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.
- AMANULLAH Alias MAHNI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 876 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-02Read full judgment →
- AMANATULLAH And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 523 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-09-01Read full judgment →
- AMANAT ALI vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1558 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a criminal revision petition and upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 363 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had abducted and raped the victim, who was under sixteen years of age. While the appellate court acquitted the petitioner of the rape charge, it maintained his conviction for abduction based on a finding of fact regarding the victim's age, supported by a birth entry certificate rather than medical opinion. The core legal question concerned the proper appreciation of evidence regarding the victim's age as between the birth certificate and medical testimony. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no legal infirmity in preferring the birth certificate over the medical evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that a birth entry constitutes reliable evidence of age.
Questions settled- Whether a birth certificate can be preferred over medical opinion for determining the age of a victim in a criminal case?
- Does the conviction under Section 363 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustain when the victim is proved to be under sixteen years of age?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding age appreciation based on documentary evidence?
- ALTAF-UR-REHMAN and others vs SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE, LOCAL1986 MLD 2740 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- AMAN ULLAH KHAN vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE And 2 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 968 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- ALTAF HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2819 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-02Read full judgment →
- ALTAF HUSSAIN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 79 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-30Read full judgment →
- ALTAF HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2202 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an application for the suspension of sentence filed by Altaf Hussain Shah, a police sub-inspector convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death for the killing of Sikandar Hayat Khan during a police encounter. The core legal question concerns whether the sentence of a convicted appellant should be suspended and bail granted pending appeal under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly where a plausible plea of self-defence is raised and supported by a judicial inquiry report, a counter-version, and the stance of the State. The Lahore High Court held that the appellate court possesses unfettered discretion under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to suspend sentences and grant bail for good and sufficient reasons, which must be exercised judicially. The court laid down the principle that where a plea of self-defence is supported by a judicial inquiry and surrounding circumstances requiring serious re-examination, and where the State does not support the conviction, the sentence of death may be suspended and bail granted pending the final hearing of the appeal.
Questions settled- Does section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 impose any limitation on the powers of the High Court to grant bail to an accused convicted of murder?
- Can the appellate court suspend a death sentence and release a convict on bail pending appeal when a plausible plea of self-defence is raised?
- Whether the lack of support for a conviction by the State is a relevant factor in considering an application for the suspension of sentence under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- ALTAF HUSSAIN SHAH vs KHALIQ DAD KHAN And Another1986 P Cr. L J 734 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
- ALTAF HUSSAIN And Another MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT1986 SCMR 476 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-20Read full judgment →
- ALTAF AHMAD KHAN And Other vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 974 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- ALPHA INSURANCE CO. Ltd. vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM SHEIKH1986 PLC 983 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN vs UNITED BUILDERS and others1986 MLD 473 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-01Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN Ltd. vs Messrs ATAMAQBOOL INDUSTRIES Ltd. and 81986 MLD 2657 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-28Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs EJAZ AHMAD ABBASI1986 PLC 617 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-12-22Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN Ltd. vs ABDUR REHMAN KHAN And 2 OTHER1986 CLC 3021 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-03-10Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN Ltd vs Messrs ORIENTAL SEAFORD PRODUCTS and 23 others1986 MLD 1762 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-05Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK And Other vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN EMPLOYEES' UNION1986 PLC 87 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- ALLEY HASSAN vs THE STATE1986 PLD Karachi 570 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-01Read full judgment →
- ALLAHDINO vs S.D.M./TRIBUNAL, NAUSHERO FEROZE-1986 P Cr. L J 2973 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-21Read full judgment →
- ALLAHDINO SHAH vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 466 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-02Read full judgment →
- ALLAH YAR vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1549 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Allah Yar against the dismissal of his appeal by the High Court, which maintained his conviction under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the confirmation of his death sentence for the murder of Mohabat. The core legal question involves determining the plausibility and correctness of competing versions of a cross-firing incident where both the prosecution and the defence presented identical timelines and motives, but each claimed the other was the aggressor, alongside contentions regarding medical evidence and weapon ballistics. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that it is a fit case to consider whether the defence version was reasonably possible and whether the High Court's reasons for rejecting it were correct, thereby necessitating a reappraisal of the evidence. The key principle laid down is that where cross-versions exist with identical circumstances and disputed aggression, the appellate court must carefully weigh the plausibility of both accounts and the medical evidence.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted to reappraise evidence when both prosecution and defence present competing versions of a cross-firing incident?
