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.
- ALI GUL And 3 Others vs THE STATE---Opponent1986 P Cr. L J 433 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicants, accused of double murder, sought bail on the grounds that the complainant and eye-witnesses had filed affidavits retracting their earlier statements, effectively patching up the dispute. The trial court, relying on previous jurisprudence, dismissed the application, expressing skepticism regarding the evidentiary value of ex parte affidavits sworn before Oath Commissioners. Upon review, the High Court examined whether such affidavits, which contradict initial statements made during investigation, warrant the grant of bail. The Court held that while trial courts should exercise caution and view such ex parte affidavits with suspicion, they cannot be entirely ignored. The core legal principle established is that when witnesses provide conflicting versions—one in the F.I.R. and another via subsequent affidavits—the court is duty-bound to determine which version is truthful. If the court cannot definitively rely on the initial statement due to the complainant's retraction, the case may fall under the category of 'further inquiry' pursuant to the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby entitling the accused to bail.
Questions settled- Can bail be granted based on ex parte affidavits of prosecution witnesses retracting their earlier statements?
- Is a court required to evaluate the truthfulness of conflicting statements when a witness retracts their testimony via affidavit?
- Does the filing of retraction affidavits by eye-witnesses constitute a case for 'further inquiry' under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- ALI GOHAR And Others vs The STATE1986 SCMR 730 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of four appellants for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question is whether the convictions can be sustained given significant contradictions between the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence, particularly regarding the nature and location of injuries, and whether the testimony of 'interested' witnesses requires independent corroboration. The Court held that the prosecution witnesses were not independent and their testimony was intrinsically unreliable due to irreconcilable conflicts with the medical report, such as the absence of injuries mentioned in the F.I.R. and the improbability of the described attack sequence. Furthermore, the Court found that the prosecution failed to provide independent corroboration for these interested witnesses. The key principle laid down is that where ocular testimony is contradicted by medical evidence and the witnesses are hostile or interested, such testimony lacks intrinsic soundness and cannot form the basis of a conviction in a capital case without strong, independent corroboration. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellants.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for a capital offence be sustained solely on the testimony of interested witnesses when it contradicts medical evidence?
- Does the existence of strong enmity between parties necessitate independent corroboration of ocular testimony?
- Is the testimony of an eye-witness intrinsically unreliable if the number and nature of injuries described are inconsistent with the medical report?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to provide corroborative evidence for interested witnesses in a murder case warrant acquittal?
- ALI GOHAR And Another vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, HEADQUARTERS, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT And 3 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 243 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-19Read full judgment →
- ALI BAKHSH vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) And OTHER1986 CLC 835 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-17Read full judgment →
- ALI BAKHSH vs ADMINISTRATOR, THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY And Other1986 SCMR 786 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which upheld the resumption of land allotted to the petitioner by the Thal Development Authority. The land was resumed on 20 November 1958 due to the petitioner's failure to fulfill material conditions of allotment, specifically regarding cultivation, residency, payment of boring test fees for a tube-well, and payment of the first advance installment. The petitioner challenged these findings through a civil suit, an appeal, and a revision petition, all of which were dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the lower courts' factual findings were incorrect. The Court held that the issues raised were purely factual in nature. Reaffirming the principle that the Supreme Court does not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a clear omission or misreading of evidence, the Court found no such error. As the petitioner failed to demonstrate any misreading or provide evidence contradicting the defaults, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the absence of misreading or omission of evidence?
- Can an allottee challenge the resumption of land based on non-fulfillment of material conditions without proving compliance with those conditions?
