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.
- Haji MUHAMMAD SHAHBAN vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2929 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-24Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD SHAFI And Another vs Mst. MAQBOOL AFZA And Other1986 SCMR 1634 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-16Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER And Other1986 SCMR 197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition filed against a resolution passed by a Union Council approving a no-confidence motion against the petitioner as Chairman. The core legal questions involved whether the holding of the special meeting at a later time on the same day vitiated the proceedings and whether the petitioner was unlawfully deprived of his right to address the members under relevant rules. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's view was unexceptionable, noting that the requisite two-thirds majority voted for the motion and that the petitioner, having been present outside the venue, wilfully refrained from participating in the meeting. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a petitioner who wilfully refrains from participating in a properly convened meeting cannot subsequently challenge the validity of the proceedings or claim prejudice based on timing or alleged denial of the right to address the house.
Questions settled- Does holding a special meeting for a no-confidence motion at a later time on the same day vitiate the resolution when the requisite majority votes in favor?
- Can a Chairman who wilfully refrains from participating in a no-confidence meeting claim that he was deprived of his right to address the members?
- Whether the High Court can inquire into disputed questions of fact regarding attendance and participation in a local council meeting under writ jurisdiction?
- Haji MUHAMMAD RAMZAN SAIFI vs Mian ABDUL MAJID AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 129 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that remanded a civil suit to the trial court. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly invoked Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to close the plaintiff's evidence and dismiss the suit for failure to produce evidence on the adjourned date. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. are only applicable when an adjournment is granted at the specific instance of the party seeking time to perform an act, such as producing evidence. In this case, the adjournment was necessitated by the absence of the Presiding Officer on leave, not by the plaintiff's request. Consequently, the trial court erred in penalizing the plaintiff under Rule 3. The Court reaffirmed the established principle that Rule 3 cannot be invoked unless the default in performing the required act occurs following an adjournment specifically granted at the defaulting party's instance. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Does Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply when an adjournment is granted due to the absence of the Presiding Officer rather than at the request of a party?
- Is it a prerequisite for the application of Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 that the adjournment must have been granted at the instance of the party who subsequently defaults?
- Can a court penalize a party for failing to produce evidence on a date when the adjournment was necessitated by the court's own administrative circumstances?
- Haji MUHAMMAD RAMZAN And 3 Others vs The STATE1986 SCMR 52 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-24Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD MOOSA And ANOTHER vs PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN1986 CLC 2951 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-07-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges a judgment of the Majlis-e-Shoora setting aside a trial court decree and remanding the case for recording proceedings on merits. The core legal question was whether a trial court can decree a suit under Order VIII, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code without recording evidence, applying judicial mind, or providing reasons, and whether limitation bars an appeal against a null and void decree. The Balochistan High Court held that a trial court acting under Order VIII, Rule 10 must exercise its discretion judicially, satisfy its judicial conscience, and pass a reasoned judgment on the merits rather than decreeing a claim arbitrarily without evidence. The Court laid down that a judgment based on no evidence whatsoever is illegal and a nullity in the eyes of law, against which the bar of limitation does not operate, and that revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code will not be exercised to perpetuate an illegality or set aside a remand order that advances substantial justice on merits.
Questions settled- Can a trial court decree a suit under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without recording evidence or assigning reasons?
- Whether a judgment passed without considering the merits of the case is a nullity in the eyes of law?
- Does the bar of limitation apply to an appeal filed against a judgment and decree that is a nullity?
- Can revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be invoked to interfere with an appellate remand order that facilitates adjudication on merits?
- Haji MUHAMMAD ISMAIL And Others vs WADHO AKHARO TRUST1986 SCMR 1672 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court dated 10-12-1984, which dismissed a revision application filed by the petitioners and upheld the concurrent judgments and decrees of the trial court and the District Judge, Thatta. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court erred in refusing to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under the law. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that no exception, either in law or on facts, could be taken against the High Court's refusal to interfere with the concurrent findings through its revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of subordinate courts upheld in revision by the High Court unless a clear error of law or fact warrants the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the concurrent findings of lower courts upheld by the High Court in revision?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be maintained against a High Court's refusal to exercise revisional jurisdiction when no error of law or fact is shown?