- How should competing versions of an occurrence with identical timelines and motives be evaluated by the court?
- Does a single gunshot wound penetration through a body necessarily indicate the use of a rifle rather than a shotgun under specific ballistic and medical parameters?
- ALLAH YAR vs RESIDENT MAGISTRATE, SILLANWALI and 2 others1986 MLD 1108 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-18Read full judgment →
- ALLAH YAR vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN1986 PLC 619 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-12-23Read full judgment →
- ALLAH YAR KHAN vs Mst. SARDAR BIBI And Other1986 SCMR 1957 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a Letters Patent Appeal by the Lahore High Court concerning a dispute over tenancy land originally governed by the Colonization of Government Lands Act. The petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest had obtained a consent decree in 1935 against a deceased tenant's widow for half of the tenancy land without obtaining permission under Section 19 of the Act, and subsequently acquired proprietary rights from the Government. Following the widow’s death, the original tenant’s legal heir challenged the consent decree on grounds of fraud and collusion. Concurrent findings held that the decree was a collusive and void transfer executed in violation of statutory restrictions. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued limitation and contended that the subsequent Government conveyance protected his title. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that limitation, having been abandoned before the Letters Patent Bench, could not be entertained. Furthermore, because the subsequent Government sale was solely premised on the void and collusive consent decree, setting aside the decree entirely demolished the basis of the transfer.
Questions settled- Can a plea of limitation be entertained by a higher appellate forum if it was abandoned or not pressed before the lower appellate forum?
- Whether a consent decree transferring tenancy rights without statutory permission under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act is void for collusion and fraud?
- Does a subsequent grant or sale of proprietary rights by the Government remain valid if the underlying consent decree upon which it was based is declared void and set aside?
- ALLAH YAR ANSARI vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB SERVICES, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION AND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT, LAHORE And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 234 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-12-14Read full judgment →
- ALLAH YAR ANSARI vs SECRETARY (SERVICES), SGA & I DEPARTMENT And 21986 PLC (C.S.) 184 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-04-27Read full judgment →
- ALLAH YAR Alias YARA And Others vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1110 (2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Allah Yar alias Yara and others against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which convicted the petitioners under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether it is appropriate to reappraise evidence and reverse concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below in a petition for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court held that it is not proper to enter into the exercise of reappraising evidence and reversing findings of facts under the circumstances. The petition was accordingly dismissed as having no force. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily reappraise evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact of lower courts in criminal petitions seeking leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will reappraise evidence on the record in a petition for leave to appeal against conviction?
- Can findings of fact arrived at by the courts below be reversed by the Supreme Court through a re-examination of evidence in a criminal matter?
- ALLAH WASAYA vs SARFRAZ HUSSAIN And Another1986 SCMR 1699 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which rejected the petitioner's application to transfer a criminal trial pending under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 from the court of an Additional Sessions Judge in Multan. The petitioner, a complainant, sought the transfer on grounds that the trial record was not being maintained faithfully and that the presiding judge had improperly influenced the District Attorney to abandon certain witnesses, thereby creating an apprehension of an unfair trial. The Supreme Court examined the record and noted that the allegations regarding the maintenance of the record were raised for the first time in the transfer application. Furthermore, the Court held that the decision to produce or abandon witnesses lies within the discretion of the District Attorney, and such actions cannot be attributed to judicial influence without evidence. Finding the petitioner's apprehensions unjustified, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that the grounds presented did not warrant the transfer of the proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a criminal trial be transferred based on allegations of improper record-keeping raised for the first time in a transfer application?
- Does the decision of a District Attorney to abandon certain witnesses constitute evidence of judicial influence by the presiding judge?
- What is the standard for justifying the transfer of a criminal case based on an apprehension of an unfair trial?
