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.
- FAZALUR RAHMAN vs Mst. SARWARI BEGUM And Other1986 SCMR 1156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an ejectment petition filed against a tenant for failure to deposit rent in accordance with a court order. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller was justified in striking off the tenant's defence due to late deposits of rent, specifically when the tenant argued the delays were not willful and were caused by administrative difficulties. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, holding that the Rent Controller acted within their competence to strike off the defence when the tenant failed to comply with the court's direction to deposit rent by the 5th of each month. The Court emphasized that a tenant who consistently chooses to deposit rent on the final permissible date assumes the risk of any delay, regardless of the reasons provided, such as the absence of court staff. Consequently, the Court affirmed the eviction order, finding no legal error in the lower courts' refusal to condone the defaults, while granting the tenant a two-month grace period to vacate the premises.
Questions settled- Is a Rent Controller empowered to strike off a tenant's defence for failure to deposit rent by the court-ordered deadline?
- Does a tenant who consistently deposits rent on the last permissible day assume the risk of default if the deposit is delayed?
- Can a tenant claim the absence of court staff as a valid excuse for failing to deposit rent on time?
- FAZALUR RAHMAN And Others vs HALEEM KHAN1986 SCMR 195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a vendee-defendant against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which allowed a revision petition filed by the decree-holder and maintained the rejection of the petitioner's objection to the execution of a pre-emption decree. The core legal question was whether a pre-emption suit stands dismissed for failure to deposit an additional amount allegedly due for stamp paper expenses when that amount was not specified in the operative penal portion of the judgment or the formal decree. The Supreme Court held that penal provisions resulting in the dismissal of a suit must be construed strictly and cannot be extended to sums not explicitly specified, included, and linked to the penal clause in the decree. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that execution is governed by the terms of the decree as drawn, and a party cannot import unexpressed findings from a judgment to enforce penal consequences not incorporated into the final decree.
Questions settled- Can a penal consequence of the dismissal of a pre-emption suit be attached to the non-payment of an amount not specified in the operative penal order or the formal decree?
- How should a penal order regarding the deposit of pre-emption money and costs be construed?
- Whether execution of a decree can be refused based on findings recorded in a judgment that were not incorporated into the final decree.
- FAZALUR RAHMAN AND OTHERS vs GENERAL MANAGER, S.I.D.B. AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Supreme Court 158 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from the compulsory acquisition of land in Haripur for the benefit of the Small Industries Development Board (S.I.D.B.), where the appellant sought enhanced compensation through objection proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Senior Civil Judge increased the market value of the suit land, but the Peshawar High Court reduced the compensation amount on appeal, relying primarily on the time difference between notifications issued under section 4 of the said Act for adjacent villages. The core legal question concerns the correct method for determining the market value and potential value of compulsorily acquired land. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that land must be valued not merely by its current use at the time of acquisition, but also by its potential uses and future capabilities. The key principle laid down is that assessing authorities and courts must consider all present and future advantages and potential development value, rather than relying exclusively on past sale transactions or temporal differences in notifications.
Questions settled- Should land being compulsorily acquired be valued solely by reference to the use to which it is being put at the time of acquisition?
- Can the potential future use and capabilities of acquired land be taken into consideration while determining its market value?
- Is the difference in dates of notifications under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 alone sufficient to determine the compensation amount for adjacent lands?
- Are past sales the sole accurate measure for determining the price of land intended to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
- FAZAL-I-EZAD KHAN vs THE BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others1986 MLD 2391 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-30Read full judgment →
- FAZAL vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1023 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-02Read full judgment →
- FAZAL RAHMAN vs AMIR HAIDER And Another1986 SCMR 1814 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three civil appeals arising from pre-emption suits where the respondents sought to pre-empt a sale of mortgagee rights. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suits, finding that the respondents failed to establish a superior right of pre-emption and that they could not introduce new grounds at the appellate stage. The High Court, however, remanded the case, allowing the respondents to amend their pleadings to argue ownership by afflux of time. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine if the High Court erred in this remand. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with concurrent findings of fact and allowing a new plea not raised in the trial court. The Court affirmed that parties are strictly bound by their pleadings and cannot introduce new, alternative cases at the appellate stage. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, ruling that appellate courts should not remand cases to permit the framing of new issues that were not part of the original trial proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a party introduce a new plea in a second appeal that was not raised in the trial court?