- Haji MUHAMMAD HASSAN and 2 others vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND and 61986 MLD 214 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-19Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD DIN vs Mst. SHAKILA BEGUM And Other1986 SCMR 1076 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court dated 5 November 1984, which reversed the Rent Controller's order and ordered the petitioner's eviction from the demised shop on the ground of personal requirement. The core legal question concerned whether the landlord established a bona fide personal requirement for the shop in question to carry on business. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings of fact regarding the personal requirement of the respondent landlord were based on a proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any legal infirmity. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact by the appellate court regarding bona fide personal requirement, when consistent with well-settled principles of evidence appreciation, warrant no interference by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Rent Controller's findings regarding personal requirement?
- Does a landlord establish a bona fide personal use requirement when seeking to set up a grocery business for a major son previously earning a livelihood on a pushcart?
- When will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent or appellate findings of fact in rent matters?
- Haji MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1442 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD ASGHAR vs Malik SHAH MUHAMMAD AWAN AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Supreme Court 542 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under section 7(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1976 arose from an order of the Election Tribunal dismissing an application for review of a consent order directing a recount of votes in an election petition. The appellant, a declared successful candidate, challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction to order a recount and to entertain a review under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The core legal questions involved the scope of the Election Tribunal's powers to order a recount, the effect of party consent on jurisdiction, and whether the power to try a suit as a civil court includes an inherent power of review. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a party who freely consents to a procedure or agreement before a tribunal cannot subsequently approbate and reprobate by challenging that jurisdiction while enjoying its benefits. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the power of review is not a necessary adjunct of trial powers and cannot be implied merely from provisions conferring civil court powers unless expressly provided.
Questions settled- Can a party who freely consents to a procedure before an Election Tribunal subsequently challenge its jurisdiction?
- Does the power of a tribunal to act as a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure include an inherent power of review?
- Whether an Election Tribunal possesses the jurisdiction to order a recount of votes in appropriate cases?
- Haji MUHAMMAD AMIN And 3 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 311 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-05Read full judgment →
- Haji MOOSA vs PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICER, HOUSING AUTHORITY1986 MLD 83 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-05Read full judgment →
- Haji MEHR KHAN And Others vs INAYAT RASOOL And Others1986 P Cr. L J 2811 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-14Read full judgment →
- Haji MAHBOOB ELAHI vs THE CHAIRMAN, WAPDA And 2 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 431 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-26Read full judgment →
- Haji KHUDA BAKHSH vs MUHAMMAD HASAN JAFRI AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Rev. 143 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1970-12-29Read full judgment →
- Haji KARAMAT HUSSAIN vs NAIK KHAN MUHAMMAD1986 CLC 6 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 arose from a suit for money recovery wherein an ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner. The respondent had filed the suit in Quetta based on an agreement executed at Rawalpindi, serving notice via newspaper publication in Quetta while the petitioner resided in England. The petitioner's application to set aside the ex parte decree was dismissed by the trial court and confirmed on appeal. The High Court addressed two core issues: whether substituted service under Order V Rule 20 was validly ordered without attempting ordinary service, and whether the Quetta court possessed territorial jurisdiction when the agreement was executed in Rawalpindi and the only local nexus was a demand letter sent from Quetta. The High Court held that substituted service ordered without exhausting primary modes is void, and actual knowledge of the suit does not cure defective service. Furthermore, sending a demand letter does not constitute part of the cause of action. The decree was declared coram non judice, the orders were set aside, and the plaint was ordered to be returned.
Questions settled- Whether substituted service under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be validly ordered without first exhausting ordinary modes of service?
- Does a defendant's knowledge of the institution of a suit obtained aliunde dispense with the requirement of proper service of summons under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the issuance of a demand letter from a particular location constitute a part of the cause of action to confer territorial jurisdiction on a court?