- ALLAH WASAYA vs NEKA And 3 Others1986 P Cr. L J 2361 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-29Read full judgment →
- ALLAH WASAYA vs IRSHAD HUSSAIN AND ANoTHER1986 PLD Lahore 29 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-12Read full judgment →
- ALLAH WARAYO and another vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2533 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-12Read full judgment →
- ALLAH RAKHA vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1928 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-11Read full judgment →
- ALLAH RAKHA vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SIALKOT And Another1986 SCMR 456 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court arising from settlement proceedings concerning the transfer of a disputed property plot. The core legal question was whether the recalled excess area could be transferred to the appellant instead of being put to auction. The Supreme Court examined the record and noted that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner failed to fully follow the remand directions of the Additional Settlement Commissioner regarding the disposal and demarcation of the balance area. Holding that the appellant was entitled to the balance area in accordance with the remand directions and settlement schemes, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed that the excess area be disposed of in favour of the appellant against his form.
Questions settled- Whether the recalled excess area could be transferred to the petitioner instead of being put to auction?
- Did the Deputy Settlement Commissioner act in violation of the directions given by the Additional Settlement Commissioner in the remand order?
- ALLAH RAKHA And Othersl vs RUKAN DIN And OTHER1986 CLC 2316 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-03Read full judgment →
- ALLAH RAKHA And Others vs MUHAMMAD LATIF1986 CLC 2390 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-24Read full judgment →
- ALLAH RAKHA And Others vs BOOTA KHAN1986 SCMR 1272 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Article 185(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court which remanded a pre-emption suit after setting aside the trial court's dismissal of the suit as time-barred for deficiency in court-fees. The core legal question was whether a pre-emption suit could be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 where a plaintiff paid substantial court-fee based on a calculation of net profits, but the trial court later determined a higher valuation based on figures provided by the revenue authorities and the defendants. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal both on merits and as barred by time, holding that where substantial court-fee has been paid and a genuine calculation was made, a discrepancy in valuation between the parties does not warrant the rejection of the plaint. The Court applied the principles established in prior precedents regarding court-fee calculations in pre-emption suits.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emption suit can be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for deficient court-fee when the plaintiff has paid substantial court-fee based on a calculation of net profits?
- Does a discrepancy between the plaintiff's and defendant's calculations of net profits for court-fee valuation render the suit liable to dismissal as time-barred?
- Whether an appeal filed 137 days beyond the period of limitation is liable to dismissal on the ground of being time-barred?
- ALLAH RAKHA And 3 Others vs The STATE1986 SCMR 842 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had modified the convictions and sentences of the petitioners for their involvement in a violent attack on the complainant, Akhtar Jillani. The petitioners were originally convicted by a Magistrate for attempted murder and other offences, but the High Court altered the conviction to causing grievous hurt. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners' conviction under Section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code was legally sustainable given that the grievous injuries were inflicted by blunt weapons, rather than sharp-edged instruments as required by that section. The Supreme Court held that while the petitioners' contention regarding the misapplication of Section 326 was technically correct—as that section pertains to sharp-edged weapons—no prejudice was caused to the petitioners. The sentences imposed were well within the maximum limits prescribed for the appropriate offence of causing grievous hurt under Section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the sentences were not excessive given the brutality of the attack.
Questions settled- Can a conviction under Section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained if the grievous injury was caused by a blunt weapon?
- Does a conviction under an incorrect section of the Pakistan Penal Code warrant interference if the sentence imposed does not exceed the maximum punishment for the correct offence?
- Is the conviction of an accused under Section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code legally valid when the injury was caused by a blunt weapon rather than a sharp-edged instrument?
- ALLAH RA KHI vs SUGHRA BIBI And OTHER1986 CLC 2095 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the orders of the revenue authorities cancelling the land allotment originally made to the petitioner's deceased mother. The core legal question is whether land allotted strictly for the maintenance of a deceased person can be inherited by her legal heirs and whether notice is required to be given to such heirs prior to cancellation. The Lahore High Court held that an allotment made exclusively for maintenance purposes terminates upon the death of the allottee, whereupon the land reverts to the state, and no notice is required to be issued to the heirs since they hold no inheritable right in such property. The petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Does land allotted for the sole purpose of maintenance devolve upon the legal heirs of the deceased allottee?
