initially been refused bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Attock. Subsequently, the High Court granted them bail, reasoning that the respondents had entered into a marriage without external compulsion and that the validity of the alleged Nikah required further evidentiary inquiry, thus bringing their case within the scope of further inquiry. The Supreme Court examined the impugned order to determine if the High Court had exercised its discretion legally. Finding no illegality in the High Court's reasoning regarding the necessity of further inquiry into the marriage's validity, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the grant of bail. The petition was dismissed on the grounds that it lacked merit, affirming the principle that bail may be granted where the prosecution's case requires further investigation.
Questions settled- Does a claim of valid marriage in a Zina case constitute grounds for further inquiry regarding bail?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court order granting bail if no illegality is present?
- HAZOOR BAKHSH SAMEJO vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 71 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-09Read full judgment →
- HAZOOR BAKHSH And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2592 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
- HAZIR HUSSAIN HASHMI vs DIRECTOR, MANPOWER AND TRAINING, LABOUR1986 PLC (C.S.) 213 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-10-12Read full judgment →
- HAYATULLAH vs THE STATE-1986 P C r. L J 2589 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-01-29Read full judgment →
- HAYAT MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 706 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the acquittal or decision of the lower courts in a criminal case involving charges of murder and assault. The core legal question examined by the courts was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through ocular and medical evidence, and how the presence of unexplainable injuries on the person of the accused party affected the prosecution case. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding material contradictions, the absence of independent eye-witnesses, and the failure of the prosecution to explain the numerous injuries sustained by the accused party justified the dismissal of the petition. The key principle laid down is that failure to explain injuries sustained by the accused in the same transaction and reliance on interested witnesses without independent corroboration can fatally weaken the prosecution case.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of the prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused party affects the credibility of the prosecution case?
- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of closely related and interested witnesses without independent corroboration?
- What is the effect of material contradictions regarding the presence of eye-witnesses at the scene of the crime?
- HAYAT MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD AKBAR And Another1986 SCMR 1508 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-02Read full judgment →
- HAYAT MUHAMMAD And OTHERS vs Mst. GULAB BANO And Other1986 SCMR 1539(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment concerning a land inheritance dispute involving the estate of one Maula Bakhsh, who died prior to 1948. The petitioners, collaterals of the deceased, contested the inheritance distribution which had favored the deceased's daughter. The High Court had dismissed the appeal, applying the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983. The Supreme Court examined whether the retrospective operation of the 1983 Ordinance applied to successions occurring before the enforcement of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act, 1948. Relying on the precedent established in Abdul Ghafoor v. Muhammad Shafi (PLD 1985 SC 407), the Court held that the Amending Ordinance of 1983 has complete retrospective effect. Consequently, the deceased is deemed to have inherited the property under Muslim Personal Law, and his own inheritance must be governed by the same law. Finding the High Court's judgment unexceptionable, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the retrospective application of the Ordinance governs successions that occurred during the period when customary law was previously applicable.
Questions settled- Does the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983, have retrospective effect regarding successions occurring prior to the 1948 Act?
- Is the inheritance of a person who died before the enforcement of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act, 1948, governed by Muslim Personal Law by virtue of the 1983 Amendment?
- Hay INAYATULLAH vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD and another1986 MLD 2362 · Board of Revenue · 1986-05-07Read full judgment →
- Havaldar ABDUL SHAKUR vs SHAMA BEGUM Alias SHAMA1986 CLC 2162 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-05Read full judgment →
- Havaldar ABDUL SHAKUR vs SHAMA BEGUM alias SHAMA PARVEEN1986 MLD 861 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-05Read full judgment →
- HASSANUL MURTAZA KHAWAR vs THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Through Secretary Education, Civil Secretariat, Lahore And 3 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 332 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-12-26Read full judgment →
- HASSANI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2679 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-15Read full judgment →
- HASSAN vs THE STATE--Opponent1986 P Cr. L J 1806 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-13Read full judgment →
- HASSAN SHAH vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 225 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-10-12Read full judgment →
- HASSAN DIN and others vs A.C./D.S.C./A.R.C. (LANDS), SHEIKHUPURA and1986 MLD 2071 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- HASSAN ALI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1976 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-26Read full judgment →
- HASSAN ALI vs ABDUL MALIK1986 SCMR 1673 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court which allowed the landlord's appeal and ordered the tenant's eviction from the demised premises on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The core legal question concerns the appreciation of evidence by the High Court regarding the alleged default in rent payment from April to September 1974 and whether the tenant's plea of lump sum payment and subsequent money order warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the arguments advanced by the petitioner merely sought a reappraisal of evidence, and since the High Court's appreciation of evidence was rooted in the record, no interference was justified. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the eviction order.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the concurrent or appellate appreciation of evidence by the High Court when it is rooted in the record?
