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.
- AZAM KHAN vs AZAD KHAN AND 6 OTHERS1986 PLD Lahore 275 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from a dispute over the possession of land measuring 2 Kanals, where the plaintiff sought a declaration of his status as a co-sharer in possession and a permanent injunction against the defendants. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed this decision, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The core legal question concerned whether the appellate court erred in its assessment of evidence regarding possession and the validity of a revenue entry (mutation) that purportedly altered the plaintiff's possession. The High Court held that the appellate court correctly determined the plaintiff's possession. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a co-sharer in exclusive possession of a specific parcel of joint land is entitled to maintain that possession until the joint property is partitioned by actual metes and bounds. Furthermore, it establishes that an illegal entry in the revenue record cannot displace a prior lawful entry, and the burden of proving the legality of a new entry rests on the beneficiary of that change.
Questions settled- Can a co-sharer in exclusive possession of a specific parcel of joint land be dispossessed by another co-sharer without a formal partition by metes and bounds?
- Does an illegal entry in the revenue record automatically supersede a prior lawful entry?
- Is a co-sharer entitled to maintain possession of joint land until such time as the property is partitioned?
- AZAM AYUB KHAN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 326 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
- AZAD KHAN Alias AZADAI vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1171 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which set aside an acquittal order by the Sessions Judge, Bannu, and convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal, based on alleged discrepancies in the site plan and the perceived unnatural conduct of witnesses, was legally sound. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's conviction. The Court held that a site plan does not constitute substantive evidence unless a witness is confronted with it to demonstrate a contradiction with their earlier statement. Furthermore, the Court ruled that minor inconsistencies regarding witness behavior or the positioning of parties do not undermine the prosecution's case when the testimony is corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the murder weapon. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts may reverse acquittals when the trial court's reasoning relies on trivial discrepancies rather than the substantive weight of the prosecution's evidence.
Questions settled- Is a site plan considered substantive evidence in a criminal trial?
- Under what circumstances can an appellate court reverse an acquittal order?
- Does the recovery of a murder weapon corroborate eyewitness testimony?
- Can minor discrepancies in witness statements regarding the positioning of parties invalidate a murder conviction?
- AZAD KASHMIR LOGGING AND SAW MILL CORPORATION LTD. vs MESSRS1986 PLD Azad J & K 228 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-07-04Read full judgment →
- AYUB KHAN KUND1 and another vs THE STATE and another1986 MLD 1071 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-16Read full judgment →
- AYAZ MUHAMMAD KHAN and another vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER and another1986 MLD 425 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-18Read full judgment →
- AVED AKBAR vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another1986 MLD 179 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-26Read full judgment →
- AULAD HUSSAIN vs Mst. KHAIRUN NISA1986 MLD 1669 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-10Read full judgment →
- AULAD HUSSAIN SHAH and others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2861 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- ATTAULLAH ZIA vs PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION1986 MLD 754 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-15Read full judgment →
- ATTAULLAH KHAN vs JAWAID HAIDER KAZMI And 2 Other1986 SCMR 1834 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondents by the Sind High Court in a case registered under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in granting pre-arrest bail to the respondents, thereby warranting interference by the apex court. The Supreme Court held that the impugned order of the High Court did not suffer from any legal infirmity or justification for interference, and consequently dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the discretionary grant of pre-arrest bail by a high court unless a clear legal infirmity or lack of justification is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the grant of anticipatory bail by the High Court under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code without a showing of legal infirmity?
- Can a complainant successfully seek cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted by the High Court if no legal infirmity is established?
- ATTA Muhammad vs THESTATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1436 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-06Read full judgment →
- ATTA MUHAMMAD vs The STATE1986 SCMR 134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the High Court dated 31-8-1985, which had dismissed his bail application in a criminal case registered under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court properly exercised its judicial discretion in refusing post-arrest bail to the accused. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and examining the impugned order, the Supreme Court held that the case was not a fit one for interference with the discretionary order passed by the High Court. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the lower court's refusal to grant bail. The key principle laid down is that the apex court will ordinarily not interfere with the discretionary exercise of judicial power by the High Court in bail matters unless a compelling ground for interference is made out.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's exercise of judicial discretion in dismissing a bail application?
- Is bail to be granted in a case falling under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 as a matter of course?