- Is notice required to be given to the legal heirs before cancelling a maintenance allotment upon the death of the allottee?
- ALLAH DITTA vs The STATE1986 SCMR 723 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed from jail by Allah Ditta, who was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death for the murder of his cousin Walidad, committed due to a motive arising from a matrimonial dispute. The core legal questions involve the proper appraisal of ocular and circumstantial evidence for the safe administration of criminal justice, particularly in light of an antecedent murder charge involving the petitioner arising from the same transaction or background, and whether the death penalty is warranted under such circumstances. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal after condoning an 11-day delay due to the capital nature of the sentence and the petitioner's incarceration, holding that the complex factual background and features of the case require a thorough examination and reappraisal of the evidence.
Questions settled- Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 satisfy the accepted principles for the safe administration of criminal justice based on the provided evidence?
- Whether the sentence of death is appropriately imposed in a case where the accused has a complex background involving a simultaneous or antecedent murder allegation?
- Whether delay in filing a jail petition for leave to appeal can be condoned when the petitioner is sentenced to death and incarcerated?
- ALLAH DITTA vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2702 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-09Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE And OTHER1986 CLC 1043 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-05Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs KHADIM HUSSAIN And Other1986 SCMR 475 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had refused to cancel the bail granted to the respondents. The respondents were accused in a case registered under Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The Sessions Judge had initially granted bail, finding it difficult to reject a Nikahnama registered under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, at that preliminary stage of the proceedings. The High Court declined to interfere with this exercise of discretion, noting that the lower court's order did not suffer from any illegality. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the arguments presented by the petitioner to be identical to those previously raised before the High Court. Agreeing with the reasoning of the High Court, the Supreme Court held that there were no grounds to interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower court in granting bail. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision to maintain the bail order.
Questions settled- Whether a High Court should interfere with the discretion of a Sessions Judge in granting bail when no illegality is shown?
- Can a court at the bail stage reject a registered Nikahnama under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
- ALLAH DITTA vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1986 MLD 2307 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-26Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECTRICITY) WAPDA, MULTAN1986 PLC 686 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-12-21Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA KHOKHAR And Others vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB And Another1986 SCMR 1293 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, concerning the acquisition of 50 acres of land in village Gangal under Section 3 of the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973 for an Area Development Scheme. The petitioners challenged the acquisition on the ground that the land fell within an area covered by a presidential directive altering the boundaries of the Federal Capital Territory, whereas the High Court held the provincial acquisition valid in the absence of a formal notification under Section 3 of the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960. The Supreme Court considered whether land subject to a presidential directive regarding the Federal Capital Territory could validly be acquired under provincial legislation. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine this legal question alongside other grounds, maintaining the interim relief subject to future orders under relevant laws.
Questions settled- Whether land situated in an area designated to form part of the Federal Capital Territory under a presidential directive can be acquired under a provincial housing statute?
- Whether a formal notification under Section 3 of the Capital Development Authority Ordinance 1960 is necessary to bar land acquisition under provincial law?
- ALLAH DITTA And Others vs Malik IJAZ HUSSAIN1986 SCMR 959 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses two consolidated civil petitions for leave to appeal arising from the dismissal of writ petitions by the High Court concerning land surrendered under the Land Reforms Regulation. The core legal question is whether the High Court is justified in dismissing a writ petition directly challenging an order of the Additional Chief Land Commissioner on the ground that the petitioners failed to exhaust the alternative remedy of a revision before the Federal Land Commission. The Supreme Court held that while the availability of an alternative remedy does not absolutely bar the High Court from entertaining a writ petition, the High Court is not bound to entertain it and may legitimately refuse to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction when an adequate alternative remedy has not been exhausted. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that the High Court's discretionary writ jurisdiction is properly withheld where an aggrieved party bypasses an available, adequate statutory remedy such as a revision before a specialized appellate or supervisory body.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to exercise the revisional jurisdiction of the Federal Land Commission constitutes a sufficient ground for dismissing a writ petition?
- Does the failure to have recourse to a revisional remedy necessarily operate as a bar to the invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Is the High Court bound to entertain a writ petition when an adequate alternative remedy remains available to the petitioner?