- HAJI HAMAL And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1121 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-12-16Read full judgment →
- Haji GHULAM YASIN And 2 Other vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1986 PLC (C.S.) 265 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-06-12Read full judgment →
- Haji GHULAM SARWAR BHATTI vs CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COUNCIL, FAISALABAD1986 PLC 1094 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Haji GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD BACHAL1986 PLD Rev. 22 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1980-04-05Read full judgment →
- Haji DHER WALI And Others vs Haji AHMAD DIN And Other1986 SCMR 771 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over three shops in Kohat, classified as evacuee property, which were subject to protracted litigation regarding their disposal via auction or settlement. The petitioners challenged the High Court's decision, which had allowed writ petitions filed by occupants who had submitted L.S. Forms under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The petitioners argued that the property was not available under the Scheme and that a prior Settlement Commissioner's order directing an auction had become final. The Supreme Court examined whether the petitioners, as potential bidders, possessed the standing to challenge the rights of occupants who had acquired a vested interest under the Settlement Scheme. The Court held that a potential bidder lacks the standing to compete with a person who has acquired a vested legal right under Settlement Scheme No. VIII, nor can they compel authorities to auction the property. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that the petitioners had no locus standi to contest the occupants' claims, and dismissed the petitions for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does a potential bidder in an auction of evacuee property have the locus standi to challenge the rights of an occupant who has filed a claim under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
- Can a potential bidder compel the Settlement authorities to auction property when another party has acquired a vested right under a Settlement Scheme?
- Does an order for auction of evacuee property that remains unimplemented prevent occupants from subsequently filing forms under a later Settlement Scheme?
- Haji DAD KHAN vs ABDUL RAHIM AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Quetta 93 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-09Read full judgment →
- Haji BANARIS KHAN And Others vs CENTRAL Governmentthrough Secretary, Defence And Military Estate Officer And Another1986 SCMR 1805 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan challenges an order of the Peshawar High Court dated 24-2-1986, whereby the High Court confirmed an interim stay of execution granted in favor of the Central Government against a land acquisition compensation decree. The core legal question concerned the propriety of staying the execution of a money decree for enhanced land compensation against the Government pending appeal. The Supreme Court held that the reasons given by the High Court for staying execution were sound, noting that substantial loss might be caused to the Government, that no difficulty would arise in recovering the amount from the Government if the appeal failed, and that under Order XXVII Rule 8-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, security could not be required from the Government. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether execution of a decree for enhanced land compensation can be stayed against the Government pending appeal?
- Is the Government required to furnish security under Order XLI Rules 5 and 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when seeking a stay of execution?
- Does an objection petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act accompanied by an application under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 constitute a valid reference to the designated court?
- Haji BAKHTIAR SAID MUHAMMAD vs Mst. DURE-E-SHAHWAR AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Federal Shariat Court 187 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- HAJI AND OTHERS vs Maulana MUHAMMAD ILYAS RAJPUR AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Rev. 10 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1977-11-02Read full judgment →
- HAJI AND 5 OTHERS vs LAKHANO AND 4 OTHERS1986 PLD Rev. 149 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1975-10-16Read full judgment →
- Haji AMANAT ALI vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1419 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-02Read full judgment →
- Haji ALLAH DITTA and another vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2821 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-06Read full judgment →
- Haji ALLAH DEW AYA vs SHATAB SHAH1986 CLC 2779 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-07Read full judgment →
- Haji ALLAH DAD vs THE LAHORE CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK Ltd. And Other1986 SCMR 1552 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from a second appeal judgment passed by the High Court, which decreed a recovery suit filed by the respondent Bank against the petitioner for an outstanding loan. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court erred in law in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact of the lower courts regarding the hypothecation of goods and whether subsequent payments made through Martial Law processes could be adjusted during the trial rather than the execution stage. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly interfered with the lower courts' findings due to their misreading and omission of evidence, and that the question of subsequent adjustment of payments is a matter to be raised before the executing court. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that trial courts are concerned with fixing liability while execution stages handle subsequent adjustments.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact of lower courts in a second appeal when there is a misreading of evidence?
- At what stage can a judgment debtor seek adjustment of payments made subsequent to the decree?