- ATTA MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1789 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-22Read full judgment →
- ATTA MUHAMMAD vs Malik TAJ DIN1986 MLD 2301 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-12Read full judgment →
- ATTA MUHAMMAD vs DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, RANGE MANAGEMENT1986 PLC (C.S.) 475 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-11-11Read full judgment →
- ATTA MUHA111MAD vs ZULFIQAR ALI1986 CLC 2086 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-13Read full judgment →
- ATTA HUSSAIN SHEIKH vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others1986 MLD 876 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-22Read full judgment →
- ATHAR NASIM vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd.1986 PLC 1059 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-07-14Read full judgment →
- ATAUR REHMAN KHAN vs DOST MUHAMMAD And Other1986 SCMR 598 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition challenging an order of the Board of Revenue. The dispute concerns land originally held by an occupancy tenant who acquired proprietary rights, which the State later treated as escheated State land and sold to the appellant. Meanwhile, private claimants obtained a civil court declaratory decree regarding the property based on a will and adoption, leading the Board of Revenue to cancel the land grant to the appellant. The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition, holding that mutation entries are not title documents and cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that entries in revenue and mutation records are not title deeds and only serve evidentiary value, and that complex questions of title and the effect of a declaratory decree cannot be properly adjudicated within writ jurisdiction, which is reserved for courts of general jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether entries in a mutation register and revenue records constitute documents of title?
- Can questions of title and the effect of a declaratory decree be properly adjudicated in writ jurisdiction?
- Does the deposit of the amount of Malkana immediately vest proprietary rights with the transferee regardless of incorporation in revenue records?
- ATA-UL-HAQ vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and 2 others1986 MLD 1018 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-20Read full judgment →
- ATA UR RAHMAN vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD QURESHI Through His Legal Heirs1986 SCMR 1082 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an ejectment order granted in favor of a landlord on the grounds of personal requirement. The petitioner sought to challenge the final judgment by alleging that the deceased landlord had committed fraud by misrepresenting his ownership of another property during the initial proceedings. The petitioner invoked Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, contending that the appellate court should have entertained an application to set aside the judgment on grounds of fraud. The Supreme Court examined the evidence presented, specifically documents regarding property ownership dated years after the landlord’s death. The Court held that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of fraud, as the evidence did not demonstrate that the landlord possessed other suitable accommodation at the time of the ejectment application. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions without determining the legal question of whether Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applies to proceedings under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, as the factual foundation for such a claim was entirely absent.
Questions settled- Does the failure to produce evidence during trial that could have been obtained with due diligence entitle a party to reopen a case based on fraud?
- Does the possession of other immovable property by a landlord necessarily disprove a claim of personal requirement for rented premises?
- Can a judgment be challenged on the grounds of fraud under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without establishing a factual basis for the alleged fraud?
- ATA MUHAMMAD vs The STATE1986 SCMR 691 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-18Read 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 revision petition in limine regarding his conviction under sections 304-A and 337 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, a bus driver, was convicted for rash and negligent driving resulting in the death of one individual and injuries to another. The core legal question was whether the testimony of a single injured eye-witness, when other witnesses were declared hostile, was sufficient to sustain a conviction, and whether the High Court erred in its revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit, affirming that the statement of a single witness, if qualitatively sufficient, is legally adequate to support a conviction. The Court refused to interfere, noting that the petitioner's arguments merely sought a reappraisal of evidence already examined by lower courts, which does not constitute a valid question of law. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of a single witness may qualitatively suffice for conviction, and the Supreme Court will not re-evaluate evidence already satisfactorily appraised by lower courts.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of a single witness be sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction?
- Does a request for the reappraisal of evidence already examined by lower courts constitute a valid question of law for the Supreme Court?
- Is a conviction based on the testimony of a single witness legally valid when other witnesses have been declared hostile?
- ATA MUHAMMAD vs KHADIJA BEGUM and others1986 MLD 2679 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-16Read full judgment →
- ATA MUHAMMAD vs KARIM BAKHSH1986 SCMR 334 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition directed against an order of the High Court which dismissed a pre-emptor's suit after finding that the circumstances of the case amply supported an inference of waiver against him. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as a pre-emptor, could be considered to have abandoned his right through waiver, and whether the High Court could interfere with findings in a second appeal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly examined the matter because the legal inference arising from admitted facts regarding waiver amounts to a question of law rather than a pure question of fact, thereby justifying interference in second appeal. The Court laid down the principle that the determination of whether admitted facts constitute a waiver of a right is a question of law open to examination in appellate jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether an inference of waiver can be drawn from admitted facts in a pre-emption suit?
