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.
- BUILDING ASSOCIATES LTD. vs THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 5 others1986 MLD 1719 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-15Read full judgment →
- BUILDERS ASSOCIATION LTD vs THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1986 PLD Lahore 171 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the orders of the civil court deleting the names of respondents Nos. 2 to 4 (foreign companies) from the array of defendants and dismissing the suit against them. The petitioner had filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and recovery arising out of a contract and bank guarantees. The core legal question concerns whether a municipal court possesses territorial and personal jurisdiction over non-resident foreign corporations, and whether such complex factual questions regarding agency, business operations, and privity of contract can be determined summarily without recording evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the question of jurisdiction over foreign corporations involves a factual inquiry regarding whether they were carrying on business through an agent within the jurisdiction, and that such issues, along with questions of cause of action and privity of contract, cannot be decided summarily through a piecemeal trial. The court laid down the principle that jurisdictional objections involving foreign defendants must be adjudicated after framing issues and affording parties an opportunity to lead evidence, and that it is improper to conflate the questions of jurisdiction with the merits regarding the existence of a cause of action or privity of contract.
Questions settled- Whether a municipal court can summarily dismiss a suit against non-resident foreign companies without affording an opportunity to lead evidence on the question of jurisdiction?
- Can the question of lack of jurisdiction over a defendant be clubbed together with the merits regarding the non-disclosure of a cause of action and absence of privity of contract?
- Does the mere assertion that a defendant is a non-resident foreign company suffice to divest a civil court of its jurisdiction when an agent operates within the territorial limits?
- Whether a piecemeal trial of preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and cause of action is permissible under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- BUDH00 vs LIAQAT HUSSAIN And 18 OTHER1986 CLC 2958 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-07-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an order of the District Judge upholding the dismissal of the plaintiff-appellant Budhoo's suit by the Sub-Judge, which challenged a registered sale-deed executed by certain co-sharers over Shamilat Deh land. The core legal question concerns whether concurrent findings of fact by subordinate courts can be reviewed in a second appeal when material documentary evidence and record of rights have been ignored or misread. The High Court held that the failure of lower courts to apply their mind to material documentary evidence, such as jamabandis and khasra girdawaris showing continuous possession, constitutes a substantial error of law, thereby empowering the High Court to review the evidence. The court established that concurrent findings based on misread or omitted evidence do not enjoy immunity, that a party's settled possession must be respected until evicted in due course of law, and that oral testimony must be read as a whole rather than relying on isolated sentences.
Questions settled- Can the High Court review concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal when lower courts have misread or omitted material documentary evidence?
- Whether a solitary sentence in cross-examination can be used to discard the overall testimony of a witness.
- Does an entry in the Khasra Girdawari showing dispossession without a lawful order or due process carry legal weight?
- Can a new plea regarding statutory disqualification under land reforms be raised for the first time in second appeal without supporting evidence?
- Brush Rehman Limited. vs Brush Electrical Engineering Company LimitedPTCL 1986 CL. 414 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing an Intra-Court Appeal against the winding up of a private limited company. The company had suspended its manufacturing business since 1978, failed to hold general meetings, failed to audit accounts, and accumulated substantial liabilities, leading the minority shareholder to petition for its winding up under the Companies Act, 1913. Although the majority shareholders were granted time to resume production, they failed to do so. The Supreme Court considered whether the winding up order was legally sustainable under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1913. The Court held that the suspension of the company's business for a whole year provided a clear and sufficient statutory ground for winding up under Section 162 of the Companies Act, 1913, rendering the winding up order entirely legal and proper. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether the suspension of a company's business for a whole year constitutes a valid ground for its winding up under the Companies Act, 1913?
- Can a winding up order be maintained when a private limited company has ceased production and failed to hold annual general meetings or audit its accounts?
- Whether principles governing the dissolution of partnerships are applicable to the winding up of a private limited company?
- BRUSH REHMAN LIMITED vs BRUSH ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING COMPANY1986 SCMR 1612 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment ordering the winding up of a private limited company. The core legal question was whether the winding up was justified under the Companies Act, 1913, given the company's prolonged suspension of business, failure to hold statutory meetings, and financial insolvency, despite the petitioner's argument that the company could potentially resume operations. The Supreme Court upheld the winding-up order, finding that the company had suspended its business since 1978 and failed to recommence operations despite being granted multiple opportunities by the lower courts. The Court held that the winding-up order was legally sound and referable to the statutory provisions regarding the suspension of business. The key principle laid down is that where a company has suspended its business for a prolonged period and lacks the financial capacity to resume operations, the court is justified in ordering its winding up, regardless of the company's private status or arguments regarding potential future profitability.
