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.
- ABDUR RASHID vs THE STATE1986 PLD Federal Shariat Court 290 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-05-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1898 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID vs MUHAMMAD AZHAR And Other1986 SCMR 769 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal challenging an order of the High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition filed against the final order of the Board of Revenue dated 9-8-1977 concerning consolidation proceedings in village Kot Daska, District Sialkot. The core legal question involves the propriety of interfering with concurrent revenue authority decisions regarding a consolidation scheme confirmed in 1971. The Supreme Court held that no grounds existed for re-examining the matter or interfering with the High Court's order, particularly as the High Court's decision was duly based on established precedents of this Court. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings and orders of revenue authorities and the High Court in consolidation matters where the decision correctly relies on settled judicial precedents.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of the High Court upholding a decision of the Board of Revenue in consolidation proceedings?
- Does a consolidation scheme confirmed by revenue authorities warrant re-examination by the Supreme Court when the High Court's judgment is based on established precedents?
- ABDUR RASHID And Others vs The STATE1986 SCMR 754 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which partly allowed a criminal appeal by altering one co-accused's conviction from murder to hurt while maintaining the death sentence and murder conviction of the other petitioner, Abdul Rashid. The prosecution case alleged that the accused persons demanded money for tube-well water, took away the complainant's goats as security, and subsequently inflicted fatal knife and stick blows on Muhammad Hanif when he intercepted them. The trial court had convicted both accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The High Court removed the application of Section 34 regarding the co-accused Riaz Ahmad. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions to examine the legality of the High Court judgment and whether accepted principles of criminal justice administration were followed.
Questions settled- Whether Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is attracted when co-accused act with different weapons and intentions?
- Does the High Court judgment warrant interference when accepted principles of criminal justice administration are overlooked?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against both conviction and partial acquittal arising from the same criminal transaction?
- ABDUR RASHID AND 2 OTHERS vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BALUCHISTAN1986 PLD Quetta 280 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-05-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID And 2 Other vs PAKISTAN CYCLE INDUSTRIAL COOPERATIVE1986 PLC 1104 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHIM vs Mst. ZAHRAN1986 MLD 798 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHIM ALLAH DITTA STEEL REROLLING MILLS and others vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE and others1986 MLD 2735 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHIM Alias RAHIM BAKHSH vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 787(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-31Read full judgment →
- ABDUR AllAQ vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1101(1) · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-26Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1969 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-14Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 899 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-03Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH vs Mst. KALSOOM AND OTHERS1986 PLD Shariat Court 4 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-10-12Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH vs ABDULLAH1986 PLD Rev. 138 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1971-01-19Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH KHAN (deceased) through his Legal Representatives vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND and another1986 MLD 1500 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDUL, MAJEED AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Lahore 293 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHID vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER And Other1986 SCMR 943 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition on the ground of abatement following the death of a respondent. The appellant, an allottee of disputed property, challenged the cancellation of his allotment by a Settlement Commissioner. After the death of the contesting respondent, Ghulam Farid, the High Court initially ruled in 1972 that the petition had not abated. However, a subsequent order in 1973 by a different judge held that the petition had abated due to the failure to implead legal representatives. The Supreme Court addressed whether the second order could nullify the earlier, final order regarding abatement. The Court held that the order dated 18th October 1972, which determined that the petition had not abated, had attained finality. Consequently, the subsequent order dated 6th December 1973 could not legally nullify the earlier decision. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order, restored the 1972 ruling, and remanded the case to the High Court for a decision on merits, establishing the principle that a court cannot ignore or contradict a prior, final order passed in the same proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a court in a subsequent order nullify a prior, final order passed in the same proceedings regarding the abatement of a petition?
- Does a writ petition abate if no legal representative is impleaded for a deceased respondent when the property in dispute may vest in the State?
- ABDUL WAHID vs AHMAD DIN1986 SCMR 704 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute concerning the maintainability of a subsequent suit following the dismissal of a prior suit in default. The petitioner challenges a High Court order that allowed a revision petition, arguing that the respondent approached the court with unclean hands by withholding information regarding the previous dismissal. The core legal question is whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on averments made in the memorandum of appeal, and whether a subsequent suit is barred under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the previous suit was dismissed under Order IX, Rule 8. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the substantial points raised regarding the applicability of these procedural bars and the scope of judicial discretion in revision proceedings require further consideration. The Court held that the matter warrants a full hearing to determine if the lower courts were legally justified in rejecting the plaint based on the procedural history of the litigation.
Questions settled- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on averments made in the memorandum of appeal?
- Does the dismissal of a previous suit under Order IX, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar a subsequent suit under Order IX, Rule 9?
- Is a revision petition maintainable if the petitioner has approached the court with unclean hands?