- Is a bank required to give adjustment for hypothecated goods taken away by the debtor himself?
- Haji ALI MUHAMMAD vs MOHAN LAL1986 SCMR 282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court, which set aside an eviction order granted by a Rent Controller. The petitioner had sought to evict the respondent from demised premises on the grounds of bona fide personal use. The Rent Controller initially ruled in favor of the petitioner; however, the High Court overturned this decision, determining that the premises in question constituted a hotel, thereby rendering the provisions of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 inapplicable to the eviction proceedings. The core legal question presented to the Supreme Court involves whether eviction proceedings initiated under the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, can validly continue following the repeal of that Ordinance by the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, specifically regarding hotel premises. Recognizing that this legal issue affects a significant number of cases, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and directed that the matter be heard by a larger Bench of four judges to provide an authoritative interpretation of the law.
Questions settled- Can eviction proceedings initiated under the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 continue after its repeal by the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Does the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 apply to premises classified as a hotel?
- Haji ALI BUX vs IMAM BUX And Other1986 SCMR 1391 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court granting pre-arrest bail to the respondents in a murder case. The respondents had previously been denied pre-arrest bail by the High Court, a decision which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court. Despite this, the respondents filed a fresh application for pre-arrest bail in the High Court, which was granted. The complainant challenged this second grant of bail. The Supreme Court held that once an application for pre-arrest bail has been dismissed by the High Court and that order has been upheld by the Supreme Court, the accused cannot file a fresh application for pre-arrest bail in the High Court. The court ruled that the appropriate remedy for the accused is to surrender before the trial court and seek bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, cancelled the bail granted to the respondents, and directed them to approach the trial court for bail on merits.
Questions settled- Can an accused file a fresh application for pre-arrest bail in the High Court after a previous application for the same relief has been dismissed and upheld by the Supreme Court?
- Is it permissible for an accused to seek pre-arrest bail from the High Court after the case has been transferred to a trial court?
- What is the appropriate legal course for an accused whose pre-arrest bail application has been dismissed by the High Court and the Supreme Court?
- Haji ABDUL REHMAN And 2 Others vs THE STATE and another1986 P Cr. L J 2602 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-20Read full judgment →
- Haji ABDUL AZIZ NIZAMI vs Mst. ATTIA BEGUM AND 3 OTHERS1986 PLD Lahore 214 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-23Read full judgment →
- HAIDERI INTERNATIONAL FINANCE LTD. vs THE STATE BANK1986 CLC 2197 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-08Read full judgment →
- HAIDER vs RAJA and others1986 MLD 2044 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-11Read full judgment →
- HAIDER ALI And Others vs AZMAT And OTHER1986 CLC 2462 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-13Read full judgment →
- HAIDER ALI and 9 others vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KARACHI and 3 others1986 MLD 2650 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-07Read full judgment →
- HAIDAYAT MASIH And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 773 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-02Read full judgment →
- HAFIZUR REHMAN vs J.M. SOKLYN1986 MLD 1299 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-14Read full judgment →
- Hafiz NIAMAT and 4 others vs THE ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF and 2 others1986 M L D1738 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-24Read full judgment →
- Hafiz MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Through Secretary Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 315 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
- Hafiz MUHAMMAD FAZAL and others vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1986 MLD 2084 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-12Read full judgment →
- Hafiz MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs WALAYAT SHAH1986 CLC 2327 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-14Read full judgment →
- Hafiz MUHAMMAD AMIN vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAHIM YAR KHAN And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 500 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Hafiz IMDADULLAH vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1671 (2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-04Read 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 declined to grant bail to the petitioner pending his trial for an offense under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's refusal to grant bail was legally justified or factually erroneous given the circumstances of the case. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no legal or factual basis to interfere with the High Court's decision. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, thereby upholding the lower court's order denying bail. The judgment affirms the principle that appellate courts will not disturb a lower court's discretionary order regarding bail unless there is a demonstrable error in law or fact.
Questions settled- Is the Supreme Court required to interfere with a High Court order denying bail if no legal or factual error is found?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed if the High Court's reasoning for denying bail is sound?