- Does a plea regarding the mode of rent payment amounting to a request for reappraisal of evidence justify interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
- HASIL And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 720(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-18Read full judgment →
- HASHWANI SALES & SERVICES LIMITED vs KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL1986 PLD Karachi 393 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition called in question the vires of regulations framed by the Karachi Building Authority under section 21-A of the Sind Buildings Control Ordinance, 1979, which prohibited the approval of building plans or reconstruction over plots occupied by tenants unless an agreement for alternate accommodation or mutually agreed compensation was reached between the landlord and tenant, and suspended existing permissions lacking such agreements. The core legal questions involved whether the impugned regulations were ultra vires the powers of the Authority, unreasonable, or impliedly repealed by the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The High Court held that the regulations were ultra vires and of no legal effect because they dealt with a subject outside the scope of the enabling statute—namely, regulating landlord-tenant relations rather than building control—and were unacceptably unreasonable by providing a coercive lever and abdicating discretionary authority. The Court laid down the principle that subordinate legislation cannot impose conditions outside the statutory scope, nor can it create impractical, unfair, or unauthorized restrictions alien to the letter and spirit of the parent legislation.
Questions settled- Whether regulations framed under section 21-A of the Sind Buildings Control Ordinance, 1979, requiring agreements between landlords and tenants before approving building plans, are ultra vires the powers of the Karachi Building Authority?
- Can a statutory authority frame subordinate legislation to regulate the civil relationship between landlords and tenants when the parent statute is confined to building planning, construction, control, and demolition?
- Whether subordinate regulations that fail to provide a mechanism for dispute resolution and enable one party to coerce another are legally unreasonable and void?
- Whether the impugned regulations framed under the Sind Buildings Control Ordinance, 1979, stand impliedly repealed by subsection (4) of section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- HASHMAT ALI vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF And Other1986 SCMR 405 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition challenging a revisional order regarding the payment of court fees in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted within its discretion in granting an extension of time for the plaintiff to make up a deficiency in court fees, particularly when the suit was filed without any initial court fee payment and near the expiry of the limitation period. The Supreme Court, relying on established precedents regarding the discretionary power of courts to grant extensions for court fee deficiencies, held that the trial court and the revisional court had passed legal and appropriate orders. The High Court was correct in refusing to interfere with these orders under its constitutional jurisdiction. The key principle affirmed is that courts possess the discretion to allow the making up of court fee deficiencies, and such procedural exercises of discretion, when legally sound, are not subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a court grant an extension of time for the payment of court fees in a pre-emption suit?
- Is a high court justified in refusing to interfere with a trial court's procedural order regarding court fee deficiency under its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does the filing of a suit on the last day of limitation without initial court fee payment automatically disentitle a plaintiff from seeking an extension to make up the deficiency?
- HASHIM vs Messrs HAMIDA BEGUM and 6 others1986 MLD 270 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-08Read full judgment →
- HASHIM and another vs MURAD1986 MLD 47 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-04Read full judgment →
- HASHAM ALI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) PUNJAB and others1986 MLD 424 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-09Read full judgment →
- HASAN And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2813 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-19Read full judgment →
- HASA And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 430 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-23Read full judgment →
- HAROON vs ABDUL WAHID and 8 others1986 MLD 1370 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-11Read full judgment →
- HAROON KHAN And Another vs THE STATE1986 PCrLJ 2991 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-06Read full judgment →
- HARIR AM vs GOBINDRAM1986 MLD 224 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-10Read full judgment →
- HARAPPA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR1986 PLC 1115 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-05-25Read full judgment →
- HAQ NAWAZ vs GHULAM QASIM1986 MLD 2363 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-10-22Read full judgment →
- HAQ NAWAZ BALOCH vs Messrs KARACHI X-RAYS, KARACHI1986 PLC 530 · Labour Court · 1985-08-12Read full judgment →
- HAQ NAWAZ and another vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1139 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-18Read full judgment →
- HANIF and 2 others vs Mst.MURADAN and 2 others1986 MLD 256 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-05Read full judgment →
- HANIF ALI vs REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PUNJAB LAHORE And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 517 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-05-21Read full judgment →
- HAMID vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS), LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE1986 CLC 2374 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-23Read full judgment →
- HAMID ALI vs Mst. FIZA And OTHER1986 CLC 1809 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
- HAMID ALI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/ COLLECTOR, KABIRWALA And 21986 PLC (C. S.) 454 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-10-29Read full judgment →
- HAMAL And 4 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 157 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-04Read full judgment →
- HALEEM vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1646 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-03Read full judgment →
- HAKU Alias GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE despondent1986 P Cr. L J 2889 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-16Read full judgment →
- HAKIMUDDIN vs Mst. AMTUL MATEEN1986 MLD 1255 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-07Read full judgment →
- HAKIMSONS CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES (PRIVATE) LTD. vs HAKIMSONS GROUP1986 PLC 1040 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-11Read full judgment →
- Hakim SHAHAB DIN vs ABDUL MAJID And Other1986 SCMR 400 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a tenant's petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld an eviction order passed by the Additional District Judge. The landlord sought eviction of the commercial premises on the ground of personal use for his son. The core legal question was whether the premises constituted a 'scheduled building' providing extra protection against eviction under rent laws, and whether findings of fact by a rent forum can be reviewed in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that findings of fact by an exclusive statutory forum are not reviewable in constitutional jurisdiction, and furthermore, that the law provides identical grounds for eviction for non-residential and scheduled buildings, offering no extra protection to tenants of scheduled buildings regarding personal use eviction. The key principle laid down is that the statutory provisions for eviction on the ground of personal use apply equally to non-residential and scheduled buildings without distinction.