- Can a finding regarding waiver based on admitted facts be examined in a second appeal?
- ATA MUHAMMAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD FAROOQ And Other1986 SCMR 510 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted two respondents previously convicted of murder. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence by rejecting the testimony of prosecution witnesses and granting the respondents the benefit of the doubt. The Supreme Court examined the High Court's findings, which determined that the alleged eye-witnesses were interested witnesses requiring corroboration that was not provided, and that the presence of a third witness was doubtful as he was not named in the First Information Report. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, finding no error of law or violation of settled principles of evidence appreciation in the High Court's judgment. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution witnesses are deemed interested and lack necessary corroboration, and where the presence of additional witnesses is doubtful, the appellate court is justified in extending the benefit of the doubt to the accused, leading to acquittal.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court acquit an accused if the prosecution witnesses are found to be interested and lack corroboration?
- Is the testimony of an eye-witness who was not named in the First Information Report liable to be excluded on grounds of propriety and safety?
- Does the failure to point out an error of law or violation of settled principles of evidence appreciation justify the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal?
- ASYA vs Miss ANWARI BEGUM And ANOTHER1986 C L C814 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-23Read full judgment →
- ASSISTANT ENGINEER-I (WORKS), PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE And Another1986 PLC 1120 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- ASSISTANT CUSTODIAN OF ENEMY PROPERTY (BANKS) STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE vs Haji MUHAMMAD RAFI1986 PLC 274 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-09-30Read full judgment →
- Assessee vs DepartmentPTCL 1986 CL. 354 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-19Read full judgment →
- ASLAM vs THE STATE--Opponent1986 P Cr. L J 446 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-11Read full judgment →
- ASLAM KHAN vs KARIM BAKHSH (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs And Other1986 SCMR 557 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging a High Court judgment that denied the petitioner's right to pre-empt a sale based on their status as a tenant. The core legal questions presented for the Court's consideration involve whether the High Court erred in its reliance on the precedent established by the Shariat Bench in Haji Naimatullah Khan and another v. Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Law (PLD 1979 Pesh. 104) to disqualify the petitioner from exercising the right of pre-emption. Furthermore, the Court is tasked with determining whether the High Court failed to properly evaluate the petitioner's actual possession of the property, particularly in contrast to the official entries recorded in the Misl-e-Haqiat, at the time of the sale and during the subsequent enforcement of the pre-emption right. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these issues, directing that the appeal be heard on the existing record while permitting the parties to submit additional documentation, and ordered the maintenance of the status quo regarding possession pending the final adjudication.
Questions settled- Does the decision in Haji Naimatullah Khan and another v. Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Law (PLD 1979 Pesh. 104) preclude a tenant from exercising the right of pre-emption?
- Should actual possession be considered superior to entries in the Misl-e-Haqiat when determining the right of pre-emption?
- ASIF ANWAR AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS NISHIBE KAIKE MANUFACTURING1986 PLD Karachi 446 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-07Read full judgment →
- ASIA BIBI vs ABDULLAH1986 MLD 890 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
- ASHRAF MAHMOOD vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1621 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-14Read full judgment →
- ASHRAF KHAN vs Sardar GUL MUHAMMAD1986 M LD 1602 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-16Read full judgment →
- ASHIQUE ALI vs THE STATE1986 PCr. L J 2888 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-10Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2954 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-06-15Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 732 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ HUSSAIN vs DISTRICT MANAGER, P.R.T.C. (INTER CITY) G.T.S., ISLAMABAD1986 PLC 511 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1986-01-13Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ ALI vs MUSTAFA ATRINEJAD1986 MLD 1243 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-30Read full judgment →
- ASHFAQ AHMAD vs THE STATE and another-1986 P Cr. L J 226 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-14Read full judgment →
- ASHFAQ AHMAD PERVAIZ vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 602 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-08Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1953 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-05Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2176 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-17Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN1986 P Cr. L J 2342 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI vs I-G. OF POLICE, PUNJAB And 2 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 677 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-03-28Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI KHAN vs SHAHID FAROOQ and another1986 P Cr. L J 1352 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-02Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1986 PLD Labore 180 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-18Read full judgment →
- ARSHAD vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1204 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 read with Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the evidence on record was of sufficient quality to sustain the appellant's conviction for instigating the principal offenders who inflicted grievous injuries on the complainant. The trial court and the appellate court concurrently accepted the testimony of the prosecution witnesses attributing the role of instigation to the appellant. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of any error in the lower courts' appraisal of evidence, the concurrent findings regarding guilt must be maintained. However, considering the passage of approximately nine years since the incident, the Court adopted a lenient view regarding the substantive sentence, reducing it to the period already undergone while maintaining the fine and the sentence in default thereof. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with the specified modification to the sentence.