- ALLAH DITTA and others vs JALAL DIN and others1986 MLD 2039 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-06Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA And Others vs ATAULLAH KHAN And Other1986 SCMR 1165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that declared a District Judge's order to be without lawful authority due to a lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. The underlying dispute involved a pre-emption suit where the trial court permitted the plaintiffs to make up a deficiency in court-fee, a decision challenged by the defendant-vendees in revision before the District Judge. The District Judge accepted the revision and rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court subsequently set aside the District Judge's order, ruling that the revision was incompetent because the subject matter exceeded the District Judge's pecuniary jurisdiction. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the District Judge lacked the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the revision. The Court further noted that the petitioners' arguments regarding the contumacious conduct of the plaintiffs were insufficient to override the jurisdictional defect. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused, reinforcing the principle that orders passed without pecuniary jurisdiction are void.
Questions settled- Does a District Judge have the authority to entertain a revision petition when the subject matter of the suit exceeds their pecuniary jurisdiction?
- Can an order passed by a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction be sustained on the basis of acquiescence by the parties?
- Is a High Court's declaration that a lower court's order was without lawful authority due to jurisdictional defects legally sound?
- ALLAH DITTA And Another vs THE PROVINCE OF SIND1986 SCMR 1324 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind Service Tribunal dismissing appeals filed by two police personnel against their compulsory retirement from service. The appellants, a Police Constable and an Assistant Sub-Inspector, were involved in an altercation with two Air Force officers during Eid shopping patrol duties, leading to a preliminary investigation by a Joint Board of Inquiry and subsequent departmental proceedings where they were found guilty of misconduct. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the departmental inquiry and subsequent findings were vitiated because the Air Force Base Commander had directed that severe disciplinary action be taken, thereby allegedly depriving the police authorities of independent discretion. The Supreme Court held that the appellants' case was not prejudiced by bias or dictation, as formal charge-sheets were served, proper inquiry proceedings with opportunities for defense were conducted in compliance with the Inspector-General of Police's orders, and dissent within the Joint Board of Inquiry demonstrated independent functioning. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether departmental disciplinary proceedings are vitiated when a preliminary inquiry report contains recommendations by a military authority for severe action?
- Did the Service Tribunal err in failing to consider whether departmental authorities acted under the dictation of external authorities?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere under Article 212 of the Constitution with the quantum of punishment awarded in service matters?
- ALLAH DITTA And 3 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1987 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-02Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA And 2 Others vs TAJ DIN And 3 Other1986 SCMR 267 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute over land ownership between the original owner's alleged vendees and donees. The core legal questions were whether the sale agreement violated Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, and whether the respondents' suit for a declaration of ownership was properly framed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision. It held that the sale agreement was valid because the necessary sanction from the competent authority had been obtained, thereby satisfying the requirements of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. Furthermore, the Court determined that the gift deed in favor of the appellants was invalid due to the absence of delivery of possession. The Court affirmed that a suit for declaration is maintainable where the plaintiff has established a valid sale and possession, and that technical defects in the form of a suit do not necessarily invalidate the proceedings when the substantive rights of the parties are clear and the sale is legally sanctioned.
Questions settled- Does the lack of delivery of possession render a gift deed invalid?
- Is an agreement to sell land void under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, if the necessary sanction has been obtained?
- Can a suit for declaration be maintained to establish proprietary rights in land?
- ALLAH DINO vs YAKUB1986 MLD 13(1) · Board of Revenue · 1986-02-09Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DIN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KARACHI and another1986 MLD 2999 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-07Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DIN KHAN vs THE CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS1986 PLC 399 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-16Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DEE vs HASHMAT1986 SCMR 1177 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a Civil Revision regarding a suit for permanent injunction. The dispute concerned the respondent's construction of a wall and placement of a door between two adjacent houses transferred under the Settlement of Displaced Persons laws. The petitioner sought an injunction, alleging the construction infringed upon his property and privacy. The trial court initially decreed the suit based on a Local Commissioner's report, but the Appellate Court reversed this, finding the construction occurred within the respondent's own boundaries and caused no actionable injury to the petitioner's privacy. The High Court affirmed this, noting the wall was an extension of an existing structure and that the petitioner's claim regarding encroachment on his land was not pleaded in the original plaint. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no evidence of a real grievance or legal injury caused by the respondent's actions. The petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any infringement of rights.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a plea of land encroachment in a revision petition if it was not pleaded in the original plaint?