- Is the High Court permitted to interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts in a second appeal?
- Should an appellate court remand a case to allow a party to amend their pleadings to include a new ground of claim?
- FAZAL MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1986 PLD Lahore 209 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-17Read full judgment →
- FAZAL KARIM vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 900 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-21Read full judgment →
- FAZAL KARIM CHAUDHRI vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 23 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-06-11Read full judgment →
- FAZAL KARIM And 2 Others vs MUHAMMAD AMIN And Another1986 P Cr. L J 1681 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
- FAZAL IQBAL vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1986 PLC 416 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-25Read full judgment →
- FAZAL ILAHI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2318(2) · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-21Read full judgment →
- FAZAL HAQ And Others vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN And Other1986 SCMR 556 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a Constitutional petition against concurrent findings of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller and the District Judge. The core legal question concerns whether tenants can avoid ejectment for default in rent payment by disputing the landlord's title in parallel civil court proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the ejectment orders were correctly passed, noting that the respondents had been established as the landlords of the property in dispute, a finding that had become unassailable. The Court affirmed that the petitioners' default in rent payment, predicated on their challenge to the respondents' title, justified the ejectment. The key principle laid down is that where the relationship of landlord and tenant is established and the landlord's title is effectively settled, a tenant cannot unilaterally withhold rent or avoid ejectment on the basis of a pending, separate title dispute in civil courts.
Questions settled- Can a tenant avoid ejectment for default in rent payment by disputing the landlord's title in parallel civil proceedings?
- Is an order of ejectment sustainable when the relationship of landlord and tenant has been established and the landlord's title is unassailable?
- FAZAL ELLAHI vs DIWAN ALI And ANOTHER1986 CLC 490 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- FAZAL ELAHI And 19 Other vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS And 2 Others1986 PLC 483 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
- FAZAL DAD vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MIANWALI And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 257 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-09-28Read full judgment →
- FAZAL DAD vs MUHAMMAD FAZAL And 3 Others1986 P Cr. L J 2018 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-04Read full judgment →
- FAZAL DAD KHAN And 5 Others vs Mst. HAZRAT JAN And 17 OTHER1986 CLC 545 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition concerns a dispute over the title and possession of land. The petitioners, heirs of the original plaintiff, claimed ownership based on a 1942 mutation entry, arguing that subsequent revenue records omitting their ancestor's name were erroneous. The respondents, who were subsequent transferees, contended that the original mutation was dubious and that they had acquired title through adverse possession, supported by consistent entries in settlement and revenue records spanning decades. The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, relying primarily on the 1942 mutation. However, the lower appellate court reversed this, finding that the plaintiff failed to independently prove the underlying sale transaction and that the defendants had established adverse possession. The High Court upheld the appellate court's decision, affirming that mutation entries and subsequent Jamabandi records do not, by themselves, create title when challenged. The court held that the burden of proof lay on the plaintiff to independently establish the sale, which they failed to do, and that the long-standing, unchallenged revenue records favoring the defendants were correct.
Questions settled- Do mutation entries and subsequent Jamabandi records by themselves create title in favor of a person when challenged?
- Does the burden of proof lie on a party to independently prove a sale transaction when the mutation entry is disputed?
- Can long-standing, unchallenged revenue records be preferred over a disputed earlier mutation entry?
- FAZAL DAD And Others vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE And Other1986 SCMR 2003 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit instituted by the petitioners claiming superior right as tenants against the respondent-vendee. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the petitioners were tenants only of a specific Khasra number which had been transferred back to the vendor through a civil court decree, and thus could not maintain the pre-emption suit. The appellate, revisional, and writ courts successively maintained this finding, noting that the civil court decree remained unsatised or unreversed. The core legal question concerned whether a pre-emption suit could be maintained regarding land held by a civil court decree to be in the ownership of the vendor and not included in the sale-deed. The Supreme Court held that no interference was warranted as the concurrent findings of fact regarding the civil court decree and tenancy status were unassailable and involved no question of law. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a pre-emption suit be maintained on land transferred back to the vendor through a civil court decree?
- Whether the High Court can interfere in writ jurisdiction against concurrent findings of revenue courts based on an operative civil court decree?