Questions settled- Whether the evidence of instigation is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 326 read with Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the courts below in the absence of an error in the appraisal of evidence?
- Whether the passage of a long period of time in litigation can be a ground for reducing the substantive sentence while maintaining the conviction?
- ARSHAD MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 330 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-21Read full judgment →
- ARSHAD HUSSAIN SHAH vs I.-G. POLICE,PUNJAB, LAHORE And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 159 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
- ARSHAD And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2743 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-23Read full judgment →
- ARSHAD And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2474 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-28Read full judgment →
- ARSHAD ALI KHAN And Other vs ZIA ULLAH KHAN1986 PLC 612 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-12-22Read full judgment →
- ARIF MAJEED vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2704 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-09-20Read full judgment →
- ARIF AND 4 OTHERS vs KADIR BUX AND 2 OTHERS1986 PLD Rev. 67 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1998-12-01Read full judgment →
- ARIF ALI vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1986 PLC 275 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-09-17Read full judgment →
- ARBAB GHULAM ALI KHAN AND 14 OTHERS vs ARBAB MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN1986 PLD Peshawar 72 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-12-03Read full judgment →
- ARBAB FAZALUR REHMAN KHAN And Others vs COLLECTOR, ACQUISITION1986 SCMR 1118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court concerning the determination of compensation for land acquired in villages Tehkal Bala and Achini Payan for establishing industrial estates. The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per acre. Upon a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Senior Civil Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 16,000 per acre based on evidence of sales and awards in adjoining villages, as no sales had occurred in the acquired villages due to statutory bans. The High Court reversed this decision and restored the Collector's award, drawing comparisons to land prices in Punjab colony districts. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reliance on irrelevant considerations and its rejection of proper evidence of neighboring transactions was unjustified. The Court laid down the principle that where direct evidence of sales in the acquired locality is absent due to legal restrictions, reliable evidence of sales and market values in adjacent villages is legally relevant and admissible for assessing fair compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Questions settled- Whether evidence of sales in adjoining villages is admissible for determining market value when no sales have taken place in the acquired village?
- Can the High Court set aside a well-reasoned assessment of land compensation by a civil court based on irrelevant considerations?
- What is the proper method for assessing market value under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, when the local area lacks recent sale transactions?
- AQAL HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD SADIQ And 7 OTHER1986 CLC 1316 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition was filed against an order of the Additional Sub-Judge, Rawalakot, which rejected the plaintiff-petitioner's application to withdraw his suit for declaration of title (based on adverse possession) with liberty to file a fresh suit. The petitioner sought withdrawal under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, contending that the non-joinder of subsequent vendees and omissions made by the petition-writer constituted 'formal defects' or 'other sufficient grounds' likely to cause the suit to fail. The High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the petition, holding that 'formal defect' refers to irregularities of form and method that do not touch the merits of the case. The Court ruled that the non-joinder of necessary parties is not a formal defect, and vague assertions of petition-writer mistakes do not constitute 'other sufficient grounds'. Furthermore, since the omissions could be rectified through amendments under other provisions of the Code, permission to withdraw to file a fresh suit was rightly declined.
Questions settled- Does the non-joinder of necessary parties constitute a 'formal defect' within the meaning of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What is the legal definition and scope of the term 'formal defect' under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a plaintiff be permitted to withdraw a suit with liberty to file a fresh suit if the defect in the pleadings can be cured by seeking an amendment?
- Do vague assertions regarding omissions made by a petition-writer constitute 'other sufficient grounds' for the withdrawal of a suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Appellant Tribunal MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs E-XECUTIVE ENGINEER1986 PLC 668 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- ANWARUL HAQ KHAN vs THE STATE and 2 others1986 MLD 1930 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-28Read full judgment →
- ANWARUL HAQ And Others vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER And Other1986 SCMR 671 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the allotment of land to displaced persons following the partition of the sub-continent. The core legal question was whether the appeal filed by the respondents' predecessor-in-interest, Gul Muhammad, against the allotment of land to the appellants' predecessor, Fateh Muhammad, was dismissed or allowed by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner on 12-7-1956. The Supreme Court found that the record, including the respondents' own previous admissions in revision proceedings, conclusively established that the appeal was dismissed on 12-7-1956, rendering that order final. The Court held that the subsequent administrative attempts to cancel the appellants' long-standing, confirmed allotment based on a misrepresentation that the 1956 appeal had been allowed were legally invalid. The Court affirmed that once an allotment is confirmed and an appellate order rejecting a challenge to it attains finality, subordinate authorities lack the jurisdiction to reopen the matter or review such orders. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders of the Settlement authorities and the High Court, restoring the appellants' title.