Questions settled- Are findings of fact determined by a statutory forum of exclusive jurisdiction reviewable in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Does the law extend any extra protection or distinction to the tenant of a 'scheduled building' in the matter of eviction on the ground of personal use compared to a non-residential building?
- Can a tenant raise a plea regarding the nature of the premises as a scheduled building during evidence when no such plea was taken in the written statement?
- Hakim MUHAMMAD ISMAIL HABIB And Others vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT1986 SCMR 603 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a property dispute concerning the transfer of a flat under settlement laws. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner’s order, which transferred the entire flat to respondent No. 2 following a remand, was legal and proper, particularly given the petitioner's argument that the Commissioner failed to consider the possibility of partitioning the property. The Supreme Court examined the impugned order and found that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had explicitly addressed the issue of divisibility, recording a clear finding that the flat was self-contained and indivisible. Consequently, the Court held that the criticism leveled by the petitioners was unjustified and that the Commissioner had acted within his authority. The Court affirmed the decision, concluding that no valid grounds for judicial interference existed, as the lower authority had properly applied its mind to the specific directions given during the remand. The judgment reinforces the principle that administrative findings of fact, such as the indivisibility of a property unit, are not subject to interference when supported by the record.
Questions settled- Whether an order transferring an entire property unit is legal if the authority has recorded a finding that the unit is indivisible?
- Does a failure to consider partitioning a property invalidate a settlement order if the property is found to be self-contained and indivisible?
- Hakim MUHAMMAD AHMAD Through LEGAL HEIRS vs KHUSHI MUHAMMAD1986 CLC 2827 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-27Read full judgment →
- Hakim MOHSIN AHMAD ABBASI vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ And Another1986 SCMR 936 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition concerning the ownership of a "Chaubara" (upper room) situated above Shop No. 442. The core legal question was whether this Chaubara, having been transferred to the appellant’s predecessor-in-interest, could subsequently be auctioned by settlement authorities as "available property." The Supreme Court held that the Chaubara constituted a single, indivisible unit that had already been validly transferred to the appellant. The Court found that the property was not "available" for auction, as it lacked a separate entrance and had not been partitioned into distinct units. Consequently, the High Court’s finding that the structure comprised two separate parts was deemed unsustainable. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ruling that once a property is transferred, it cannot be treated as available for auction by settlement authorities. The judgment establishes that administrative authorities cannot unilaterally auction property already subject to a valid transfer order without proper legal cancellation, and that the physical characteristics of a property, such as the lack of a separate entrance, are critical in determining its status as a single unit.
Questions settled- Can property that has already been transferred to a party be subsequently auctioned as 'available property' by settlement authorities?
- Does a structure lacking a separate entrance and not partitioned constitute a single, indivisible unit for the purpose of property transfer?
- Is a finding by a High Court regarding the divisibility of a property sustainable if it contradicts the established transfer history of the unit?