- ABDUL WAHID And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1336 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHID and 9 others vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KARACHI1986 MLD 381 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular first appeal arose from an order of a Single Judge of the Sindh High Court deciding a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The appellants sought an increase in compensation for compulsorily acquired land, factory buildings, and loss of business profits resulting from an intended housing scheme. The Division Bench addressed the proper criteria for assessing market value, the admissibility of building valuation evidence, and whether compensation for loss of earnings applies to prospective business ventures. Modifying the Single Judge's decision, the High Court enhanced the land compensation to Rs. 15 per square yard, increased the building valuation to Rs. 60,000 based on unrebutted contractor testimony, and raised loss of earning compensation for 23 actually constructed and sold houses to Rs. 34,500. However, the Court affirmed the rejection of profit loss claims for 227 unconstructed plots, holding that under Section 23(4) of the Act, compensation for loss of earnings requires an existing, running business rather than prospective profits.
Questions settled- How is the market value of compulsorily acquired land to be determined under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Can the unrebutted valuation evidence of an experienced building contractor be accepted to determine compensation for acquired structures?
- Whether compensation for loss of earnings under Section 23(4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 can be awarded for prospective business profits where the business is not yet a running concern?
- ABDUL WAHEED vs THE STATE1986 PLD Lahore 81 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the quashment of proceedings pending before an Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner was initially discharged by the police during investigation, after which the complainant filed a direct private complaint before the Sessions Judge, who transferred it to the Ilaqa Magistrate without ordering an inquiry. The Magistrate nevertheless conducted a preliminary inquiry under section 202, and upon receipt of the police challan, the Additional Sessions Judge summoned the petitioner to face trial. The core legal question was whether an Ilaqa Magistrate can voluntarily conduct a preliminary inquiry under section 202 without a specific direction from the Sessions Court, and whether subsequent summoning orders based on such an inquiry are sustainable. The court held that in the absence of a specific order directing an inquiry, the Ilaqa Magistrate's inquiry was without jurisdiction, a nullity in law, and an abuse of the process of the court. The court laid down the principle that a Magistrate cannot gratuitously embark on a preliminary inquiry without specific statutory authorization, and proceedings emanating from such invalid inquiries are liable to be quashed.
Questions settled- Can an Ilaqa Magistrate voluntarily conduct a preliminary inquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without a specific direction from the Sessions Judge?
- Whether proceedings emanating from a gratuitous inquiry conducted without jurisdiction by an Ilaqa Magistrate amount to an abuse of the process of the court?
- Is a petition under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 competent where the initial inquiry itself was coram non judice?
- Can an Additional Sessions Judge summon an accused who was previously discharged by the police without first recording evidence and finding a prima facie case?
- ABDUL SHAKUR And 9 Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 667 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SHAKOOR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1822 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SHAKOOR vs ABDUL AZIZ1986 MLD 1448 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1056 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and others1986 P Cr. L J 350 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL FOR UNION COUNCILS OF TEHSIL1986 MLD 540 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR vs AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN, MUZAFFARGARH And Another1986 PLC 502 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR AZIZI and 6 others vs NOOR MUHAMMAD1986 MLD 2976 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1048 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR AND 2 OTHERS vs KHUDA-E-DAD-Petiti oner1986 PLD Quetta 11 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the proceedings and subsequent ex parte decree passed by a Qazi in a suit for rendition of accounts and possession of a shop, as well as the appellate proceedings before the Majlis-e-Shoora. The core legal questions concern the validity of the ex parte decree, the necessity of a formal decree for an appeal to be competent, and the legality of the execution proceedings. The Court held that the Qazi’s proceedings were a nullity (coram non judice) because the defendant was denied a fair opportunity to participate, and the decree failed to conform to the mandatory requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Furthermore, the Court ruled that an appeal filed without a formal decree is incompetent under Order XLI, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The key principles laid down are that a court must avoid snap decisions, a defendant cannot be made ex parte for the entire trial due to absence on a single date, and a decree must be distinct from a judgment, adhering strictly to the prescribed forms.
Questions settled- Can a defendant be precluded from participating in proceedings solely due to absence on a single date?
- Is an appeal filed without a formal decree competent under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does a judgment in a suit for accounts require a preliminary decree before a final decree can be passed?
- What are the requirements for a valid decree under Order XX, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- ABDUL SATTAR Alias SATTARI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 383 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SALAM vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, SERVICES, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (TRANSPORT CELL), CIVIL SECRETARIAT, LAHORE And 3 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 325 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-01-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SALAM SAEED And 6 Other vs DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, SAHIWAL1986 PLC (S.C.) 202 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2331 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN and 6 others vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER and another1986 MLD 412 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAQ vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD And Another.1986 PLC (C.S.) 222 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-10-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAQ CHUGHTAI vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1986 PLC 451 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAK vs ABDUL RAUF AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Karachi 476 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAK And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2989 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-05-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZAQ vs COLLECTOR. LASBELLA DISTRICT1986 PLD Quetta 86 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-09-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZAQ Alias ALLAH DITTA vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 774 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAUF vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1687 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAUF vs NAWAB ALI AND 3 OTHEES1986 PLD Karachi 117 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an ejectment order passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, directing the appellant and others to hand over vacant possession of the disputed premises to the landlords on the ground of unauthorized subletting. The core legal questions involved whether a minor landlord could file a rent application through a next friend, whether the burden of proving subletting shifted when the landlady did not depose, whether rent proceedings became void when the property was sold during their pendency without immediate substitution, and whether a sub-tenant alone could maintain an appeal when the primary tenant acquiesced. The Sindh High Court held that minor landlords can sue through a next friend under fundamental principles of civil procedure applicable to rent matters, that the burden to prove consent for subletting lay upon the person asserting it, that subsequent purchasers can continue ejectment proceedings for defaults or subletting originating under previous owners, and that an appeal by a sub-tenant alone is incompetent when the primary tenant has not appealed. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the ejectment order.