- Hafiz HAJI MUHAMMAD vs THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DERA GHAZI KHAN1986 P Cr. L J 2167 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-12Read full judgment →
- Hafiz GHULAM NOOR And Another vs THE STATE and another-1986 P Cr. L J 2062 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-06Read full judgment →
- HAFEEZUR REHMAN And 3 Other vs KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION And Another1986 PLC 247 · Labour Court · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →
- HAFEEZULLAH CHEEMA vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, MORAFCO INDUSTRIES LTD., FAISALABAD1986 PLC 361 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-01-04Read full judgment →
- HADIS MUHAMMAD And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 664 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-22Read full judgment →
- HABIBUR REHMAN vs LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BALUCHISTAN--And 41986 PLC 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-10-21Read full judgment →
- HABIBULLAH vs ALI MUHAMMAD1986 CLC 1227 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-03Read full judgment →
- HABIBULLAH vs AHSAN ALI And Other1986 SCMR 1033 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition regarding the transfer of composite property in Sukkur City under settlement laws. The core legal questions concerned whether the appellant’s appeal against the auction of the property was time-barred, whether the appellant had prior knowledge of the auction, and whether the property was transferable under the relevant Settlement Schemes. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Settlement Commissioner's findings. The Court held that the appellant had prior knowledge of the auction, as evidenced by his application for charge money, rendering his subsequent appeal time-barred. Furthermore, the Court determined that the property did not qualify for transfer under the invoked Settlement Schemes, as the appellant failed to establish the necessary criteria for such transfer. The Court reiterated the principle of the presumption of regularity for official acts, noting that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that notices were properly served by authorities. Additionally, the Court affirmed that eligibility for property transfer under specific settlement schemes is strictly construed based on the defined nature of the property.
Questions settled- Does the presumption of regularity apply to the service of notices issued by settlement authorities in the absence of contrary evidence?
- Can an appeal against an auction be entertained if the appellant had prior knowledge of the auction and failed to file within the limitation period?
- Does a property qualify for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VI if it was not completely destroyed by natural calamity?
- Is a party entitled to the transfer of property under Settlement Scheme No. I if they fail to establish the expenditure incurred on reconstruction?
- HABIBULLAH KHAN vs THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL And Other1986 SCMR 299 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld an Election Tribunal's order annuling the petitioner's election success. The petitioner, an employee of a government-owned statutory corporation, contested and won an election for a worker's special interest seat in the Municipal Committee, Dera Ghazi Khan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was disqualified from contesting the election under the relevant local government laws. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was indeed disqualified under section 21(f) and section 21(e) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, as he fell within the excluded category of workers employed by a statutory corporation controlled by the government, regardless of the broader definition of worker under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, establishing the principle that statutory disqualifications for government and corporate employees under local government laws supersede general definitions of workers.
Questions settled- Whether an employee of a government-controlled statutory corporation is disqualified from contesting local government elections for a worker's seat?
- Does the definition of worker under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 override specific disqualifications provided in the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- Is an employee transferred outside the constituency ineligible to contest a special interest worker seat for that constituency?
- HABIBULLAH KHAN LOHANI vs COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 261 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-06-09Read full judgment →
- HABIBULLAH And Others vs Mst. AZIZ BIB11986 CLC 2126 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two consolidated suits concerning the validity of a 1964 sale deed executed by the deceased predecessor-in-interest of the appellants in favour of his wife, the respondent. The appellants challenged the deed as fraudulent and void, while the respondent sought a declaration of ownership and protection of her possession. The trial and appellate courts concurrently dismissed the appellants' suit and decreed the respondent's suit. The core legal questions concerned whether the judgment met procedural requirements, whether the suit was time-barred, and whether the respondent’s suit was maintainable under the Specific Relief Act. The Court held that the concurrent findings were sound, noting that the appellants failed to prove the invalidity of the sale deed. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a suit for the cancellation of a document is governed by Article 91 of the Limitation Act, and since the deceased had knowledge of the transaction for thirteen years, the suit was time-barred. The Court also held that the respondent’s suit was maintainable as she was in possession of the property.