Questions settled- Whether an administrative authority has the jurisdiction to review or set aside a final order passed by a predecessor in interest?
- Can a party rely on a misrepresented appellate order to seek the cancellation of a confirmed land allotment?
- Does the dismissal of an appeal by a Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner attain finality if not challenged further?
- Is an allotment of land, once confirmed and maintained by appellate authorities, subject to reopening based on subsequent misrepresentations of fact?
- ANWAR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 454 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-20Read full judgment →
- ANWAR MASIH vs GHULAM MASIH And Other1986 SCMR 1202 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had modified the convictions of the respondents in a murder case. Specifically, the High Court had converted the convictions of two respondents from Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 304 Part-I, and altered the convictions of two other respondents from Section 302 to Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in reduced sentences. The petitioner sought to challenge these acquittals under Section 302 and requested an enhancement of the sentences. The Supreme Court observed that the petition was filed with a delay of 207 days. Upon reviewing the application for condonation of delay, the Court found the provided grounds unconvincing. The Court held that in cases involving appeals against acquittal, the threshold for condoning delay is significantly higher, requiring very strong grounds which were absent in this instance. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition on the sole ground that it was time-barred, without addressing the merits of the conviction modifications.
Questions settled- Is a delay of 207 days in filing a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal generally condonable without strong grounds?
- Does the standard for condoning delay differ in cases involving appeals against acquittal compared to other matters?
- ANWAR KHAN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2313 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-13Read full judgment →
- ANWAR KHAN And Another vs Mst. HASHMATE And Other1986 SCMR 517 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court examines whether the appellants were lawfully entitled to the transfer of a rural evacuee building site under Settlement Scheme No. VII based on long-standing possession since 1951, and whether the Lahore High Court was justified in dismissing their constitutional petition. The core legal questions involve the finality of prior adjudications by competent settlement authorities, the determination of the character of land under the relevant settlement laws, and the extent of interference permissible in findings of fact. The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to challenge earlier adverse orders of the settlement hierarchy, and that the character of the land is determined by its actual use rather than the original intention of its sale. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal with costs, affirming the High Court's judgment that factual findings regarding the nature of land cannot be lightly disturbed in constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the character of land under settlement laws is determined by the intention of its sale or its actual use?
- Can revenue authorities alter the nature of land previously determined by competent settlement authorities?
- Whether a finding of fact regarding the nature of land recorded by settlement authorities can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction?
- ANWAR HUSSAIN vs ALLAH BUX1986 SCMR 264 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed his revision petition. The dispute originated from a civil suit regarding the title and possession of urban property, which the respondent claimed was a Benami transaction. Initially, the trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner, but the appellate court reversed this, finding the transaction Benami. A subsequent High Court remand order directed the appellate court to record additional evidence specifically regarding whether the respondent paid the sale consideration through cheques, stipulating that the respondent's claim would succeed only if such payment was proven. Upon remand, the appellate court found the entire price was paid, though partly by cash, and upheld the Benami finding. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's subsequent revision, rejecting the argument that the appellate court exceeded the remand order's scope. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the case requires examination of whether a court can exceed the specific limits of a remand order and whether a party can succeed by setting up a case inconsistent with their initial oral testimony.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court exceed the specific limits prescribed by a remand order?
- Is a party precluded from challenging the correctness of a remand order if they participated in proceedings pursuant to it?
- Can a party succeed in a claim by setting up a case that contradicts their own initial oral testimony?