Questions settled- Can a company be wound up under the Companies Act 1913 if it has suspended its business for a period exceeding one year?
- Is the winding up of a private limited company permissible when the company has failed to hold annual general meetings or audit its accounts for several years?
- Does the 'just and equitable' clause for winding up a company apply when the substratum of the company has effectively disappeared due to prolonged inactivity?
- BRIGADE No,1, CHATTAR DOMEL & GARHI DOPATTA, through Military Estate, Hazara vs CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY and 7 others1986 MLD 2077 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-05-12Read full judgment →
- Brig. (Retd.) ABDUL QAYYUM KHAN vs Mst. HANIFAN BIBI And Other1986 SCMR 94 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed a constitutional petition arising from a land settlement dispute. The High Court had remanded the case for a fresh decision after excluding certain evidence, reasoning that the Settlement Commissioner, while admitting fresh evidence and allowing cross-examination, had failed to provide the respondent side an opportunity to produce evidence in rebuttal, rendering the order without lawful authority. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan identified significant legal questions regarding the Settlement Commissioner's jurisdiction to admit additional evidence, the adequacy of the opportunity afforded for rebuttal, and whether the High Court should have decided the merits of the claims itself rather than remanding the matter. Finding the case fit for fuller examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, converted the petition into an appeal, and directed that the matter be prepared on the existing record with liberty for the parties to file additional documents, while also ordering the appeal to be fixed for hearing alongside a related matter.
Questions settled- Does a Settlement Commissioner have the jurisdiction to admit and record additional evidence during revision proceedings in a land settlement case?
- Is a remand order by the High Court appropriate when a Settlement Commissioner fails to provide an opportunity for rebuttal evidence?
- Should the High Court decide the merits of a claim itself rather than remanding the case for fresh decision when procedural irregularities occur in lower proceedings?
- BOOTA And Others vs THE STATE1986 SCMR 2020 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal filed by several petitioners against their convictions and sentences for murder and related offences. The petitioners were tried and convicted under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149, 326/149, and 323/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving various sentences including life imprisonment and death sentences for the murders of Allah Ditta and Mst. Nooran, alongside sentences for causing injuries. Following the dismissal of their appeal by the High Court, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court seeking leave to appeal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the evidence on record warranted a reappraisal by the apex court. The Supreme Court held that, upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not a fit case for the reappraisal of evidence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the convictions and sentences imposed by the lower courts. The principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not undertake a reappraisal of evidence in criminal matters unless a compelling case for such review is established.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court of Pakistan routinely undertake a reappraisal of evidence in criminal appeals?
- Is a case fit for reappraisal of evidence if the prosecution case rests on the testimony of injured eye-witnesses?
- BOOTA and others vs DOST MUHAMMAD1986 MLD 1037 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-10Read full judgment →
- BOOTA and another vs PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT and another1986 MLD 2366 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-13Read full judgment →
- BOLAN TEXTILE MILLS vs LABOUR UNION BOLAN TEXTILE MILLS And 2 Others1986 PLC 751 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had allowed a Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) to maintain an application under Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, regarding the deduction of house rent for employees. The core legal question was whether a CBA is competent to invoke Section 34 for the enforcement of rights guaranteed to individual workmen, or if such enforcement must strictly follow the procedure under Section 25-A of the Ordinance. The Court held that Section 34 cannot be invoked by a CBA to enforce rights guaranteed to individual workmen, as the statute provides a specific mechanism for such grievances under Section 25-A. The Court affirmed that the CBA's role under Section 34 is limited to matters of collective bargaining and does not extend to individual grievance redressal, which is governed by the specific conditions and limitations of Section 25-A. Consequently, the impugned orders were declared without lawful authority, and the Court directed the return of the application to the respondent for presentation to the proper forum.
Questions settled- Can a Collective Bargaining Agent maintain an application under Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for the enforcement of rights guaranteed to individual workmen?
- Does the exclusion in Section 22(12)(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, preclude a Collective Bargaining Agent from enforcing individual worker rights under Section 34?