Questions settled- Does a failure to frame a specific issue on undue influence invalidate a judgment if the pleadings and evidence sufficiently cover the matter?
- Is a suit for the cancellation of a sale deed governed by Article 91 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can a party maintain a suit for declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 if they are in possession of the property?
- Does the dismissal of a suit challenging a sale deed automatically entitle the defendant to a decree in their own suit for declaration of ownership regarding the same property?
- HABIBULLAH AND 4 OTHERS vs SAKHI MUHAMMAD1986 PLD Lahore 128 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arose from a suit for possession of land where the respondent claimed a share in an inheritance as the son of a pre-deceased individual. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the respondent’s paternity unproven. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, relying on a birth entry and surrounding circumstances to establish paternity. The petitioners challenged this reversal in the High Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, could interfere with a finding of fact regarding paternity determined by the appellate court. The High Court held that paternity is a question of pure fact, and the appellate court’s finding, based on evidence, is not subject to interference in revision absent jurisdictional errors like misreading or non-reading of evidence. Furthermore, the court emphasized the principle under Muslim Law that courts should avoid stigmatizing a child as illegitimate, preferring to make every presumption in favor of legitimacy when circumstances permit. Consequently, the revision was dismissed, as substantial justice had been achieved.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere in a revision with a finding of fact regarding paternity?
- Are statements made by witnesses in a previous proceeding binding as admissions under the Evidence Act?
- What is the judicial approach under Muslim Law regarding the presumption of legitimacy of a child?
- Is revisional jurisdiction discretionary when substantial justice has been achieved?
- HABIBULLAH AKHTAR and another vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD1986 MLD 704 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-08Read full judgment →
- HABIB SUGAR MILLS Ltd. vs PATTOKI SUGAR MILLS Ltd. and others1986 MLD 658 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-06Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LTD. vs ZAFAR ALI1986 PLD Lahore 42 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-05Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LTD. vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL And Others1986 PLC 1060 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-14Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK Ltd. vs ORIENTAL TEXTILE MILLS Ltd. and 4 others1986 MLD 43 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-21Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK Ltd. vs MUSSARAT ALI KHAN1986 MLD 360 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-15Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK Ltd. vs MODERN SANITARYWARES and 2 others1986 MLD 271 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-10Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK Ltd. vs Messrs EL-ARIL INTERNATIONAL (PAKISTAN) Ltd. and 41986 MLD 1531 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-22Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LTD. vs ARK OCEAN LINES LTD1986 MLD 1415 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-26Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LTD. vs AMANULLAH1986 CLC 2917 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an order of the Rent Controller striking off the defense of the appellant tenant and ordering ejectment for alleged non-compliance with a tentative rent deposit order under section 13(6) of the Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The core legal question was whether a technical error, bona fide mistake, or inadvertent omission in depositing rent directly into the landlord's bank account or misstating months in a treasury challan constitutes a 'default' warranting the penal consequence of striking off defense and eviction. The Balochistan High Court held that the term 'default' under the Ordinance imports an element of gross negligence, wilful avoidance, or dishonest withholding, rather than casual omissions, clerical errors, or technical deviations. Setting aside the ejectment order, the Court laid down the principle that an ambiguous rent deposit order or a technical slip unaccompanied by deliberate or intentional non-performance does not amount to a wilful default, and rent laws must be construed to prevent manifest injustice rather than penalize procedural oversights.
Questions settled- Does a technical omission or clerical error in depositing rent constitute a wilful default under section 13(6) of the Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Can a tenant's defense be struck off for non-compliance when the trial court's rent deposit order is vague or capable of multiple interpretations?
- Whether payment of rent credited directly into the landlord's bank account instead of court can be equated with deliberate default under rent laws?