- ALI AKBAR vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 611 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-17Read full judgment →
- ALI AKBAR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2437 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-24Read full judgment →
- ALI AKBAR KHAN vs GHULAM SARWAR AND 19 OTHERS1986 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-10-19Read full judgment →
- ALI AKBAR KHAN vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 978 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-11-23Read full judgment →
- ALI AKBAR And Others vs Syed TANWEERUL HASSAN And Other1986 SCMR 1042 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from two petitions for leave to appeal filed by tenants challenging a common judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed their constitutional petitions against eviction orders. The respondent-landlords sought eviction under Section 17 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act 1963 to demolish the existing premises and construct a new building. The Rent Controller initially rejected the eviction applications, finding a lack of good faith because the Cantonment Board had not issued a notice for reconstruction and the landlords had previously enhanced the rent. The District Judge reversed this, holding that no such notice was required and that the landlords' plea was supported by a proper sanction from the Cantonment Board. The High Court affirmed the eviction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petitions, holding that the Rent Controller erred by relying on extraneous factors such as the duration of the tenancy and past rent increases. The Court ruled that where a landlord obtains the necessary sanction from the competent authority to reconstruct and develop the property, the requirement is bona fide and justified.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord seeking eviction for reconstruction under the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act 1963 must prove a notice was issued by the Cantonment Board to the tenants indicating that a new construction was required?
- Does the past enhancement of rent by a landlord, or the long duration of a tenancy, constitute valid legal evidence of mala fides to defeat an eviction application for reconstruction?
- Is a landlord's requirement for reconstruction considered bona fide and reasonable if they have obtained the proper sanction from the competent authority to substantially develop the property?
- ALI AHMAD vs FAIZ AHMAD1986 SCMR 1343 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal seeking to challenge the dismissal of a revision petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the appellate court's decree in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question concerned the effect of a disputed relinquishment document regarding pre-emption rights, where the respondent had previously denied its execution and taken a special oath on the Holy Quran in a separate litigation, leading to that prior suit being decreed in his favour. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner could not rely on the same disputed document in the subsequent pre-emption suit after the respondent had successfully denied its execution through a special oath agreed upon by the parties in the earlier proceedings. The Court established that a party who disputes a document and successfully negates its execution through a special oath binding on the parties cannot be held bound by that same document in collateral proceedings, and the concurrent findings regarding the lack of proof of the document do not warrant interference. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a party rely on a document in a pre-emption suit whose execution was previously denied by the opposing party and resolved through a special oath on the Holy Quran in a prior proceeding?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the lack of proof of a relinquishment document warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does the taking of a special oath regarding the non-execution of a document in one suit affect its admissibility and proof in subsequent litigation between the same parties?
- ALI AHMAD & Company vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, PASRUR through its1986 MLD 628 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-26Read full judgment →
- ALI ABBAS vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB And 26 Others1986 PLC (C. S.) 800 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-12-27Read full judgment →
- ALEEM AHMAD ANSARI AND 2 OTHERS vs M. V. ASHAR AND 3 OTHERS1986 PLD Quetta 54 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-08-16Read full judgment →
- ALAM vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2891 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
- ALAM SHER vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1559 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-10Read full judgment →
- ALAM SHER And 4 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2487 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-10Read full judgment →
- ALA UD DIN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And OTHER1986 CLC 2821 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-29Read full judgment →
- AL-SAYED HANIF ALI IBRAHIM HARZALLAH and 26 others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2398 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-24Read full judgment →
- AL-NASIR vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1986 MLD 701 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
- AL-KARIM INDUSTRIES vs M.A. MAJID KHAN through Legal Heirs1986 MLD 928 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
- AL SAMREZ ENTERPRISE vs THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1986 SCMR 1917 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the retrospective application of a government notification withdrawing customs duty exemptions. The appellants imported goods relying on a 1972 notification granting duty exemptions. Before a subsequent notification on 11 June 1977 raised these duties, the appellants had concluded a binding contract and initiated import procedures. The Customs authorities, relying on Section 30 of the Customs Act 1969, demanded the enhanced duty based on the date of the Bill of Entry. The core legal question was whether the government could retrospectively withdraw tax exemptions to affect transactions where binding contractual obligations had already been established. The Supreme Court held that the appellants had acquired a vested right to the exemption upon entering into binding commitments. The Court ruled that executive notifications cannot be given retrospective effect to impair vested rights or destroy contractual obligations already accrued. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, affirming that the exemption granted under the earlier notification remained applicable to the appellants' transaction, as the subsequent withdrawal could not retroactively invalidate the rights established prior to its issuance.