- FAZAL AHMAD vs MURAD MASIH And OTHER1986 CLC 1007 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-07Read full judgment →
- FAZAL AHMAD vs BASHIR AHMAD And Another1986 SCMR 281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal sought the enhancement of a sentence imposed on the respondent, Bashir Ahmad, who was convicted under Section 304, Part-I of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Muhammad Yusaf. The trial court had originally sentenced the respondent to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. On appeal, the High Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone (nearly five years), citing factors such as the respondent's share in a tube-well, unexplained injuries to a co-accused, the infliction of a single spear blow, and the respondent's detention period. However, the High Court increased the compensation payable to the heirs from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 10,000. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the High Court exercised judicious discretion given the circumstances of a sudden fight in the heat of the moment. Furthermore, the Court noted that significant time had elapsed since the High Court's order, and the respondent would have completed the original sentence by the time of the hearing.
Questions settled- Does the High Court exercise judicious discretion when reducing a sentence for a murder committed during a sudden fight?
- Can the Supreme Court refuse to enhance a sentence when the respondent has already served the duration of the original sentence due to the passage of time?
- Is an increase in compensation a relevant factor in determining the adequacy of a reduced prison sentence?
- FAZAL AHMAD KHAN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1986 MLD 2437 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-24Read full judgment →
- FAZAL AHMAD And 2 Others vs KARAM DAD And 15 OTHER1986 CLC 1188 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-14Read full judgment →
- FAYYAZ HASSAN vs DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND MINERAL DEVELOPMENT, PUNJAB And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 509 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-10-03Read full judgment →
- FAYYAZ AHMAD MALHI vs PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY, LAHORE And Another1986 PLC (C .S.) 826 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-03-12Read full judgment →
- FAUJI SUGAR MILLS vs ATTAULLAH1986 PLC 698 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-02-04Read full judgment →
- FAUJI FERTILIZER COMPANY Ltd. vs MUHAMMAD NASIM1986 PLC 412 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-29Read full judgment →
- FAUJI FERTILIZER COMPANY Ltd. vs Major (Retd.) ABDUL WAHEED ZAFAR1986 PLC 302 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-09-20Read full judgment →
- FATEHYAB ALI KHAN vs PROVINCE OF SIND And Another1986 P Cr. L J 2938 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-02Read full judgment →
- FATEH SHER vs SARFRAZ And Other1986 SCMR 1356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment, which had set aside a remand order issued by a Member of the Board of Revenue regarding consolidation proceedings. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court correctly exercised its writ jurisdiction by interfering with a factual finding made by the Board of Revenue, specifically regarding whether the petitioner had been afforded an opportunity of hearing and was a party to a Collector's order dated 15-7-1971. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its exercise of writ jurisdiction by setting aside the remand order based on a disputed question of fact, particularly when the Board of Revenue had reached its conclusion after examining the official record. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restored the Board of Revenue's order, and directed that the issue of the petitioner's participation in the 15-7-1971 proceedings be examined during the remand. The key principle established is that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised to overturn findings of fact made by a revenue authority based on the examination of the record.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with a finding of fact made by a Member of the Board of Revenue in writ jurisdiction?
- Is a remand order passed by the Board of Revenue based on an examination of the record subject to interference in writ jurisdiction?
- Should a court in writ jurisdiction set aside a remand order based on disputed factual assertions regarding a party's participation in proceedings?
- FATEH SHER And ANOTHER vs SHARIF KHATOON And 3 OTHER1986 CLC 320 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision challenged concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which decreed a suit filed by two sisters seeking a declaration that a 1962 gift mutation of ancestral land in favour of their brothers was illegal and void. The core legal questions concerned the genuineness of the gift and whether the suit, filed in 1980, was time-barred under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908. The High Court held that the petitioners failed to provide strict proof of the gift, particularly given the donors were illiterate women. Furthermore, the court affirmed that as co-heirs, the possession of the brothers was on behalf of the sisters, and no adverse possession existed absent a clear act of ouster. Consequently, the suit was not time-barred as the cause of action arose upon the discovery of the fraudulent mutation. However, the court modified the decree, limiting it to the plaintiffs' 7/32 share, as their mother, who also held a share, did not join the suit. The key principle established is that the possession of one co-heir is the possession of all, and strict proof is required for gifts by illiterate women.
Questions settled- Does the possession of one co-heir constitute possession on behalf of all other co-heirs?
- Can a co-sharer claim adverse possession against other co-sharers without proving a definite act of ouster?