- HABIB BANK Ltd. And Others vs NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS1986 SCMR 85 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an order of the Peshawar High Court which had vacated an earlier status quo order while directing that the main writ petition be heard within one month. The Supreme Court of Pakistan had previously granted leave to appeal, noting that the requirements for interim relief appeared to be met and that the vacation of the status quo order required reconsideration. Upon hearing the appeal, the Supreme Court observed that its previous directions for an early hearing and the High Court's own direction to decide the matter within one month had not been complied with, partly due to the records being requisitioned by the Supreme Court office. With the consent of the respondents, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order vacating the status quo. The Court held that the status quo must be maintained during the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court and reaffirmed the direction that the main writ petition be decided within one month, with the period commencing upon the return of the records to the High Court.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court restore a status quo order during the pendency of a writ petition in the High Court by consent of the parties?
- Does the requisitioning of records by the Supreme Court office justify a delay in the High Court's compliance with an order to decide a case within a fixed timeframe?
- Is a direction for the expeditious disposal of a writ petition within a specific timeframe enforceable upon the return of case records to the High Court?
- HABIB BANK Limited--Decree-holder vs INAMUR RAHMAN and another1986 MLD 710 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-06Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LIMITED, GHANG SADAR vs MOHIB ALI SHAH1986 PLC 1100 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LIMITED vs SHAHSONS FISHERIES LIMITED and 4 others1986 MLD 1262 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-06Read full judgment →
- HABIB ALVI ATHAR vs HASSAN and 7 others1986 MLD 1656 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-01Read full judgment →
- HABIB AHMAD vs THE DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, FAISALABAD1986 MLD 427 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-18Read full judgment →
- HABIB & SONS Ltd. and another vs Chaudhry CHIRAGH DIN1986 MLD 923 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-18Read full judgment →
- H AMEEDA BEG UM vs QAMAR-UN-NISA and others1986 MLD 2068 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-02Read full judgment →
- H A K A M A LI vs FAZLA1986 CLC 1183 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from a suit for possession through pre-emption, where the vendee-petitioner challenged the appellate court's decree in favor of the pre-emptor. The core legal question was whether a prospective pre-emptor’s failure to participate in an auction or bid for the property, despite being present, constitutes a waiver of the right of pre-emption. The High Court dismissed the revision, upholding the appellate court's decision. The court held that mere abstention, silence, or failure to out-bid a purchaser at an auction does not amount to a waiver of the right of pre-emption. The ratio established is that waiver of a statutory right of pre-emption requires proof of a positive, conscious act of abandonment, not mere inaction or indifference. Furthermore, the court clarified that a notice of sale, to be effective for waiver purposes, must specify the price, as contemplated by the relevant statutory provisions. Consequently, the court affirmed that a pre-emptor is not legally obligated to participate in competitive bidding to preserve their right of pre-emption.
Questions settled- Does a prospective pre-emptor's failure to participate in an auction constitute a waiver of the right of pre-emption?
- Is a pre-emptor legally obligated to out-bid a purchaser at an auction to preserve their right of pre-emption?
- Can a notice of sale that fails to specify the price serve as a valid basis for establishing waiver of pre-emption?
- Does mere silence or inaction by a pre-emptor at the time of sale amount to a conscious abandonment of the right of pre-emption?
- GURDASMAL vs ALLAH DINO1986 MLD 103 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-31Read full judgment →
- GULZAR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1390 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-16Read full judgment →
- GULZAR ELAHI MOONGA vs UNITED BANK Ltd.1986 MLD 1660 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-30Read full judgment →
- GULZAR And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1842 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-26Read full judgment →
- GULZAR And 3 Others vs The STATE1986 SCMR 323 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises out of convictions recorded against the appellants under sections 302 and 323/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in sentences of life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment. The High Court had dismissed the convicts' appeal and partially allowed a revision for enhancement of fine. The core legal questions involved whether the incident was a premeditated attack or a chance encounter, whether common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was attracted, and how interested ocular testimony should be evaluated in the presence of long-standing hostility and injuries to both parties. The Supreme Court held that the incident was a chance encounter arising spontaneously without premeditation, that the mischief of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was not attracted against all accused due to lack of independent corroboration for individual participation, and accordingly altered and set aside certain convictions while maintaining others, alongside adjusting compensation and granting the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to one of the appellants. The key principle laid down is that in sudden chance encounters involving pre-existing enmity and interested witnesses, the rule of caution requires independent corroboration before fastening constructive liability through common intention for major capital offences.