- Does the construction of a door in a wall, which does not encroach on a neighbor's land, constitute an actionable infringement of privacy?
- Is a party entitled to an injunction if they cannot demonstrate a real grievance or legal injury resulting from the respondent's actions?
- ALLAH DAWAI Aliaskalsoom BIBI vs GHULAM QASIM KHAN1986 CLC 847 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-12Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DAD vs MUHAMMAD KHAN1986 SCMR 707 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the petitioner, the sister's son of the vendor (a distant kindred), challenged the superior pre-emption right decreed in favor of respondent No. 1, the vendor's brother's son (a residuary). The core legal question was whether the order of succession under Muslim Law determines the priority of pre-emption rights under the Punjab Pre-emption Act. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, holding that under Section 15(b) thirdly of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, the right of pre-emption is determined by the order of succession. Because a residuary excludes a distant kindred from inheritance under Muslim Law, the respondent possessed a superior right of pre-emption over the petitioner. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the analogy of inheritance is directly applicable to pre-emption claims under the relevant statutory provision when the vendor is a Muslim.
Questions settled- Does a residuary under Muslim Law possess a superior right of pre-emption over a distant kindred under the Punjab Pre-emption Act?
- Is the order of succession under Muslim Law applicable to determine the priority of pre-emptors under Section 15(b) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act?
- ALLAH BUX vs SYED SHAH1986 MLD 1646 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-07Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BUX vs SECRETARY, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION And Another1986 PLC 558 · Labour Court · 1985-02-04Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BUX vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIZATION) AND OTHERS1986 PLD Lahore 249 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-25Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BUX MUHAMMAD ASHRAF And Others vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN1986 SCMR 1833 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs THE STATE1986 PLD Supreme Court 6 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1985-09-15Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs THE STATE and other1986 P Cr. L J 2451 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-13Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs PEHLWAN1986 MLD 1188 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-17Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs ABDUR RASHID And Others1986 PCr. L J 1797(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-19Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2562 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-04Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH And Others vs Mst. IRSHAD BEGUM And Other1986 SCMR 1496 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld decisions setting aside a compromise decree obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had appointed an attorney, who subsequently sold land and entered into a compromise decree with the petitioners. In 1983, the respondents filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside the 1971 decree. The trial court, district court, and High Court all ruled in favor of the respondents, finding that the attorney lacked valid title at the time of the purported sale and that the decree was vitiated by fraud. The Supreme Court considered whether the application under Section 12(2) was time-barred and whether the petitioners were bona fide purchasers. The Court held that since the decree was secured through fraud, limitation ran from the date of knowledge under Section 18 of the Limitation Act 1908, making the application timely. The Court affirmed that an attorney without title cannot pass a better title, and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is within time when filed within the period prescribed from the date of knowledge of fraud under section 18 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can an attorney pass a better title to a property than what he has matured in his own name?
- Whether a decree obtained through fraud and misrepresentation can be set aside upon an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- ALLAH BAKHSH and another vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and another1986 MLD 467 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-03Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH And 4 Others vs Dr. WAHEED (ABDUL WAHEED)1986 SCMR 1677 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Sind High Court dated 9-12-1985, which set aside an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller against the respondent. The core legal question was whether a relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties to warrant an order of eviction under rent laws. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had correctly found that no agreement of tenancy or rent receipt was produced, and the Rent Controller's finding of a landlord-tenant relationship was presumptive and without evidence. During the hearing, the respondent maintained that he was the owner of the property by purchase and not a tenant, prompting the petitioners' counsel to seek permission to withdraw the petition to pursue a fresh suit or proceedings in a competent court of law. The Supreme Court granted permission and dismissed the petition as withdrawn, thereby upholding the principle that an owner of a property is not necessarily a landlord under rent law unless the jural relationship of landlord and tenant is duly established by evidence.