- Must grievances regarding rights guaranteed to workmen under any law, award, or settlement be enforced through the procedure prescribed in Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Is a Collective Bargaining Agent authorized to represent workmen in proceedings under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- BOKHARI RECRUITING AGENCY vs MINISTRY OF LABOUR And MANPOWER1986 SCMR 1403 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Messrs Bokhari Recruiting Agency, challenged the refusal of the respondent authorities to renew its recruiting agent's licence by filing a constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that the petitioner had failed to avail of the alternative remedy of an appeal provided under the rules, and that the petitioner had approached the court with unclean hands by concealing material facts regarding the knowledge and receipt of the refusal letter. In the petition for special leave to appeal, the Supreme Court examined the findings of the High Court and concluded that the determination that the petitioner had knowledge of the refusal and had suppressed material facts was based on a rational appraisal of the record and supported by sufficient evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's refusal to exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction. The core legal principle established is that a writ petition under constitutional jurisdiction may be competently dismissed where the petitioner fails to approach the court with clean hands or bypasses an adequate alternative statutory remedy.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 can be dismissed for failure to avail an alternative remedy of appeal?
- Is a writ petition liable to dismissal when a petitioner conceals material facts and fails to approach the court with clean hands?
- Can a finding of fact regarding the knowledge of a refusal order, based on the record, be successfully challenged in a petition for special leave?
- Board Of Revenue NAZRA vs THE STATE1986 CLC 2149 · Board of Revenue · 1985-11-13Read full judgment →
- Board Of Revenue HUMAYUN vs THE STATE1986 CLC 2147 · Board of Revenue · 1986-02-24Read full judgment →
- BILAL HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 910 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-18Read full judgment →
- BIJAN MUBASHER vs THE STATE1986 PLD Karachi 473 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-11Read full judgment →
- BIBOJEE SERVICES Ltd. vs INTERASIA LINES Ltd. and another1986 MLD 38 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
- BHAI KHAN vs ALLAH BAKHSH AND Another1986 SCMR 849 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the trial court decreed the claim conditional upon the deposit of pre-emption money by a specified date. The appellant challenged the decree in the appellate court, which initially granted a stay order that subsequently expired. Upon the final hearing, the appellant withdrew the appeal but requested an extension of time to deposit the pre-emption money, which the District Judge refused. The Lahore High Court affirmed this refusal, citing the appellant's gross negligence and mala fide conduct in prolonging the litigation. The core legal question was whether an appellate court is mandatorily required to grant reasonable time for depositing pre-emption money when dismissing an appeal. The Supreme Court held that while appellate courts possess the discretionary power to extend the time for depositing pre-emption money, this is not an absolute right. Such discretion may be withheld in exceptional circumstances, particularly where the conduct of the pre-emptor demonstrates negligence or bad faith. Consequently, the Court upheld the lower courts' refusal to extend the time.
Questions settled- Does an appellate court have the power to extend the time for depositing pre-emption money when dismissing an appeal?
- Is an appellate court mandatorily required to grant reasonable time for the deposit of pre-emption money in every case?
- Can an appellate court refuse to extend the time for depositing pre-emption money based on the conduct of the appellant?
- BEHRAM KHAN vs I'm STATE1986 PLD Federal Shariat Court 133 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-10-23Read full judgment →
- BEGUM ZAHEERUL HAQ AND OTHERS vs CH. MUHAMMAD YOUNUS AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Supreme Court 330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil review petition arises out of an order dismissing an appeal in a rent restriction matter. The primary contention raised by the applicant in person was that counsel for the respondent had previously represented the appellants in earlier proceedings, creating a conflict of interest, and secondly, that this Court failed to examine certain points ignored by the Additional District Judge despite leave to appeal being granted, arguing that the grant of leave opens the entire matter. The Court held that the power-of-attorney relied upon pertained to a distinct preceding case, negating any conflict of interest. Furthermore, while the Court possesses vast discretion to examine points even when leave was not specifically granted, it declined to consider points that were never raised before the High Court. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a civil review petition be entertained in the absence of a certificate of fitness signed by the Advocate?
- Does the grant of leave to appeal automatically require the apex court to examine points not raised before the High Court?
- Whether previous representation in a distinct preceding case constitutes a conflict of interest in current proceedings?