Questions settled- Can a government notification withdrawing a tax exemption be applied retrospectively to transactions where binding contractual obligations were already established?
- Does the grant of a tax exemption under Section 19 of the Customs Act 1969 create a vested right that cannot be destroyed by a subsequent executive notification?
- Does Section 30 of the Customs Act 1969, regarding the rate of duty at the time of the Bill of Entry, override vested rights acquired through prior contractual commitments?
- Al Haj S.M. NOOR & SONS vs BEGUM ZEENAT SULTAN KHAN1986 SCMR 279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-09-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition directed against the order of the Sind High Court dismissing the petitioner's appeal in a rent matter. The core legal question is whether a party who chose not to contest their appeal on merits before the High Court, instead seeking and being granted time to vacate the premises, can subsequently challenge the dismissal of that appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the petition is frivolous and the petitioner has no right to challenge the High Court's orders on merits after failing to contest the appeal below. The key principle laid down is that a litigant who abandons a challenge on merits and obtains an extension of time to vacate cannot turn around and file a petition against the consented or uncontested dismissal order.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner challenge an appellate order on merits before the Supreme Court when they chose not to contest the appeal on merits before the High Court?
- Does a party who requested and was granted time to vacate the premises have the right to subsequently challenge the eviction order?
- AKRAM And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2580 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-20Read full judgment →
- AKRA Alias TASHFEEN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2876 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-28Read full judgment →
- AKHTER MUHAMMAD Alias AKHTRAN vs SIR AJUDDIN1986 SCMR 1887 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court regarding the eviction of a tenant from a shop premises on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal requirement of the landlord. The Rent Controller had ordered eviction for default in rent but rejected the claim for personal requirement. The High Court set aside the eviction order, holding that the tenant should not be evicted for default given the circumstances and conduct of the parties, and dismissed the landlord's claim regarding personal requirement based on section 13(3)(c) of the Ordinance. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's finding on the issue of default, noting that the evidence indicated rent was collected on a yearly basis and particulars of default were inadequately proven, thereby dismissing the appeal on default. However, regarding the issue of personal requirement, the Supreme Court found the High Court's judgment sketchy and lacking discussion of evidence, and accordingly remanded the case back to the High Court for a fresh decision on that issue.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant can be evicted on the ground of default in rent when the landlord's conduct and past practice show that rent was collected on a yearly basis?
- Can an appellate court's sketchy finding on the issue of personal requirement of premises be sustained without discussion of the evidence?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court's finding on default in rent when the finding is otherwise sustainable despite unconvincing reasoning?
- AKHTAR. KAHLOON And Another vs THE- STATE1986 P Cr. L J 699 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-12Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR MUHAMMAD vs Haji FAIZ MUHAMMAD And 2 Others1986 P Cr. L J 2994 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-08-31Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR HUSSAIN ZAIDI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1742 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-09Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR HUSSAIN And 2 Others vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VEHARI And OTHER1986 CLC 209 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-05Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR ALI vs The STATE1986 SCMR 1730 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-07-27Read full judgment →
- AKHLAQ AHMAD vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 255 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
- AKBAR KHAN And 2 Other vs METROPOLITAN STEEL CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN Ltd., KARACHI1986 PLC 870 · Labour Court · 1985-09-21Read full judgment →
- AKBAR BADSHAH vs RAZA MUHAMMAD1986 CLC 2258 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-06Read full judgment →
- AKBAR and others vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2177 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-13Read full judgment →
- AKBAR And 3 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2260 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-08Read full judgment →
- AKBAR ALI vs Qazi JAVED AHMAD And Other1986 SCMR 2018 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition challenging an order of acquittal passed under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The respondent had been acquitted in a case under the Arms Act by a Magistrate, relying on findings from a separate murder trial. A private complainant filed a revision petition, which was initially dismissed by the Sessions Judge on the grounds that a private complainant lacks the standing to file a revision in State cases. While the High Court subsequently held that the revision was competent and that the Magistrate erred in relying on findings from the murder trial, it ultimately dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the acquittal order under Section 249-A was justified because the prosecution failed to produce evidence. The Supreme Court, noting that the case involves a matter of general impression, granted leave to appeal. The Court directed that this appeal be heard alongside the pending appeal related to the murder case, allowing parties to file additional documents if necessary.