- Is a declaratory suit regarding a fraudulent mutation barred by limitation if filed more than six years after the mutation, but shortly after the discovery of the fraud?
- What standard of proof is required to establish a gift made by illiterate female donors?
- FATEH MUHAMMAD vs ALLAH JUIRO1986 MLD 10 · Board of Revenue · 1984-05-19Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD and others vs REHMAT BIBI and others1986 MLD 2388 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-01Read full judgment →
- FATEH KHAN vs The STATE1986 SCMR 86 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a convict challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 302 and Section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine, with concurrent sentences for the lesser offense. While the Supreme Court had previously dismissed the petition regarding the conviction and sentence, it issued a notice to the Advocate-General, Punjab, to determine whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the calculation of his sentence. The core legal question was whether the statutory provision allowing for the deduction of pre-sentence detention period from the total sentence should be applied to the petitioner's life imprisonment term. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, in calculating the remaining period of his life imprisonment. The judgment affirms the principle that the benefit of period spent in custody prior to conviction is mandatory and applicable to sentences of life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Is a convict sentenced to life imprisonment entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the period spent in custody prior to conviction be deducted from a sentence of life imprisonment?
- FATEH KHAN vs MANSAB And 2 Others1986 P Cr. L J 1892 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-01Read full judgment →
- FATEH KHAN And Others vs STATE And Other1986 SCMR 39 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that upheld the petitioners' conviction under Section 70 of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, for demolishing a watercourse. The petitioners argued that there was no evidence connecting them to the crime, that the watercourse did not exist, and that the lower courts' findings were based on misreading or non-reading of evidence. The Supreme Court examined whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts warranted interference and whether the trial court had the legal authority to order the restoration of the watercourse. The Supreme Court held that concurrent findings of fact regarding the demolition of the watercourse were supported by evidence and did not merit interference. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that an order for the restoration of the watercourse was legally permissible under Section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Section 70(2) of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873. The Court established that failing to explicitly cite the applicable law does not invalidate an order if the order is otherwise legally warranted.
Questions settled- Can a court order the restoration of a watercourse under Section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the failure to explicitly cite the relevant statute in an order invalidate the order if it is otherwise legally warranted?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a criminal revision matter?
- FATEH ALI vs SIKANDAR ALI1986 MLD 1270 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-03Read full judgment →
- FATEH ALI vs CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION And Another1986 SCMR 1137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 addresses the legality of disciplinary proceedings and dismissal of a civil servant, specifically examining whether past service records could be used to uphold a punishment without prior notice, and whether a competent authority could substitute a dismissal order while an appeal was pending. The appellant, an Assistant Vernacular Clerk, was dismissed for unauthorized absence and taking private employment. During his departmental appeal, the competent authority substituted the original dismissal order with a new date without notice. The Service Tribunal dismissed the appellant's challenge by heavily relying on his past service record. The Supreme Court held that the competent authority lacked jurisdiction to pass a revised order while an appeal was pending, that the initial orders were defective, and that past service records cannot be used against a civil servant without notice. The appeal was accepted, the impugned dismissal and appellate orders were set aside, and the department was permitted to hold a fresh inquiry.
Questions settled- Whether a competent authority can substitute or alter a dismissal order while a departmental appeal against it is pending?
- Can the past service record of a civil servant be used as a basis for upholding a punishment without putting the civil servant on prior notice?
- Whether an appellate authority is required to afford a personal hearing upon the refiling of a departmental appeal?
- FATEH ALI and others vs Syed SARKAR HUSSAIN SHAH1986 MLD 2599 · Election Tribunal · 1986-04-06Read full judgment →
- FARZAND ALI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1996 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-13Read full judgment →
- FARZAND ALI vs THE SECRETARY, FORESTRY, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES, LAHORE1986 PLC (C.S.) 957 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- FARZAND ALI vs KHADIJA BEGUM and 10 others1986 MLD 1284 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-04Read full judgment →
- FARZAND ALI and others vs THE BORDER AREA COMMITTEE and others1986 MLD 457 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-27Read full judgment →
- FARRAKH ALAM vs GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS And 6 Others1986 PLC 599 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-02-09Read full judgment →
- FAROOQUE And Others vs NAZIR AHMAD And Other1986 SCMR 1367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court dismissing a criminal revision against the Sessions Judge's order, which had rejected the petitioners' application to summon all police-investigation witnesses as court witnesses in a private complaint case. The core legal question concerns the proper procedure for summoning witnesses during the concurrent trial of a police case and a private complaint, specifically whether a trial court is mandated to summon all witnesses examined during police investigations. The Supreme Court held that the courts below correctly followed the procedure established in Noor Elahi v. Ikramullah, affirming that the trial court is not required to summon all police-investigation witnesses as court witnesses in the private complaint, but only those intended to support the prosecution's case. The key principle laid down is that while the prosecution must produce its intended witnesses, complainants may summon additional witnesses as defence witnesses if so advised.