- BEGUM SUGHRA HAQ vs Mian NAZIR AHMAD And 2 OTHER1986 CLC 2088 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-14Read full judgment →
- BEGUM NUSRAT BHUTTO and another vs PAKISTAN through the Secretary1986 MLD 217 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-27Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD INSHA ULLAH And Others vs CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (P&E), PUNJAB And Other1986 SCMR 1600 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from civil petitions for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The private petitioners, who were directly recruited as Forest Rangers holding B.Sc. degrees in Forestry, and the official petitioner (the Government) challenged the Tribunal's decision which held that the respondents (promoted Forest Rangers holding only certificates) were entitled to be considered for promotion to Grade-17 under the rules in force at the time of their entry into service, notwithstanding subsequent amendments prescribing a degree in Forestry as a minimum qualification. The core legal question is whether a civil servant has a vested right to be governed in matters of future promotion by the rules in force at the time of their entry into service, or whether the Government retains the authority to alter such rules to meet changing administrative needs. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to consider this question, confirming the interim order in the meantime.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant claim a vested right to be governed in matters of future promotion by the rules in force at the time of their entry into service?
- Is the Government precluded from altering service rules and qualifications for promotion to higher grades after a civil servant has entered service?
- Begum NA ZRUL ASKARI vs ARSHAD UMER1986 MLD 696 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
- Begum GULNAZ JALIL KHAN vs MORNING STAR EDUCATION SOCIETY1986 MLD 1348 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-31Read full judgment →
- Begum AYESHA and other vs Messrs KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION1986 MLD 69 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-26Read full judgment →
- Begum ANWAR SULTANA AND OTHERS vs Mian FAZAL AHMAD AND OTHERS1986 PLD Lahore 18 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-02Read full judgment →
- BAZ KHAN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 119 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-19Read full judgment →
- BASHIR, NAZIR & Co. vs CHAIRMAN, MARKET COMMITTEE, MULTAN and others1986 MLD 604 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-03Read full judgment →
- BASHIR vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1592 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-02Read full judgment →
- BASHIR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 538 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-22Read full judgment →
- BASHIR BEG vs AFTAB AHMAD And Other1986 SCMR 2011 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which accepted a civil revision and restored the trial court's decree in favor of the respondents. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had filed a suit for ownership of a disputed property based on a written gift deed executed in consideration of her marriage to the petitioner's stepson. While the trial court decreed the suit, the appellate court set it aside holding the suit to be time-barred. The High Court accepted the civil revision and restored the trial court decree without adverting to the crucial question of limitation. The core legal question is whether the High Court erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction by omitting to consider the question of limitation raised and decided by the appellate court. The Supreme Court held that the contention regarding the omission of the limitation question requires further examination and granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere in revisional jurisdiction without addressing a material finding of the appellate court regarding limitation?
- Does the omission of the appellate court's finding on time-barred claims warrant the grant of leave to appeal?
- BASHIR And Another vs The STATE1986 SCMR 2014 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners were convicted by the trial court for murder and attempted murder, receiving sentences of life imprisonment and seven years' rigorous imprisonment, respectively. The Lahore High Court dismissed their appeal, affirming the convictions based on eye-witness testimony and corroborating medical and recovery evidence. The petitioners challenged the convictions in the Supreme Court, primarily arguing that the complainant was an interested witness and that the injury on one of the petitioners remained unexplained. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, finding the evidence well-discussed and the findings of the High Court sound. However, the petitioners further contended that the trial court failed to order the sentences to run concurrently, thereby implying consecutive sentences, which conflicts with statutory provisions. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal specifically on this point, noting that the issue of whether sentences should run consecutively or concurrently requires examination under the relevant procedural law.
Questions settled- Whether sentences awarded for multiple offences must run concurrently or consecutively in the absence of a specific order by the trial court?