Questions settled- Can a private complainant file a revision petition in a State case?
- Is it permissible for a Magistrate to rely on findings from a separate murder trial when deciding an acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Under what circumstances can a trial court pass an order of acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- AKBAR ALI And Others vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF1986 SCMR 778 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had disposed of three regular second appeals concerning the ownership and income of a shrine's donation boxes. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, who were engaged in litigation over the property, could still pursue their claims after the Auqaf Department had formally taken over the property via official notifications issued in 1960 and 1964. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was correct, affirming that the property had been validly taken over by the Auqaf Department under the relevant statutory framework. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioners must pursue their remedies regarding the disputed property and the deposited income through the specific legal channels provided under the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance. The key principle laid down is that once property is legally acquired by the Auqaf Department under valid notifications, claimants must seek redress through the statutory forums established by the governing Waqf legislation rather than continuing civil litigation.
Questions settled- Can claimants pursue remedies for property taken over by the Auqaf Department through civil litigation?
- Does the taking over of property by the Auqaf Department via official notification require claimants to seek redress under the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance?
- AJMAL KHAN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB HOUSING AND PHYSICAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 423 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-03-21Read full judgment →
- AJAB DIN AND 6 OHERSs vs MUHAMMAD SHAH AND 8 OTHERS1986 PLD Peshawar 30 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-09-17Read full judgment →
- AISHA vs MAQBOOL HUSSAIN & Others1986 P Cr. L J 2424 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-09Read full judgment →
- AIJAZ Alias JAJJI And Another vs THE STATE And Other1986 SCMR 1515 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves criminal petitions arising from a judgment of the High Court concerning a murder trial. The primary petitioner, Aijaz alias Jajji, sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence of death for the murder of Muhammad Yousaf, while the complainant filed a petition against the acquittal of certain co-accused and the reduction of sentences of others. The core legal question revolved around whether the conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code was sustainable and whether the petitioner was entitled to a lesser sentence of imprisonment for life given the absence of a pre-planned attack and the nature of the occurrence over a trivial matter. The Supreme Court held that the co-accused were rightly acquitted or given altered convictions by the High Court due to lack of a pre-concerted attack, and dismissed the complainant's petition. However, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the primary petitioner solely to consider the question of reducing his death sentence to imprisonment for life. The key principle laid down is that the absence of pre-concert or premeditation in a sudden altercation over a trivial matter may warrant a re-examination of the appropriateness of the death penalty.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code where no pre-planned attack was established?
- Does a sudden altercation over a trivial matter without pre-concert justify the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Whether an accused who delivered a single fatal blow during a sudden scuffle is entitled to a lesser sentence?
- AHSANUL HAQ And Another AHSANUL HAQ And Another vs NAURANG And Another RIASAT ALI And Other1986 SCMR 501 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These two connected appeals arise out of identical facts concerning rival claims for the allotment of evacuee land by displaced persons. The core legal question was whether claimants whose unsatisfied land units were transferred to an estate earlier in point of time possess a preferential right to the allotment of land over those whose claims were transferred later, under the relevant settlement laws and instructions. The Supreme Court held that the principle of 'first come first served' is inherent in the application of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme instructions as a requirement of fair play and equity to prevent arbitrary power by settlement authorities. The Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment, and established the principle that earlier arrival and transfer of claims to an estate gives a preferential right to the allotment of available land over later-arrived claims, provided both parties are non-allottees.
Questions settled- Does the arrival and transfer of unsatisfied land claims to an estate earlier in point of time give a claimant a preferential right to land allotment over later claims?
- Whether the principle of first come first served applies to the disposal of land in non-congested districts under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme?
- Can settlement authorities arbitrarily choose claimants for the purpose of settlement irrespective of the date when their claims were received by transfer?