Questions settled- Whether the trial court is required to summon all witnesses examined by the police during investigation as court witnesses in a private complaint case?
- Does the concurrent trial of a police case and a private complaint necessitate the summoning of all police witnesses at the instance of the complainant?
- Can a complainant summon additional police-investigation witnesses through the court as defence witnesses?
- FAROOQ NAWAZ And Others vs THE STATE And Another1986 SCMR 506 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the cancellation of bail of the petitioners by the Peshawar High Court. The petitioners, along with others, were charged with the murder of Mst. Mustafa Jan and for causing gunshot injuries to two other individuals during an incident arising from a quarrel over children, for which a counter-version F.I.R. was also lodged. The Additional Sessions Judge initially granted bail to the accused in both cases, but the High Court subsequently cancelled the bail for the petitioners while maintaining it for another co-accused. The core legal question was whether a distinction in individual participation and common intention could be drawn at a premature stage to warrant differential treatment regarding bail when all accused were armed with guns and fired shots during the same transaction. The Supreme Court held that no such distinction can be drawn at a premature stage when each accused was similarly armed and participated by firing shots in the same transaction. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle that common intention and individual roles in cross-versions involving firearm use during a single transaction must be evaluated at trial rather than for granting disparate bail relief.
Questions settled- Can a distinction be drawn regarding individual participation and common intention at the bail stage when all accused persons were armed with guns and fired shots during the same transaction?
- Whether bail granted by a trial court can be interfered with by the High Court in cases involving cross-versions of a murder incident?
- Is it appropriate at a premature stage of the case to assess the cases of co-accused separately based on the number of injuries attributed to them?
- FAROOQ alias PUPOO vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1925 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-01Read full judgment →
- FAROOQ AHMAD vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALNAGAR And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 1007 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- FARMAN ALI And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2381 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-18Read full judgment →
- FARMAN ALI and others vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT1986 MLD 892 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-17Read full judgment →
- FARIDUL HASSAN vs MUHAMMAD AYUB1986 MLD 371 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-19Read full judgment →
- FARIDUL HASSAN (FARID AHMAD) vs MUHAMMAD AYUB1986 MLD 1989 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-19Read full judgment →
- FARIDUL HASAN vs MUHAMMAD AYUB1986 SCMR 1844 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court, which upheld an eviction order against a tenant operating a poultry business. The landlord sought eviction on the grounds that the tenant's business, involving the placement of poultry cages and the accumulation of waste, created a nuisance for the building's inhabitants. The tenant contended that the locality had transformed into a commercial area where similar businesses operated, arguing that he was unfairly singled out and that his activities did not constitute a nuisance. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether, in a locality that has become a commercial hub, the operation of a specific business can be legally classified as a nuisance justifying eviction, especially when similar activities are prevalent in the vicinity. The Court also considered the applicability of legal precedents regarding nuisance in such contexts. The appeal was admitted for further hearing, with interim stay orders granted to maintain the status quo.
Questions settled- Does the operation of a business in a locality that has become a commercial area constitute a nuisance sufficient for eviction?
- Can a tenant be evicted for nuisance when similar business activities are being conducted by others in the same locality?