Questions settled- Whether every owner of a property is necessarily a landlord within the meaning of rent law vis-a-vis a person occupying the property?
- Is it necessary to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant by producing an agreement of tenancy or rent receipts in eviction proceedings?
- Can a Rent Controller's finding on the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship be sustained in the absence of evidence on record?
- ALLAH BAKHSH Anal Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1968 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-11Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH Alias QAISER vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 651 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-27Read full judgment →
- Alimuddin And Another vs The StatePTCL 1986 CL. 71 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-20Read full judgment →
- ALIA SGHAR vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF and 5 others1986 MLD 2048 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-16Read full judgment →
- ALI ZAHEER MINHAS vs THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB Through The Secretary,1986 PLC (C.S.) 955 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-07-29Read full judgment →
- ALI vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 1, QUETTA And ANOTHER1986 CLC 27 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-07-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the judgments of the lower courts which dissolved a marriage on the grounds of option of puberty and Khula, despite a prior decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favor of the husband. The core legal questions were whether the prior decree constituted res judicata against the subsequent dissolution suit and whether the High Court could reappraise evidence in its constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that the prior decree for restitution of conjugal rights did not constitute res judicata because the subject matter of the two suits was distinct. Furthermore, the Court ruled that its constitutional jurisdiction does not permit it to act as an appellate court to re-evaluate evidence or substitute its own findings for those of a competent tribunal, provided the tribunal acted within its jurisdiction and did not misread the evidence. The key principle laid down is that a prior restitution decree does not bar a subsequent dissolution suit, and constitutional interference is limited to jurisdictional defects or clear misreading of evidence.
Questions settled- Does a decree for restitution of conjugal rights constitute res judicata against a subsequent suit for dissolution of marriage?
- Can a High Court in constitutional jurisdiction reappraise evidence to substitute its own findings for those of a competent tribunal?
- Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with a finding of fact recorded by a subordinate court or tribunal?
- Ali Shah, ZAHID ALI and 2 others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2477 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-10Read full judgment →
- Ali Shah and Mamoon Kazi, RASOOL BUX and 12 others vs OFFICER ON1986 MLD 1264 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-07Read full judgment →
- ALI NAWAZ vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1797 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-28Read full judgment →
- ALI NAWAZ vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD And Another1986 SCMR 789 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a decree in a pre-emption suit. The petitioner, who had purchased land, contested the suit filed by the respondent on grounds including lack of superior pre-emption rights and waiver, alleging the respondent participated in sale negotiations. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, noting that the issue of waiver was not pressed by the petitioner. The petitioner failed to challenge this finding in the first appellate court, and the memorandum of appeal did not reference the plea of waiver. The core legal question is whether the Supreme Court should grant leave to examine a plea of fact that was abandoned or not pressed in the lower courts. The Court held that it is not a fit case to grant special leave to examine pleas that were dropped in the courts below. The principle laid down is that a party cannot seek to re-agitate or introduce pleas of fact in the Supreme Court that were explicitly abandoned or not pursued during the trial and appellate stages.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a plea of waiver in the Supreme Court if that plea was not pressed in the trial court or the first appellate court?
- Is the question of whether a party participated in sale negotiations a question of fact?
- Will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal to examine pleas that were dropped in the courts below?
- ALI NAWAZ CHOHAN And Another vs MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN SHAH1986 P Cr. L J 2222 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-16Read full judgment →
- ALI NAWAZ And ANOTHER vs THE STATE and another1986 P Cr. L J 411 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-19Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs Mst. JAMEELA BEGUM AND 2 OTHERS1986 PLD Rev. 23 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1977-10-31Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs MAULA BAKHSH And OTHER1986 CLC 2404 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-17Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs Malik PIR BAKHSH1986 PLD Lahore 39 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-20Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT-1986 MLD 1429 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-20Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs BACHO and 2 others1986 MLD 246 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-30Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD And Others vs TAJ MUHAMMAD And ANOTHER1986 CLC 2511 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-03Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD And Other vs CHIEF MINING ENGINEER_INCHARGE, BALUCHISTAN COLLIERIES P.M.D.C. REGIONAL OFFICE And 3 Others1986 PLC 540 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-03-17Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD And Another vs Maulvi NOOR HUSSAIN And Other1986 SCMR 659 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-07-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that reversed concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts regarding an alleged oral gift of land. The core legal questions involve the admissibility of an unregistered document acknowledging an antecedent oral gift, the necessity of registration for such documents, and the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction in interfering with concurrent findings of fact. The trial and appellate courts had dismissed the plaintiff's suit, finding the oral gift unproven and the acknowledgment document inadmissible for want of registration under the Registration Act. The High Court, however, reversed this, relying on the acknowledgment document and oral testimony to establish the gift and possession. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the High Court's findings appeared to contradict the record regarding the location of the property and that the lower courts' concurrent findings of fact regarding possession and the validity of the gift warranted further judicial scrutiny, particularly concerning the bona fide nature of subsequent purchasers.