- AHSAN ULLAH vs PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and 21986 MLD 2973 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-13Read full judgment →
- AHSAN KAUSAR And Others vs AHMAD ZAMAN KHAN1986 SCMR 1799 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a suit filed by the respondent seeking a mandatory injunction and mesne profits regarding a parcel of land whose title had already been settled in his favor. At the stage of final arguments, the trial court noted that the suit was in substance for possession and allowed an oral prayer by the respondent to amend the plaint to include the relief of possession under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court affirmed this exercise of discretion in revision. The Supreme Court considered whether the trial court erred in allowing an oral prayer for amendment without a formal written application, and whether such an amendment was impermissible due to potential limitation issues. The Supreme Court held that procedural rules serve the administration of justice and a formal written application is not mandatory for correcting formal defects where cause of action facts are already pleaded. It further held that adding an additional prayer without changing the fundamental character of the suit is permissible at any stage to avoid multiplicity of litigation.
Questions settled- Is a formal written application strictly required for a court to allow an amendment of a plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a court permit an amendment adding a prayer for possession to a suit without altering the basic character and cause of action of the suit?
- Does the potential bar of limitation against a original prayer preclude the court from granting permission to amend the plaint to include an additional relief?
- AHMON alias AHMANN and others vs GHULAM and others1986 MLD 646 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-24Read full judgment →
- AHMED vs THE STATE1986 PLD Rev. 155 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1975-09-28Read full judgment →
- AHMED vs ALLAHDINO AND OTHERS1986 PLD Rev. 73 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1971-05-28Read full judgment →
- AHMED KHAN vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Through Chairman And 2 Others1986 PLC 978 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-05-16Read full judgment →
- AHMED KHAN vs Messrs PAKISTAN %MACHINE TOOLS FACTORY Ltd., KARACHI-1986 PLC 189 · Labour Court · 1985-07-15Read full judgment →
- AHMED DIN vs SHAH MUHAMMAD and another1986 MLD 1902 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-01Read full judgment →
- AHMED and 4 others vs R.J. CHARANIA1986 MLD 235 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-02Read full judgment →
- AHMED ALI And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1845 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-17Read full judgment →
- AHMADYAR And 19 Others vs BASHIR AHMAD And Another1986 P Cr. L J 1309 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-24Read full judgment →
- AHMAD vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2682 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-25Read full judgment →
- AHMAD vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another1986 MLD 1032 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-26Read full judgment →
- AHMAD NABI vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUAL And Another1986 PLC 42 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from a labour dispute where the petitioner, a permanent workman, challenged an order of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal setting aside the Labour Court's decision that had reinstated him with back benefits. The petitioner had been granted 45 days leave to visit India, applied for extensions due to illness, but ultimately reported back late, leading to domestic inquiry proceedings and subsequent termination of his services. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's absence due to illness abroad constituted circumstances beyond his control and whether the medical certificate relied upon was legally proven. The High Court held that medical certificates do not constitute self-proving evidence and must be formally proven, and since the petitioner failed to prove his illness or establish that his absence was unavoidable, the tribunal was justified in upholding the termination. The court laid down the principle that the burden of proving an exception—such as unavoidable absence due to illness—lies heavily upon the claiming party, and medical certificates unsupported by expert testimony or corroborating clinical tests in circumstances lacking credibility do not suffice to prove misconduct-exempting illness.
Questions settled- Whether a medical certificate issued by a foreign doctor constitutes self-proving evidence without formal examination or corroboration?
- Does unauthorized absence from duty due to alleged illness amount to misconduct under labour laws when the employee fails to prove the illness?
- On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish circumstances beyond control for overstaying approved leave?
- Whether an appellate tribunal is justified in setting aside a labour court's reinstatement order when the employee fails to substantiate the grounds for absence?
- AHMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER vs ZAHUR AHMAD KHAN TAREEN AND 7 OTHERS1986 PLD Lahore 184 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the orders of revenue and land authorities regarding the disputed sale of agricultural land under the Land Reforms Regulation 115 of 1972. The core legal questions involved whether the second sale transaction violated the statutory restriction on alienating land below an economic holding, the validity of condoning delay in filing an appeal against a void order, and the competence of the Additional Chief Land Commissioner. The Lahore High Court held that while the second sale was subsequent in time and contravened the provisions of the Land Reforms Regulation, the entire transaction could not be declared void; rather, the sale was valid to the extent of the permissible area (36 Kanals 1 Marla) that did not breach the economic holding limit, while the excess was void. The Court also held that no limitation runs against a void order and that a party participating in proceedings without objection cannot raise jurisdiction issues for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether an alienation of agricultural land that reduces a holding below the limit of an economic holding is void in toto or only to the extent of the excess?
- Does limitation run against an order that is void ab initio or passed without proper service?
- Can a party who submits to the jurisdiction of a tribunal without objection raise the question of competency for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether a registered document operates from the date of its registration or the date of its execution?
- AHMAD KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.-W. F. P., PESHAWAR AND 4 OTHERS1986 PLD Peshawar 67 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, which had accepted a second revision petition regarding a land partition dispute. The core legal question was whether the Board of Revenue possesses the jurisdiction to entertain a second revision petition under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, after the Commissioner has already exercised revisional jurisdiction in the same matter. The Court examined the statutory provisions and compared the revisional powers under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, with those under the N.-W. F. P. Tenancy Act, 1950. Relying on the principle established by the Supreme Court in Haji Samad Khan v. Khalid Khan, the Court held that there is no material difference between the revisional powers under these two statutes. Consequently, once the Commissioner has exercised revisional authority, a second revision before the Board of Revenue is incompetent. The Court ruled that the Member, Board of Revenue acted without lawful authority in entertaining the second revision, and the impugned order was declared to be of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Is a second revision petition competent before the Board of Revenue after the Commissioner has already exercised revisional jurisdiction under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967?
- Are the revisional powers of the Board of Revenue under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, materially different from those under the N.-W. F. P. Tenancy Act, 1950?
- Does the Board of Revenue have the authority to entertain a second revision once the Commissioner has decided the matter in revision?
- AHMAD HAYAT And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1877 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-28Read full judgment →
- AHMAD FAROOQI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 722 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-26Read full judgment →
- AHMAD DIN vs HASSAN and others1986 MLD 1025 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-01Read full judgment →
- AHMAD DIN KHAN vs INTISAR ALI1986 MLD 1380 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-23Read full judgment →
- AHMAD BAKHSH vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2281 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-16Read full judgment →
- AHMAD BAKHSH vs THE DISTRICT JUDGE/ELECTION TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 223 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging an Election Tribunal's decision to declare the petitioner's election to a District Council peasant seat void. The core legal question was whether the petitioner qualified as a "peasant" under the definition provided in the Punjab Local Government (Second Amendment) Ordinance 1983, specifically regarding his occupation as a commission agent and the requirement for personal cultivation of land for maintenance. The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Election Tribunal and the High Court, determining that the petitioner failed to satisfy the statutory criteria because he derived his livelihood from a commission agent's business and did not personally engage in cultivation for his maintenance. The Court held that the statutory definition of "peasant" implies a continuous requirement of personal cultivation for maintenance as a condition precedent. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower courts' findings, refused to reappraise the evidence, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does the definition of 'peasant' under the Punjab Local Government (Second Amendment) Ordinance 1983 require continuous personal cultivation of land for maintenance?
- Can a candidate who derives livelihood from a commission agent's business qualify as a 'peasant' under the Punjab Local Government (Second Amendment) Ordinance 1983?
- Is the requirement of personal cultivation for maintenance a condition precedent for qualifying as a 'peasant' for election purposes?