- ANWAR And 3 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1616 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-25Read full judgment →
- ANSAR AHMED vs JAWED SALAHJEE1986 SCMR 1695 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court, which set aside the eviction order passed against the respondent-tenant by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller had initially ordered eviction on the grounds of default in electric charges and the landlord's bona fide personal requirement for his large family. The High Court reversed this decision, holding that the personal requirement plea lacked bona fides because a portion of the premises had been utilized to run a hosiery factory and a son occupied another portion that fell vacant during the proceedings. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court erred in reversing the Rent Controller's finding on personal requirement based on a misapprehension of facts regarding the timing of the hosiery factory's establishment and the sufficiency of the remaining accommodation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised regarding the evidence and factual appreciation warranted consideration on merits.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in reversing a Rent Controller's finding of bona fide personal requirement based on the establishment of a business in a portion of the premises?
- Does the availability of additional accommodation falling vacant during ejectment proceedings negate the landlord's claim of insufficient residential space for a large family?
- ANJUMAN-E-ISLAMIA, BALUCHISTAN vs Qari YAR MUHAMMAD1986 PLC 909 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-12-29Read full judgment →
- AMLA SAFAI LABOUR UNION, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SARGODHA And 41986 PLC 633 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- AMJAD SAEED And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2775 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-07Read full judgment →
- AMJAD HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD AYOUB KAFEEL and 3 others1986 MLD 1215 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-19Read full judgment →
- AMIR SHAH vs FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND 2 oTHERS1986 PLD Peshawar 195 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-05-13Read full judgment →
- AMIR KHAN vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Amir Khan and his brother Dilawar Khan were tried for the murder of Walayat Khan. The trial court convicted Amir Khan and sentenced him to death while acquitting Dilawar Khan. The High Court dismissed Amir Khan's appeal and confirmed his death sentence, and also dismissed the State's appeal against Dilawar Khan's acquittal. Both Amir Khan and the complainant filed petitions for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence regarding the guilt of the convict and the propriety of the co-accused's acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no error in appreciating the evidence or applying legal principles, finding the reasoning unexceptionable. The petitions were accordingly dismissed, affirming both the conviction and the acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court erred in confirming the death sentence of the petitioner?
- Whether the acquittal of the co-accused was erroneous and caused a miscarriage of justice?
- Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding the appreciation of evidence warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- AMIR KHAN vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE JHELUM DISTRICT JHELUM And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 512 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-08-31Read full judgment →
- AMIR KHAN vs K.D.A. through its Chairman and 8 others1986 MLD 1622 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-23Read full judgment →
- AMIR KHAN And Others vs THE STATE And Other1986 SCMR 1506 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from two petitions seeking leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which confirmed the death sentence of petitioner Amir Khan for murder but acquitted his co-accused of the murder charge while sentencing them to time served for attempted murder. The prosecution's case was that the accused party launched an armed attack due to prior enmity, resulting in one death and injuries to others. The petitioner argued that the prosecution suppressed a material circumstance, namely, that two individuals from the accused party had sustained significant firearm injuries during the same occurrence, which were not mentioned in the First Information Report. The High Court had dismissed these injuries as insignificant or self-suffered. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to examine whether the suppression of injuries on the accused party affected the credibility of the prosecution's case, and to reappraise the evidence regarding the culpability of all the accused. Bailable warrants were issued for the acquitted co-accused.
Questions settled- What is the legal effect of the prosecution's failure to explain or mention significant firearm injuries sustained by the accused party during the same occurrence?
- Can injuries on the accused party be summarily dismissed as self-suffered without proper medical and evidentiary analysis?
- Whether the acquittal of co-accused on a murder charge requires reappraisal by the appellate court when a cross-case and suppressed injuries are established?
- AMIR HUSSAIN SHAH (Deceased Through Legal Heirs) And Others vs UMRA1986 SCMR 800 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses twelve petitions for leave to appeal arising from the dismissal of Regular Second Appeals by the Lahore High Court as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the time spent in obtaining a copy of the trial Court's judgment—made mandatory to file along with a second appeal under a Lahore High Court amendment to Order XLII, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure—can be excluded or condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court held that although such time cannot be excluded under section 12 of the Limitation Act, the mandatory requirement to file the trial Court's judgment constitutes 'sufficient cause' under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the entire period spent in obtaining that copy, and no further daily explanation of delay is required once that period is allowed. Consequently, the Supreme Court accepted the appeals, set aside the High Court's dismissal, condoned the delay, and remanded the matters for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Whether the time spent in obtaining a copy of the trial Court's judgment required under High Court rules can be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act?
- Is an appellant required to explain each day's delay after obtaining the necessary copy of the trial Court's judgment for a second appeal?
- Does an amendment to the High Court rules requiring a copy of the trial Court's judgment have the effect of amending the Limitation Act?