- HAKIM KHAN and 4 others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1816 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-06Read full judgment →
- HAKIM FARZAND ALI vs Syed ZAFAR AHMAD SHAH1986 MLD 2102 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-03Read full judgment →
- HAKIM ALI vs SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE And ANOTHER1986 CLC 598 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-17Read full judgment →
- HAKIM ALI vs LYALLPUR COTTON MILLS, FAISALABAD1986 PLC 332 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
- HAKIM ALI vs ABDUL LATIF and 2 others1986 MLD 2685 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-01Read full judgment →
- HAKIM ALI BHATTI vs Qazi ABDUL HAKIM And OTHER1986 CLC 1784 · Election Tribunal · 1985-06-28Read full judgment →
- HAKIM ALI And 9 Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 908 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-18Read full judgment →
- Hakim ABDUR RAHIM KHAN AND OTHERS vs WEST PAKISTAN GOVERNMENT THROUGH THE SECRETARY, RESETTLEMENT AND CLAIMS, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Supreme Court 96 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals regarding land acquisition under the Thal Development Act, 1949. The core legal questions were whether the Thal Development (Validating) Ordinance, 1971, extinguished the vested rights of small landholders to retain land under Section 21(2) of the Act (as amended in 1955), and whether government-issued Press Notes possessed statutory force. The Supreme Court held that the Validating Ordinance was intended to cure procedural defects in prior acquisitions but did not nullify the substantive vested rights conferred upon small landholders (those owning less than 15 acres) by the 1955 amendment. Consequently, the authorities were obligated to give effect to these statutory exemptions. The Court further affirmed that Press Notes, lacking statutory force, could not override or create enforceable legal rights contrary to the Act. The key principle laid down is that while validating legislation may retrospectively cure procedural irregularities in acquisitions, it does not extinguish substantive vested rights created by subsequent statutory amendments unless explicitly stated. The Court allowed the appeals, directing the respondents to recognize the appellants' entitlements.
Questions settled- Does the Thal Development (Validating) Ordinance, 1971, extinguish the vested rights of small landholders to retain land under Section 21(2) of the Thal Development Act, 1949?
- Do government-issued Press Notes regarding land acquisition possess statutory force?
- Does the Thal Development (Validating) Ordinance, 1971, validate illegal acquisitions made prior to the Thal Development (Amendment) Act, 1955, without affecting rights created by the amendment?
- Hakim ABDUL LATIF vs ABDUL FAZAL ABDUL HANNAN1986 MLD 2975 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-30Read full judgment →
- HAKAM ALI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 700(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-20Read full judgment →
- HAKAM ALI vs BAGGA And Others1986 PCr. L J 1797(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-23Read full judgment →
- Hajiani SHER BANO And Others vs Mst. KHATIJA BAI1986 SCMR 327 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of tenants' objections to the execution of an eviction order. The tenants were ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller on the ground of reconstruction, and the eviction order attained finality after the High Court dismissed the tenants' appeal. Subsequently, the tenants objected to the execution of the eviction order, relying on a public notification issued by the Karachi Building Control Authority under the Sind Building Control Ordinance, 1979, which suspended certain building plan permissions lacking agreements for alternate accommodation. The Rent Controller and the High Court both dismissed the objections. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that subsequent administrative regulations or notifications cannot operate retrospectively to undermine or render inexecutable a final judicial adjudication and vested rights accrued thereunder.
Questions settled- Whether subsequent administrative regulations can render a final eviction order passed by a competent court inexecutable?
- Can building control regulations operate retrospectively to affect past and closed transactions and final adjudications?
- Does a public notification suspending building plan permissions erase or override an order of eviction that has attained finality?
- Haji WALI MUHAMMAD vs GHOUS BAKHSH And 2 Others1986 P C r. L J 1982 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-05Read full judgment →
- HAJI vs MAQSOODUL HAQ And 7 Others1986 P Cr. L J 1814 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-08Read full judgment →
- Haji USMANPeti tioner vs SALAH1986 PLD Rev. 136 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1971-01-04Read full judgment →
- Haji SARDAR KHAN vs SULTAN MAHMOOD And Other1986 SCMR 1150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Leave to appeal was granted to the complainant to examine the correctness of an acquittal judgment passed by the Lahore High Court in a murder case. The complainant and the deceased were allegedly attacked by the respondents due to a prior employment dispute and enmity. The trial court had convicted the accused under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but the High Court reversed the conviction and recorded an acquittal after re-appraising the evidence concerning motive, the exact time of occurrence based on stomach contents and solar position, and the credibility of eye-witnesses. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the main accused died in a police encounter, causing the appeal to abate as to him. Upon reviewing the remaining case against the co-accused, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings and reasons for acquittal were not unreasonable, manifestly wrong, or violative of established legal principles governing interference with acquittals. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the surviving respondent was ordered to be released.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal judgment of the High Court if the reasons given are not unreasonable or manifestly wrong?
- Can the contents of the stomach alone be considered a safe pointer to determine the exact time of death or occurrence?
- What is the effect on a criminal appeal when the main accused is killed during the pendency of the proceedings?