Questions settled- Does an unregistered document acknowledging an antecedent oral gift require registration under the Registration Act 1908?
- Can a High Court in civil revision interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the possession of property?
- Are bona fide transferees for valuable consideration without notice protected under the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- ALI MOHATARAM NAQVI vs MESSRS COGEFAR-ASTALDI SIDMAIL1986 PLD Karachi 574 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil suit arose from a claim by the plaintiff seeking Rs. 45,00,000 as compensation for 30 lac tons of excavated stone aggregate, Rs. 11,10,000 as government royalty, plus interest, against Defendant No. 1 (a foreign construction firm) and Defendant No. 2 (Government of Sindh). The plaintiff alleged that Defendant No. 1 excavated stone without consent from an 800-acre land area covered by a mining permit granted to the plaintiff in August 1969. Defendant No. 1 asserted prior possession for constructing the Super Highway, challenged the permit's validity, and sought indemnity from Defendant No. 2.
The High Court of Sindh dismissed the suit with costs to Defendant No. 1. The Court held that the mining permit was invalid, ineffective, and collusively procured. It determined that the West Pakistan Regulation of Mines and Mineral Development Ordinance, 1958 and the Pakistan Mining Concession Rules, 1960 prevailed over the Sindh Land Revenue Code, 1879. The Court ruled that delegation powers required official Gazette publication, non-compliance with permit conditions rendered rights ineffective, and the plaintiff was estopped by representation due to inaction while Defendant No. 1 openly operated on the land.
Questions settled- Whether federal mineral concession laws override provincial land revenue codes in cases of conflict regarding sub-surface mining rights?
- Whether the failure to publish a statutory delegation of power in the official Gazette invalidates the authority exercised thereunder?
- Does silence or inaction by a permit holder while another party openly occupies land and carries out excavation constitute estoppel by representation?
- Is actual or constructive possession of land necessary for a plaintiff to maintain an action for damages in trespass?
- ALI MAZHAR SHAH vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2780 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-21Read full judgment →
- ALI MARDAN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1837 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-04-28Read full judgment →
- ALI MARDAN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1206 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-01Read full judgment →
- ALI KHAN Alias NABI KHAN And Others vs THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER1986 CLC 2335 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- ALI HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE AND 2 OTHERS1986 PLD SC (A J & K) 31 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-10-12Read full judgment →
- ALI HUSSAIN vs Dr. MAQBOOL AHMAD And OTHER1986 CLC 609 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-02Read full judgment →
- ALI HASSAN vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1868 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-08Read full judgment →
- ALI HASSAN vs Haji KHAMISO And 2 Others1986 P C r. L J 21 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- ALI HASAN vs THE STATE And 4 Other1986 SCMR 117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court dated 26-11-1981, whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charge under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reversing their conviction by the Sessions Judge, Dadu. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction and granting the benefit of the doubt based on admitted enmity and a conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular testimony. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly granted the benefit of the doubt to the accused as such doubts accrued from the prosecution case itself, and consequently dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with an acquittal order passed by the High Court when the benefit of the doubt is founded on legitimate weaknesses inherent in the prosecution's case.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal judgment based on the benefit of the doubt?
- Does a conflict between medical evidence and ocular testimony justify setting aside a conviction?
- Can admitted enmity between parties form a basis for granting the benefit of the doubt in a criminal trial?