- Does the failure of a trial court to specify that sentences are to run concurrently violate the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- BASHIR ALI vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1832 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-03Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1795 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-24Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED vs MUHAMMAD HABIB1986 MLD 1599 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-19Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED vs Messrs NAGARIA TEXTILE MILLS Ltd., KARACHI1986 PLC 342 · Labour Court · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 224 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-11Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 930 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-26Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs THE STATE and another-1986 P Cr. L J 901 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-18Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1986 CLC 2320 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-24Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER and others1986 MLD 1962 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-29Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs P.R.T.C. Through Districk Manager, G.T.S. Depot No. 2, Faisalabad1986 PLC 1155 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD HANIF SHAH and 2 others1986 MLD 2413 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-17Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs ABDUS SALAM And 3 OTHER1986 CLC 572 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-11-05Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD SHAH And Another vs THE COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION, SARGODHA And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 317 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-06-09Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD AWAN vs ADDITIONAL SECRETARY And Another1986 SCMR 111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Administrative Officer in the Deputy Commissioner's Office, Chilas, sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against the dismissal of his service appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as an Administrative Officer, was eligible for promotion to the post of Sub-Divisional Magistrate without satisfying the prescribed recruitment rules or passing the departmental examination. The Supreme Court held that the applicable promotion rules of 1973 restrict selections to specific categories such as Tehsildars, Public Prosecutors, and Lawyer Magistrates, and the petitioner failed to show that he fell within any of these specified categories. Furthermore, the court held that seniority lists and subsequent circulars regarding enquiry committee recommendations did not amend or override the governing recruitment rules to make Administrative Officers eligible. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused, laying down the principle that eligibility for promotion is strictly governed by applicable recruitment rules and cannot be established merely through seniority lists or administrative circulars that do not amend those rules.
Questions settled- Whether an Administrative Officer is eligible for promotion as a Sub-Divisional Magistrate under the 1973 recruitment rules?
- Can a seniority list override or control statutory recruitment rules for promotion?
- Does an administrative circular implementing enquiry committee recommendations automatically alter statutory recruitment rules?
- BASHIR AHMAD And Others vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM And Another1986 SCMR 315 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed writ petitions filed by the petitioners regarding pre-emption suits. The core legal question was whether the District Judge, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, acted arbitrarily or beyond his discretion by setting aside the trial court's order, which had refused to extend the time for the deposit of Zar-e-Panjum under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the District Judge's exercise of discretion was neither fanciful nor arbitrary. The Court held that the trial court had acted arbitrarily by failing to properly apply its mind to the specific facts and circumstances of the case when refusing the extension of time. The key principle laid down is that while revisional jurisdiction is discretionary, an appellate or revisional court is justified in correcting a trial court's order if that order was passed in a perfunctory manner without judicial application of mind to the individual circumstances of the case.
Questions settled- Can a revisional court set aside a trial court's discretionary order regarding the extension of time for depositing pre-emption money?
- Does a trial court act arbitrarily if it refuses an extension of time for depositing Zar-e-Panjum without applying its mind to the specific facts of the case?
- Is the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by a District Judge subject to interference if the discretion was exercised reasonably?
- BASHIR AHMAD And Others vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1986 CLC 2844 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-16Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD ABID vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION1986 PLC (C.S.) 304 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-05-13Read full judgment →
- BASHARAT Alias FAZAL ELAHI And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1099 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-04Read full judgment →
- BASHARAT AHMAD KHAN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2005 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-05Read full judgment →
- BARKHA And Others vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE And OTHER1986 CLC 1037 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-02Read full judgment →
- BARKATULLAH KHAN vs Mirza MUHAMMAD HASAN1986 PLD Karachi 309 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This reference to a Full Bench of the Sindh High Court arose from a conflict of opinion regarding the interpretation of Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. The core legal questions were whether a notice under Section 14 requiring a tenant to vacate within sixty days is valid, and whether an eviction application filed after such notice is maintainable. The majority (with Naimuddin, J. dissenting) held that Section 14 is a remedial provision designed to provide a summary and speedy remedy to specified classes of landlords. The court ruled that the requirement to give a minimum of two months' notice is a directory, procedural provision for the benefit of the tenant, rather than a mandatory jurisdictional condition precedent. Consequently, a notice requiring vacation 'within' sixty days is valid, and an application filed thereafter is maintainable, provided that no eviction order is passed before the actual expiry of sixty days from the service of the notice. The court established that technical defects in statutory notices under this section do not invalidate the proceedings.
Questions settled- Is a notice under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 calling upon a tenant to vacate within sixty days valid?
- Whether an ejectment application filed under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 after service of a notice giving less than two months is maintainable?
- Are the notice requirements under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 mandatory or directory in nature?
- Can an eviction order be passed under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 before the expiry of sixty days from the date of service of notice?