- Whether inconsistencies and improvements in the statements of eye-witnesses are sufficient to cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
- Haji SAID KHAN vs AYA KHAN And Another1986 SCMR 356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the lower courts which decreed a pre-emption suit in favor of the respondents. The core legal question was whether the respondents qualified as co-sharers in Khata No. 295 so as to possess a preferential right of pre-emption regarding the sale of specific Khasra numbers. The Supreme Court held that the respondents were indeed co-sharers, noting that a prior partition between predecessors-in-interest did not exclude joint ownership rights because the vendees of Hissadari shares had stepped into the shoes of the previous owner. The Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal of the appellant's appeal. The key principle laid down is that purchasers of Hissadari shares acquire proprietary interests in a joint khata, preventing a prior partition from rendering another owner an exclusive owner so as to defeat co-sharer status for pre-emption purposes.
Questions settled- Whether vendees of Hissadari shares step into the shoes of a co-sharer in a joint khata?
- Does a Khangi partition make an owner an exclusive owner if prior sales of Hissadari rights subsist?
- Do co-sharers have a preferential right to pre-empt the sale of land in a joint khata?
- Haji RAJAN ALI vs SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT JAIL, QUETTA and another---s1986 P Cr. L J 2928 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-08-09Read full judgment →
- Haji PUNHOON vs PROVINCE OF SIND And Other1986 SCMR 349 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment dismissing a suit as not maintainable. The petitioner sought a declaration that the transfer of an evacuee plot to the respondent was illegal, claiming fraud. The core legal question was whether the petitioner possessed the necessary locus standi to challenge the transfer under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, despite having no subsisting interest in the property. The Supreme Court held that the suit was correctly dismissed. The Court affirmed that a plaintiff seeking a declaratory decree must demonstrate a valid and subsisting interest in the subject property. It established the principle that a mere desire to bid for property at a future auction, contingent upon the cancellation of an existing transfer, does not constitute a vested right or legal character within the purview of Section 42. Consequently, without a subsisting legal right or interest, the petitioner lacked the standing to maintain the suit, and the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a person have locus standi to challenge the transfer of an evacuee property if their own application for transfer was previously rejected?
- Can a mere desire to bid for property at a future auction constitute a vested right sufficient to maintain a suit for declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
- Is a plaintiff required to possess a valid and subsisting interest in property to seek a declaration regarding its transfer?
- Haji NOOR MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI1986 CLC 2212 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-21Read full judgment →
- Haji NAZIR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI And Other1986 SCMR 1817 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns four petitions for quashment of proceedings that have been pending before the Supreme Court of Pakistan for four years. The petitioner's counsel requested an adjournment to obtain fresh instructions from the clients, citing a lack of contact over a significant period. The Court addressed the core question of whether an adjournment should be granted in a long-standing matter where the petitioner has failed to maintain communication with their legal representative. The Court held that no sufficient justification was provided for the delay in seeking instructions. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution. The Court established the principle that while petitions may be dismissed for non-prosecution due to a lack of diligence or communication, a mechanism for revival remains available. Specifically, the Court ruled that if the Advocate-on-Record subsequently establishes contact with the clients and determines that the subject matter of the petitions remains live and actionable, they may file an application for the revival of the dismissed petitions. The matter was disposed of accordingly.
Questions settled- Can a petition be dismissed for non-prosecution when counsel fails to obtain instructions from the client?
- Is it permissible to revive a petition previously dismissed for non-prosecution if the subject matter remains alive?
- Haji NAZIR AHMAD And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1091 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-17Read full judgment →
- Haji NANNA Y KHAN vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM MUJAHID and others1986 MLD 2253 · Election Tribunal · 1986-01-06Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs FAZALUR RAHMAN AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Peshawar 147 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-04-05Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs Sh. MUHAMMAD ANWAR SAEED And Other1986 SCMR 1603 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by Haji Muhammad Sharif against a High Court judgment that dismissed his writ petition challenging an Election Tribunal's order. The petitioner, who had won the election for Electoral Unit No. 70-LMC, faced an election petition filed by the respondent alleging illegalities and irregularities. The Election Tribunal accepted the respondent's petition, and the High Court subsequently upheld this decision after reviewing the evidence. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner sought a re-appraisal of the evidence already considered by the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner essentially requested a factual re-evaluation, which had already been conducted by the High Court. Affirming the finality of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below, the Supreme Court declined to re-examine the evidence. The petition was dismissed on the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the absence of a substantial question of law not previously settled.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence that has already been considered by the Election Tribunal and the High Court?
- Can a petitioner seek leave to appeal on grounds that merely request a re-evaluation of factual findings?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts in election matters?