Questions settled- Whether an incident occurring spontaneously in a hospital between parties with prior enmity constitutes a chance encounter rather than a premeditated attack?
- Does the absence of independent corroboration for interested ocular testimony preclude the application of constructive liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a chance encounter?
- Can the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be granted to an aged appellant subject to an enhancement of compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- GULZAR AHMED And 2 Other vs PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT1986 PLC (C.S.) 745 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-27Read full judgment →
- GULZAR AHMAD vs KHURSHID ALI And 2 Other1986 SCMR 1457 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition concerning land settlement rights. The petitioner sought to claim additional land based on 'mortgagee units' and a 1962 policy letter, arguing these were not properly considered. The core legal questions were whether a party can introduce new arguments in appeal that were not raised before the High Court, and whether the petitioner retained rights to excess land following a prior Letters Patent Appeal decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the record of proceedings maintained by a High Court judge regarding arguments presented is conclusive and cannot be contradicted by counsel's assertions. Consequently, the Court refused to entertain the new arguments. Furthermore, the Court held that the prior Letters Patent Appeal decision conclusively determined the petitioner’s entitlement, thereby extinguishing his rights to the excess land and depriving him of standing to challenge its subsequent allotment to the respondent. The judgment reinforces the principle that judicial records of proceedings are sacrosanct and that appellate courts will not entertain arguments not raised in the court of first instance.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a new legal argument in the Supreme Court that was not presented before the High Court?
- Is a statement of fact recorded by a High Court judge regarding proceedings before them conclusive?
- Does a party have locus standi to challenge the allotment of land after a final judicial determination that they have no rights to that specific area?
- GULZAR AHMAD vs CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, LAHORE1986 PLC 439 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-12Read full judgment →
- GULZAR AHMAD CHAUDHRY vs PUNJAB LABOUR COURT N0.1, LAHORE And Another1986 PLC 679 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- GULZAR AHMAD And 8 Others vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR And 2 Other1986 SCMR 1697 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, claiming to be landlords, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their constitutional petition and ejectment application by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question involved whether the Rent Controller, possessing limited jurisdiction, could examine, ignore, or set aside a civil court decree passed on the basis of a compromise that conclusively determined the property rights and title between the parties. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller's forum of limited jurisdiction was not competent to scrutinize or challenge a compromise decree, and any relief against it should have been sought through the hierarchy of civil courts or appropriate legal recourse for fraud or undue influence. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, laying down the principle that a compromise decree settling title issues cannot be circumvented or ignored before a rent forum of limited jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller of limited jurisdiction set aside or ignore a civil court decree passed on the basis of a compromise?
- Whether a compromise decree determining property rights can be challenged before a rent forum instead of civil appellate or revisional courts?
- Does a compromise decree conceding claims regarding property title operate as a bar in subsequent ejectment proceedings before a Rent Controller?
- GULOO vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 313 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-14Read full judgment →
- GULOO And 3 Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1665 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-23Read full judgment →
- GULDAR KHAN vs THE STATE Respondent1986 P Cr. L J 2960 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-06-16Read full judgment →
- GULBAR and 3 others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1565 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-07Read full judgment →
- GULAB HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1385 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-10Read full judgment →
- GULAB DIN vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR and another1986 MLD 877 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-05-16Read full judgment →
- GULAB Andanother vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1297 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-16Read full judgment →
- GULAB Alias GULLA vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 520 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-09-14Read full judgment →
- GULA JAN AND 5 OTHERS vs ABDUL MAJID AND 5 OTHERS1986 PLD Peshawar 41 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-11-09Read full judgment →
- GUL ZEB vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN1986 PLD Peshawar 114 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-03-09Read full judgment →
- GUL ZARAHMAD vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others1986 MLD 1961 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-31Read full judgment →
- GUL ZAMAN and another vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2840 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-06-25Read full judgment →