- BARKAT SHAH vs Mst. SULTAN ZARI And Others1986 P Cr. L J 980 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-06-01Read full judgment →
- BARKAT and others vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1986 MLD 1943 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-02Read full judgment →
- BARKAT ALI vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed by Barkat Ali against his conviction and sentence for the murder of his brother's wife, Mst. Allah Rakhi, who was killed after refusing to develop illicit relations with him. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the sole accused based on eye-witness testimony, medical evidence of multiple stab injuries, and the recovery of a blood-stained weapon. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on solid evidence, including two independent eye-witnesses and corroborative recovery of a blood-stained chhuri. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and death sentence. The key principle laid down is that where ocular testimony is corroborated by medical evidence and weapon recovery, and independent witnesses have no motive for false implication, conviction for a heinous crime will not be interfered with.
Questions settled- Whether a jail petition barred by limitation can be dismissed on that ground?
- Does the uncorroborated testimony of independent eye-witnesses suffice to maintain a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of guilt in a heinous murder case where guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt?
- BARKAT ALI vs THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, MULTAN1986 SCMR 759 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of an evacuee property located in Multan, involving conflicting claims between a claimant and a non-claimant under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question involves the validity of an order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, which purportedly transferred the entire property to the claimant while simultaneously claiming to uphold a prior order that had actually directed the division of the property between the parties. The Supreme Court observed that the impugned order was internally contradictory, as it declared the property indivisible while referencing an order that mandated division, and further misattributed the authorship of the order it sought to uphold. Consequently, the Court held that the matter required further consideration due to these patent inconsistencies and factual errors in the administrative proceedings. Leave to appeal was granted to examine the legality of the administrative orders, and a status quo order was maintained pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
Questions settled- Can a settlement authority pass an order that is internally contradictory regarding the divisibility of an evacuee property?
- Does an administrative order that misattributes the authorship of a prior order it purports to uphold suffer from legal infirmity?
- Is an ex parte order by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner a bar to passing a fresh order in subsequent proceedings?
- BARKAT ALI vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI1986 CLC 2326 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-17Read full judgment →
- BARKAT ALI vs MUHAMMAD SADIQ And 9 OTHER1986 CLC 1977 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-07-21Read full judgment →
- BARKAT ALI And Others vs MUHAMMAD DIN And OTHER1986 CLC 2789 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-30Read full judgment →
- BARKAT ALI And Another vs Ch. FAZAL HUSSAIN And Other1986 SCMR 138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- BAQIR SHAH vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 833 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-01Read full judgment →
- BAQAR HUSSAIN vs Mst. JAMILA BEGUM1986 MLD 1273 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
- BANNU SUGAR MILLS Ltd. vs PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT1986 SCMR 1665 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Division Bench of the Sind High Court, which had affirmed a Single Judge's order dismissing the petitioner's application for an interim injunction. The petitioner sought to restrain the respondents from encashing a bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner during the pendency of the underlying suit. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in refusing to grant the temporary injunction to restrain the encashment of the bank guarantee. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts provided valid and cogent reasons for dismissing the application and that the impugned judgment was passed in a valid exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no legal error or grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the High Court. The petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by lower courts unless such discretion was exercised improperly or without valid legal basis.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court interfere with the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by a lower court when valid and cogent reasons are provided?
- Is a party entitled to an interim injunction to restrain the encashment of a bank guarantee pending the disposal of a suit?
- BANK OF CREDIT AND COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL (OVERSEAS) Ltd. vs OCEAN1986 MLD 720 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-30Read full judgment →
- BANK OF BAHAWALPUR Ltd. (Now National Bank Of Pakistan) vs BAHAWALPUR COTTON COMPANY And Other1986 SCMR 1364 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a First Appeal from Order, which had upheld the dismissal of the petitioner bank's suit for recovery of approximately three-quarters of a crore rupees in default. The core legal question is whether a date fixed merely for the appearance of summoned defendants and potential arguments on an amendment application constitutes a 'hearing' for the purposes of dismissing a suit in default under Order IX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the proper interpretation of 'hearing' require detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution was legally sustainable under the cited provision. The key principle laid down is that a date set only for procedural steps such as service of defendants and preliminary arguments does not necessarily constitute a date of hearing warranting penal dismissal for default.
Questions settled- Whether a date fixed for the appearance of summoned defendants and arguments on an amendment application constitutes a 'hearing' under Order IX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a suit be validly dismissed in default under Order IX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on a date not fixed for hearing?