- AMIR HAMZA vs THE STATE1986 PCr. L J 2541(1) · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-07Read full judgment →
- AMIR HAIDER Alias ABBAS ALI vs THE STATE- Respondent1986 P C r. L J 4 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-05Read full judgment →
- AMIR DIN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 985 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-13Read full judgment →
- AMIR BEGUM vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Housing and Physical Planning Department, Lahore and another1986 MLD 1174 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-30Read full judgment →
- AMIR BAKHSH and another vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1110 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-18Read full judgment →
- AMIR And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 695 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-15Read full judgment →
- AMIR ALI And 22 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 30 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of 23 criminal miscellaneous applications filed for the quashment of preventive proceedings initiated against the applicants under the Sind Crime Control Act, 1975. The core legal questions involved the legality of mechanical resort to the proviso to section 5 for issuing non-bailable warrants, the failure to supply copies and particulars of reports under section 6, and the initiation of proceedings based on vague allegations without showing that the applicants were habitual offenders under section 14. The court held that tribunals acted arbitrarily and without jurisdiction by issuing non-bailable warrants and initiating proceedings routinely on vague police reports lacking material particulars of time and place. The court reaffirmed that preventive laws making inroads on personal liberty require strict construction, and that terms like 'habitually' and 'frequently' necessitate proof of a consistent course of conduct over time, rather than isolated or past acts. Consequently, the proceedings against the applicants were quashed.
Questions settled- Whether the mechanical issuance of non-bailable warrants under the proviso to section 5 of the Sind Crime Control Act, 1975 is sustainable without recording reasons of extraordinary urgency?
- Does the mere pendency or past record of isolated criminal cases suffice to establish that a person is a habitual offender under section 14 of the Sind Crime Control Act, 1975?
- What are the mandatory requirements regarding particulars of time, place, and general repute under section 6 of the Sind Crime Control Act, 1975 for initiating valid proceedings?
- AMIR ABDULLAH KHAN vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1986 MLD 731 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
- AMIR ABDULLAH KHAN And Others vs Col. MUHAMMAD ATTAULLAH KHAN1986 SCMR 1414 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil petitions for special leave to appeal regarding a land dispute involving the accurate calculation of land area and ownership rights following a pre-emption decree. The core legal question is whether the total land area sold by the original owner, Ram Singh, and subsequently pre-empted, was correctly calculated, or if the respondent erroneously double-counted specific land parcels as both Aala and Adnaa Malkiat, thereby depriving the petitioners of their rightful entitlement. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the petitioners presented an arguable case. The Court observed that the Khasra numbers in the sale deed and the pre-emption decree consistently supported the petitioners' contention that the total land area was 6,638 Kanals and 4 Marlas, suggesting the respondent's calculation was flawed. The Court established that where documentary evidence, such as Khasra numbers in sale deeds and judicial decrees, consistently defines the extent of land transferred, such evidence must be reconciled to determine the correct entitlement, preventing the erroneous deprivation of property rights based on flawed administrative record corrections.
Questions settled- Can a party double-count land area by classifying the same parcel as both Aala and Adnaa Malkiat in a property dispute?
- Does the consistency of Khasra numbers in sale deeds and pre-emption decrees establish the total land area transferred?
- Is a correction of Jamabandi entries based on a review application valid if it contradicts the established land area in a pre-emption decree?
- AMINUDDIN SHAIKH vs Mst. MUKHTAR BEGUM SHEIKH1986 MLD 1784 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-16Read full judgment →
- AMINA BAI and 6 others vs MUHAMMAD AMAN and 2 others1986 MLD 1888 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-05Read full judgment →
- AMIN-UD-DIN vs HUSSAIN SUGAR MILLS LTD.1986 PLC 1153 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-06-21Read full judgment →
- AMIN SARDAR BHOLA vs THE M.V. WASEEM1986 MLD 2995 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-04Read full judgment →
- AMEER And Others vs SIKANDAR And OTHER1986 CLC 2046(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-22Read full judgment →
- AMEER ALI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1670 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-15Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH vs Mst. MUSARAT BANO and 17 others1986 MLD 86 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-12Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH vs MEMBER,BOARD OF REVENUE and others1986 MLD 2110 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-17Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT1986 PLC 593 · National Industrial Relations Commission · -Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH vs HAQ NAWAZ And 2 Other1986 SCMR 132 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-09-13Read full judgment →