- AHMAD ALI vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, SAHIWAL1986 PLC 1127 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-07-23Read full judgment →
- AHMAD ALI vs PROVINCE OF SIND and 2 others1986 MLD 1777 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-19Read full judgment →
- AHMAD ALI AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1986 PLD Lahore 154 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-17Read full judgment →
- AGRICULTURE ENGINEER, TALAGANG vs GULZAR HUSSAIN1986 PLC 280 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-09-27Read full judgment →
- AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER, MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ1986 PLC 1110 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-13Read full judgment →
- Agha MUNIR KHAN vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1764 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-07Read full judgment →
- Agha HASSAN KHAN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2869 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-31Read full judgment →
- Agha HASAN KHAN vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2560 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-31Read full judgment →
- AFZAL KHAN and others vs UNITED BANK Ltd.1986 MLD 76 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-06Read full judgment →
- AFZAL HUSSAIN And Others vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD And Other1986 SCMR 783 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that declined to interfere with orders passed by Settlement authorities regarding the allotment of agricultural land. The core dispute arose when respondents claimed that a portion of the land allotted to the petitioners' predecessor was actually 'Ghair Mumkin Abadi' (residential area) occupied since 1947, and thus ineligible for agricultural allotment. The Additional Settlement Commissioner excluded the residential area from the allotment, a decision upheld by the Settlement Commissioner and subsequently the High Court. The petitioners contended that the allotment was finalized years prior and that the land was agricultural. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to interfere under its constitutional jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that the lower authorities had properly addressed the limitation issue by condoning the delay and that the decision to protect existing residential occupants was equitable. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no justification for interference, affirmed the High Court’s reasoning, and dismissed the petition in limine.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to exercise constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 when the impugned orders are based on equity and justice?
- Can an allotment of agricultural land be challenged on the ground that the land is actually Ghair Mumkin Abadi?
- Does the condonation of delay by a Settlement Commissioner in an allotment dispute constitute a valid exercise of discretion?
- AFZAL BAIG vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and 2 others1986 MLD 140 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-14Read full judgment →
- AFTAB IQBAL BUTT vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA, LAHORE1986 PLC (C.S.) 519 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1986-01-11Read full judgment →
- AFTAB ALI vs THE STATE1986 PLD Karachi 348 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-05Read full judgment →
- AFTAB AHMAD vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2525 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-24Read full judgment →
- AFROZE BEGUM vs Mst. HALIMA BAI and 7 others1986 MLD 1526 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-04Read full judgment →
- AFRAHIM And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 259 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-08Read full judgment →
- ADHO vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 658 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-30Read full judgment →
- ADHAM alias ADOO vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1083 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-02Read full judgment →
- ADAMJI INSURANCE CO. vs SARWAR RANA And Others1986 PLC 588 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-22Read full judgment →
- ADAMJEE INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd. vs SARWAR RANA1986 PLC 646 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-12-20Read full judgment →
- ADAM vs GHULAM MUSTAFA And Others1986 P Cr. L J 1221 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Actg. C Mir SHAHBAZ KHAN vs Mir IBRAHIM KHAN AND 73 OTHERS1986 PLD Quetta 246 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-05-13Read full judgment →
- ABU BAKAR vs Ch.MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH1986 MLD 227 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-30Read full judgment →
- ABU BAKAR KHAN vs QAMRUDDIN1986 PLD Karachi 353 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-26Read full judgment →
- ABRAR MUHIUDDIN AHMED vs ZUHAIR AKRAM NADEEM and others1986 MLD 2245 · Election Tribunal · 1986-01-16Read full judgment →
- ABRAR HUSSAIN and 2 others vs A.F. FURTADO1986 MLD 1587 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-03Read full judgment →
- ABID NASIR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 906(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-13Read full judgment →
- ABID JAVAID and another vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2724 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-04Read full judgment →
- ABID HUSSAIN QURESHI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1986 PLC (C.S.) 46 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABID ALI SHAHID And Another vs THE STATE and 2 others1986 P Cr. L J 1172 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-28Read full judgment →
- ABID & COMPANY vs SHARIF HAROON and another1986 MLD 2514 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE and 2 others1986 MLD 1017 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN vs COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR DIVISION And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 480 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-10-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN and others vs MUHAMMAD RAMZ AN and others1986 MLD 788 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAUF KHAN vs HO MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN and 2 others1986 MLD 2338 · Election Commission of Pakistan · 1986-08-19Read full judgment →