- BALUCH KHAN vs CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, SARGODHA1986 PLC 635 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-01-26Read full judgment →
- BAKHOO vs Mst. KHADIJA And Another1986 SCMR 1359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's Regular Second Appeal on the grounds of it being time-barred by 127 days. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in refusing to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, based on the petitioner's claim of illness. The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's finding that the petitioner failed to provide reliable material to substantiate that the alleged illness rendered him incapacitated to the extent of being unable to file the appeal within the prescribed limitation period. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exercised its discretion soundly and provided valid, logical reasons for rejecting the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the Court found the High Court's order unexceptionable. The key principle laid down is that the appellate court's discretion to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, will not be interfered with when it is based on sound reasoning and a lack of evidence regarding the alleged incapacity.
Questions settled- Does the failure to provide reliable evidence of incapacity justify the refusal to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretionary order rejecting an application for condonation of delay if the order is based on sound reasons?
- BAHRAM KHAN vs MENTHAR And Another1986 P Cr. L J 1971 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-25Read full judgment →
- BAHAUDDIN BHAI vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1986 SCMR 1037 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Peshawar High Court regarding the auction of agricultural land. The petitioner, a refugee claimant, had been allotted land in District D.I. Khan in lieu of his verified claims. Subsequently, a portion of this allotted land was treated as 'available unallotted land' and auctioned off to private respondents under Scheme II of 1976 framed pursuant to the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Law (Repeal) Act 1975. The core legal question is whether the disputed land could be legally regarded as 'available' for disposal through auction on the date it was transferred. The Supreme Court held that since the land had already been validly allotted to the petitioner and his claim verified, it did not constitute unallotted land under the relevant scheme and was thus outside the scope of disposal. The auction and subsequent orders were declared void and without legal effect. The key principle laid down is that evacuee land previously and validly allotted against verified claims does not fall within the definition of unallotted land available for auction under settlement schemes.
Questions settled- Whether land previously allotted against a verified claim can be treated as unallotted land available for auction under Scheme II of 1976?
- Does the failure of an allottee to appear in person before a Deputy Settlement Commissioner justify dismissing an application challenging an auction when valid representation exists?
- Whether settlement authorities retain jurisdiction to auction land that has already been permanently settled in favor of a claimant?
- BAHADUR and 2 others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2833 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-11Read full judgment →
- BAHADUR ALI vs M. Bashir Awan For Respondent.1986 PLC 735 · Labour Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
- BAGH ALI vs HABIB J3ANK LTD. AND 2 OTHERS1986 PLD Lahore 124 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by a District Judge in a summary suit for the recovery of money under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in dismissing the appellant's application for leave to defend the suit as time-barred and subsequently decreeing the suit, particularly given the appellant's contention regarding the incorrect form of summons issued. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that since the appellant had not been served with the initial summons, he was required to file his application for leave to defend within ten days of his first appearance in court. Having failed to do so, and having failed to apply for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act 1908, the application was correctly dismissed as time-barred. The judgment affirms that in summary suits, if a defendant fails to obtain leave to defend within the prescribed period, the averments in the plaint are deemed admitted, entitling the plaintiff to a decree. Furthermore, a defendant cannot challenge the form of a summons that was never served upon them.
Questions settled- Can a defendant challenge the form of a summons that was never served upon them?
- What is the limitation period for filing an application for leave to defend a summary suit when the defendant has not been served with the initial summons?
- What is the consequence of failing to obtain leave to defend in a summary suit under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is an affidavit mandatory for an application for leave to defend a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- BAGH ALI and another vs ABDUR RASHID1986 MLD 2125 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-21Read full judgment →
- BADIULLAH SHAH (MUHAMMAD BADIUZ ZAMAN) vs SETTLEMENT1986 MLD 2374 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-06Read full judgment →
- BADIULLAH SHAH (MUHAMMAD BADIUZ ZAMAN) vs SETTLEMENT1986 CLC 419 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- BADAR MUNIR vs AZMAT ALI and others1986 MLD 2490 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-11Read full judgment →
- BADAR AMIN and 19 others vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER EXERCISING1986 MLD 1035 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-19Read full judgment →
- BAGH ALI vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 777 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-08Read full judgment →
- BABU vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE And, OTHER1986 CLC 2339 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-12Read full judgment →
- BABU MASIH vs PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION1986 PLC 310 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-07-07Read full judgment →
- BABU KHAN vs AMANAT KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 1369 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 22nd June 1977 of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a Regular Second Appeal concerning a land inheritance dispute. The core legal question involved the correct distribution of shares in property left by the last male owner and allotted in Pakistan against verified claims following the death of multiple family members during disturbances. The Supreme Court considered the petitioner's contention based on a principle of Muslim Law of Inheritance regarding simultaneous deaths and the Digest of Muhammadan Law by Bailee. The Court held that the parties were correctly allocated shares in accordance with the applicable law relating to evacuee land under the Laws of Rehabilitation and Settlement, and that the petitioner failed to show any contravention of the relied-upon Muslim Law principles. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower forums.