- FARHAT SHAHEEN AKRAM vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Through Secretary Education1986 PLC (C.S.) 959 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- FARHAT SHAHEEN AKRAM vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Through Education Secretary1986 PLC (C.S.) 961 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1986 PLD Rev. 62 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1982-08-04Read full judgment →
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs SHABBIR HUSSAIN and another1986 MLD 2841 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-06-22Read full judgment →
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, SERVICES HOSPITAL, LAHORE1986 PLC (C.S.) 19 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-10-04Read full judgment →
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BAHAWALNAGAR And OTHER1986 CLC 853 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-18Read full judgment →
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD And Others vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ And OTHER1986 CLC 1028 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These four consolidated writ petitions challenged orders of the Revenue Authorities, up to the Board of Revenue, which had affirmed pre-emption decrees granted by the Collector in favour of the respondents under paragraph 25 of the Martial Law Regulation No. 115 (Land Reforms Regulation 1972). The core legal issue before the High Court was whether a lessee, specifically a 'Pataidar' or 'Chaukatadar', qualifies as a 'tenant' entitled to exercise the first right of pre-emption under paragraph 25 of the Regulation. The High Court held that a lessee or lease-holder has distinct rights and liabilities compared to a tenant, stands in the shoes of the owner, and cannot be treated as a tenant regardless of whether the lessee cultivates the land personally or through others. Relying on Land Commission notifications, statutory amendments, and Supreme Court precedent, the court affirmed that lessees are explicitly excluded from the definition of a tenant. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petitions and declared the pre-emption decrees to be of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Does the first right of pre-emption granted to tenants under paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 extend to lessees?
- Whether a lessee who cultivates the land himself falls within the definition of a tenant for the purposes of land reforms?
- Do the terms 'Pataidar' and 'Chaukatadar' denote lessees rather than tenants in tenancy and land reform law?
- Does the clarification issued by the Land Commission excluding lessees from the definition of tenant apply to the right of pre-emption?
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD And 4 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2464 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-22Read full judgment →
- FAQIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 417 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-28Read full judgment →
- FAQIR HUSSAIN vs CHAIRMAN, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD, MULTAN1986 PLC (C.S.) 648 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-03-14Read full judgment →
- FAQIR ALAM And 10 Others vs AJAB KHAN And 15 OTHER1986 CLC 1320 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-03-14Read full judgment →
- FALAK SHER vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2836 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
- FALAK SHER vs THE BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB And 2 OTHER1986 CLC 1214 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-14Read full judgment →
- FALAK SHER And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1099(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-15Read full judgment →
- FAKIR NAIMAT ALI KHAN And 2 Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2531 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-19Read full judgment →
- FAKIR MUHAMMAD vs MEERAN BUX AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Karachi 633 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-23Read full judgment →
- FAKHAR UD DIN vs MUHAMMAD MOHSIN And Other1986 SCMR 458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a Lahore High Court order that upheld decisions by Settlement Authorities regarding the transfer of disputed property. The central dispute involves conflicting claims of title: the petitioner claims the property was reserved as a plot and transferred to his predecessor-in-interest in 1962, while the respondents claim the property was a commercial unit purchased by their predecessor-in-interest via open auction in 1964. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the Settlement Authorities' proceedings in two distinct channels actually concerned the same property. Key legal questions identified for resolution include whether the respondents had locus standi to challenge the petitioner's transfer, whether the 1962 reservation order took precedence over the 1964 auction, and the legal effect of the petitioner's delayed payment of the property price. Pending final adjudication, the Court ordered the maintenance of status quo, conditioned upon the petitioner providing security to compensate the respondents for the use and occupation of the property at a rate of Rs. 1,000 per month, effective from the date of the last adverse order.
Questions settled- Does a party have locus standi to challenge a property transfer if the properties in dispute are distinct?
- Does a property reservation order made in 1962 take legal precedence over an open auction conducted in 1964?
- What is the legal effect of a significant delay in the payment of the purchase price for property transferred under a reservation scheme?
- FAJJAR ALI vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION And Another1986 PLC 927 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-15Read full judgment →
- FAIZANUL HAQ vs SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY And Another1986 SCMR 1557 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld an order directing the recovery of a sum of Rs.10,736 from the petitioner in respect of a transferred property. The core legal question concerned the petitioner's liability to pay and adjust certain amounts under an agreement of association and subsequent transfer of property under settlement laws. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was liable to pay the price and other demands as payable by the original transfer order holder under the terms of the agreement dated 5-2-1964, and that the contention raised was merely a question of fact unsupported by the agreement. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that a party seeking equitable relief is not entitled to it when guilty of suppressing pertinent facts.
Questions settled- Is a petitioner entitled to equitable relief from the court when found guilty of suppression of pertinent facts?
- Whether an agreement of association makes the transferee liable to pay the price and other demands payable by the original transfer order holder?
- Can a question of fact regarding financial adjustments under a settlement agreement be successfully agitated before the Supreme Court without support from the agreement?