Questions settled- Whether the distribution of evacuee land inheritance under the Laws of Rehabilitation and Settlement was defective in this case?
- Does the simultaneous death of heirs contravene the established principles of Muslim Law of Inheritance regarding progeny shares?
- BABOO vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1791 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-20Read full judgment →
- BABAR And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1406 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-03Read full judgment →
- AZMAT SHEIKH and another vs ZAHOOR DIN DAR and 3 others1986 MLD 1572 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-21Read full judgment →
- AZIZUR RAHMAN vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, BAH4WALPUR1986 PLC (C.S.) 483 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- AZIZUR RAHMAN And Others vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ1986 SCMR 136(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court regarding the nature of the right of pre-emption. The core legal question presented is whether the right of pre-emption is an inheritable right that devolves upon heirs, or whether it constitutes a purely personal right that expires if not exercised by the original holder during their lifetime. The dispute arose when the respondent filed a suit for possession by pre-emption, claiming a superior right derived from his deceased father. While the trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, the appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the right did not devolve. The High Court subsequently accepted the respondent's revision petition. Upon reviewing the contentions, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to definitively determine whether the right of pre-emption is inheritable under Muslim Law and the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, or if it remains a simple personal right.
Questions settled- Is the right of pre-emption an inheritable right under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950?
- Does the right of pre-emption devolve upon heirs if the original holder dies without exercising it?
- AZIZ UR REHMAN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2716 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-05-18Read full judgment →
- AZIZ UR REHMAN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2371 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-22Read full judgment →
- AZIZ UR REHMAN And Others vs GHULAM RASUL And Other1986 SCMR 1274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the allotment of agricultural land in Village Jaitheke, Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot, originally belonging to an evacuee. The respondent, Guru Bakhsh Singh, who remained in Pakistan after his father and brother migrated to India, sought his one-half share of the property. Following various administrative proceedings, the Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands) ordered the allotment of this share to the respondent. Although the land had been previously allotted to other parties, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner subsequently ordered the cancellation of those allotments to satisfy the respondent's entitlement, a decision upheld by the Member, Board of Revenue. When the petitioners challenged these cancellations via writ petitions, the High Court dismissed them, noting that the administrative orders had attained finality. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the High Court's judgment, holding that the matter had reached a final conclusion and that the cancellation of the prior allotments could not be reopened or reviewed through writ jurisdiction, as the administrative decisions had become binding and final against the parties involved.
Questions settled- Can an administrative order regarding land allotment that has attained finality be reopened through writ jurisdiction?
- Does the failure to challenge an administrative order against one party render that order final and binding against them?
- AZIZ MUHAMMAD and others vs NEKA and others1986 MLD 1936 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-11Read full judgment →
- AZIZ MASIH vs THE LYALLPUR COTTON MILLS, FAISALABAD Through Its General1986 PLC 1088 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- AZIZ ALI vs LEEMO through his 5 Legal Heirs1986 MLD 2957 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
- AZIZ AKBAR vs THE STATE1986 PLD Sh. C (A J & K) 83 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-01-20Read full judgment →
- AZIZ AHMAD vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1838 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
- AZIZ AHMAD vs DISTRICT JUDGE and others1986 MLD 673 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-26Read full judgment →
- AZHAR HAIDER SHAH vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1362 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-17Read full judgment →
- AZHAR Alias KADU vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1593 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-02-26Read full judgment →
- AZHAR ABBAS ZAIDI vs Messrs ASSOCIATED CEMENT, WAH CEMENT WORKS1986 PLC 419 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-27Read full judgment →