- FAIZANUL HAQ vs IRFANUL HAQ and another1986 MLD 2750 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-20Read full judgment →
- FAIZ RASOOL vs GHULAM RASOOL1986 MLD 623 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-15Read full judgment →
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2201 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-14Read full judgment →
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD vs HADAYAT KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 1559 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which acquitted nine respondents of charges under sections 148, 325, 149, and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, overturning their convictions by the trial court. The core legal question is whether the High Court's acquittal, based on its preference for the defence's version of events over the prosecution's, was grounded in safe principles of criminal justice dispensation. The petitioner challenged the High Court's findings, arguing that the defence version was improbable and inconsistent with the physical evidence regarding the location of the incident. The Supreme Court, finding that the location of the occurrence—a critical aspect of the case—required deeper examination to determine if the acquittal was legally sound, granted leave to appeal. The Court held that the discrepancy regarding the place of occurrence and the probability of the competing versions necessitated a thorough review of the evidence to ensure the impugned order adhered to established principles of criminal justice.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when the High Court's acquittal relies on a version of events that may contradict the established location of the crime?
- Is a finding by the High Court regarding the probability of competing prosecution and defence versions subject to review by the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal?
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD vs GOOINDMAL And Others1986 P Cr. L J 1222 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-26Read full judgment →
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD KHAN vs THE PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL And 31986 PLC 519 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-07Read full judgment →
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD And Others vs The STATE1986 SCMR 337 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for murder and other offences arising from a fatal dispute over water irrigation rights. The core legal question was whether the appellants acted with a common intention to commit murder or if the incident constituted a sudden, unplanned quarrel where individual liability for the fatal blow could not be established. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove premeditation or specific individual liability for the fatal injury. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, altering them to convictions under Section 325/34 for causing grievous hurt. The key principle laid down is that where a fatal injury occurs during a sudden, spontaneous altercation without evidence of pre-concert, and the specific assailant cannot be identified, the court cannot infer a common intention to kill. Instead, the common intention is limited to the extent of causing grievous hurt, and significant delays in lodging the FIR combined with unreliable eyewitness testimony necessitate granting the benefit of the doubt regarding murder charges.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the evidence fails to identify which accused delivered the fatal blow during a sudden quarrel?
- Does a sudden, unplanned dispute over water rights negate the existence of a pre-concerted common intention to commit murder?
- Is it safe to rely on the testimony of an eyewitness whose presence at the scene is contradicted by other prosecution witnesses and whose report to the police was significantly delayed?
- When can a court alter a conviction from murder to causing grievous hurt under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD And Others vs MUHAMMAD FEROZE And Another1986 SCMR 1381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' Regular Second Appeal as incompetent and observed that the appeal lacked merit. The core legal question addressed is whether a Regular Second Appeal is competent before the High Court against a revisional order passed by a District Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition on the question of jurisdiction alone, holding that no second appeal is competent against a revisional order passed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The key principle laid down is that appellate jurisdiction in second appeal cannot be invoked against an order passed in revision by a District Court, though parties may pursue other available remedies before competent authorities if permissible.
Questions settled- Whether a Regular Second Appeal is competent before the High Court against a revisional order passed by a District Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD And Others vs ALI AKBAR And Other1986 SCMR 1376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the allocation of tail water (Nikal) under the Canal and Drainage Act 1873. The core legal question involved the entitlement of landowners to Nikal water and the nature of the Instructions for the Guidance of Canal Officers in the Preparation and Modification of Warabandis, which the High Court had held to be directory. During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the parties reached a compromise and signed a written agreement to share the Nikal water equally on an alternating weekly basis, with corresponding adjustments to be made by the Canal Authorities. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and partly allowed it in terms of the agreed compromise, laying down that matters regarding the distribution of warabandi and canal water can be lawfully resolved through a fair and binding settlement between the parties.
Questions settled- Can a dispute regarding the allocation of tail water under the Canal and Drainage Act be resolved on the basis of a compromise between the parties?
- Whether instructions for the guidance of canal officers in the preparation of warabandis are directory in nature?
- Are landowners entitled to claim Nikal water as a matter of right upon increasing their landholdings?
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD And 2 Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 973 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-27Read full judgment →
- FAIZ BAKHSH vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 806 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-04Read full judgment →
- FAIZ BAKHSH And Others vs MUHAMMAD MUNIR And OTHER1986 CLC 507 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Regular Second Appeal arises from a judgment of the District Judge, Bahawalpur, which reversed the trial court's decree in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants in a suit for perpetual injunction. The plaintiffs claimed ownership of the suit land through purchase by means of an unregistered receipt and delivery of possession, having previously been tenants. The core legal question concerned the applicability and scope of the doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, and whether the subsequent purchasers were bona fide purchasers for value without notice so as to override the appellants' prior rights. The Lahore High Court held that the circumstances, including participation in mutation proceedings and inconsistent stands taken by the subsequent purchaser's father, imposed a duty to inquire about the plaintiffs' actual possession and title, thereby precluding the subsequent purchaser from claiming the protection of the proviso to Section 53-A. The appeal was accordingly allowed, setting aside the lower appellate court's judgment and restoring the trial court's decree.
Questions settled- Whether a transferee in possession under an unregistered contract of sale is protected under the doctrine of part performance pursuant to Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- Does a subsequent purchaser have a duty to make inquiries regarding the title of a person in actual possession of the immovable property?
- When does circumstances compel a purchaser to make further inquiry so as to negate the status of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice?
- FAIZ and 6 others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2922 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-01Read full judgment →
- FAIZ and 4 others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1699 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-18Read full judgment →
- FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs MUHAMMAD JAVED1986 PLC 417 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-25Read full judgment →
- FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs BARAT ALI SHAH1986 PLC 705 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-01-21Read full judgment →
- FAHMIDUZZAFAR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1274 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- FAHIM ASHRAF MALIK And Another vs SUMMARY MILITARY COURT, LAHORE1986 P Cr. L J 2378 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-15Read full judgment →
- F.B. DAVIS vs Mrs. SHAKAR KHANO BAI represented by Legal Heirs-1986 MLD 1342 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-12Read full judgment →
- F. BRUMMEL AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1986 PLD Karachi 390 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-07Read full judgment →
- EXTRA ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM1986 PLC 444 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-01Read full judgment →
- EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL OPERATION DIVISION (SOUTH), SHEIKHUPURA1986 PLC 436 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-27Read full judgment →
- EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HOUSING AND PHYSICAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT, LAHORE vs AMJAD ALI And 2 Others1986 PLC 701 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD vs Mst. ZAKIA BEGUM And OTHER1986 CLC 1716 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-17Read full judgment →
- EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD vs Mst. ZAKIA BEGUM And 2 Other1986 SCMR 2008 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions arising from a common judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding a dispute over property situated at the junction of Waris Road and Queens Road, Lahore. The property was treated as evacuee trust property and transferred to a private party, who subsequently obtained a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.). When the Evacuee Trust Property Board challenged the ownership, the transferee filed suits for perpetual injunction, which were decreed in her favor and upheld by the Additional District Judge. The petitioner (the Board) challenged these decisions, arguing that the civil suits were not maintainable because a reference regarding the nature of the property was pending before the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Board, and that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to grant declarations under the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits while proceedings were pending before the statutory authority and whether the statutory bar precluded civil court intervention.
Questions settled- Does the pendency of a reference before the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board bar the maintainability of a civil suit regarding the nature of the property?
- Is a Civil Court competent to grant a declaration regarding property status in light of the provisions of the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975?
- EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD vs AQILA KHATOON And Other1986 SCMR 1209 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had declared proceedings before the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board regarding the status of a specific property to be illegal and without lawful authority. The dispute arose when a Deputy Administrator of Auqaf initiated proceedings to declare the property as evacuee trust property, claiming it was formerly a charitable hospital. The respondents challenged these proceedings, arguing that the property's status had already been determined against the Board in previous litigation and that the Board was estopped from re-agitating the matter. Furthermore, the property had been transferred to individuals under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, on the premise that it was not evacuee trust property. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting the significance of the questions raised and the value of the property. The Court directed that these appeals be heard alongside other pending appeals involving similar legal questions and ordered the continuation of an existing stay order.
Questions settled- Can the Evacuee Trust Property Board re-agitate the status of a property if it has previously withdrawn from proceedings determining its character?
- Does the transfer of property to individuals under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, preclude subsequent claims that the property is evacuee trust property?
- ESSO EASTERN INCORPORATION vs ARK NAVIGATICN COMPANY1986 MLD 898 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-04Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs Messrs KARACHI PIPE MILLS Ltd.1986 PLC 86 · Labour Court · 1985-05-24Read full judgment →