Questions settled- Can a minor landlord file a rent application through a next friend in the absence of an express provision in rent laws?
- Does the burden of proving the consent of the landlord for subletting lie upon the person alleging it?
- Can a subsequent purchaser continue rent proceedings instituted by the previous landlord for unauthorized subletting?
- Is an appeal filed by a sub-tenant alone maintainable when the primary tenant has not challenged the ejectment order?
- ABDUL RAUF BHATTI vs ABDUL RAHMAN KALIA1986 MLD 1986 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASUL SHAMS vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 183(1) · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 405 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-08Read full judgment →
- ALI vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 418 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1611 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs Mst. SAFTA BIBI1986 PLD Federal Shariat Court 10 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-12-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs DIRECTOR AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, FAISALABAD And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 471 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-11-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs AUSA SHEEDATHE STATE1986 MLD 2727 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID QAYYUM And 39 Other vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 35 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID BUTT vs AZAD GOVERNMENT Through Chief` Secretary,1986 PLC (C.S.) 699 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1986-02-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHEED Alias, SHEEDA vs THE STATE1986 PCrLJ 177 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAllAQ and another vs Mst. SAHIRA BEGUM1986 MLD 51 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHMAN vs The STATE1986 SCMR 75 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner, Abdul Rahim, challenging his conviction for abduction and Zina. The petitioner and two co-accused were initially charged with abduction for the purpose of Zina and committing Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The trial court convicted the petitioner under sections 16 and 10(2) of the Ordinance, 1979, and section 466 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while acquitting the co-accused. On appeal, the Federal Shariat Court maintained the convictions under the Ordinance but acquitted the petitioner of the charge under section 466 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought leave to appeal against this decision. The Supreme Court reviewed the record and found the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court to be correct and legally sound. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the convictions and sentences imposed by the lower appellate court, thereby upholding the findings regarding the petitioner's culpability for the offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction for abduction and Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 can be sustained when co-accused are acquitted?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed on merits despite a significant delay in filing?
- Does the acquittal of a charge under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 affect the concurrent running of sentences imposed under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- ABDUL RAHIM vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2550 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHIM Alias REHMAN vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 2833 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHEEM vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 198 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAFIQ and others vs FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1986 MLD 875 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QUDUS BEHARI vs IQBAL LAKHANI and 10 others1986 MLD 1856 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QAYYUM And Another vs Mst. HUSN ARA1986 SCMR 957 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller erred in law by closing the petitioners' evidence and passing an eviction order after the petitioners repeatedly failed to appear or produce evidence, despite a remand order from the High Court directing the case to be disposed of on merits. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller acted correctly, noting that the petitioners were given multiple opportunities to present their case but remained negligent. The Court affirmed that the findings of fact regarding the petitioners' negligence and the lack of sufficient cause for their absence, as determined by the lower courts, were not subject to interference. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot claim a denial of opportunity when they have been granted multiple chances to produce evidence but have failed to act diligently, and that the Supreme Court will not re-examine concurrent findings of fact regarding procedural negligence.
Questions settled- Can a party claim denial of opportunity to produce evidence when they have repeatedly failed to appear before the Rent Controller despite multiple adjournments?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding a party's negligence in pursuing a case subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does a Rent Controller have the authority to close a party's side of evidence after repeated absences and failure to comply with court directions?
- ABDUL QAYUM vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 616 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QADIR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1696 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QADIR And ANOTHER vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1821 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL NAWAZ vs POLITICAL ASSISTANT/ COMMANDANT, B.M.P., DERA GHAZI1986 PLC (C.S.) 1028 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABDUL NABI And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 618 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MATLOOB KHAN vs ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, S.G.A. & I DEPARTMENT And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 272 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-05-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MATLOOB KHAN vs ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 880 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABDUL MANAN MALIK vs THE MARINE & FISHERIES DEPTT. and another1986 MLD 2970 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MALIK And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 399 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MALIK And Others vs Haji MOULA BAKHSH1986 P Cr. L J 2757 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2426 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs TAJ BIBI and others1986 MLD 2400 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs SUPERINTENDENT' OF POLICE, SIALKOT And Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 707 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-10-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TOBA TEK SINGH and 3 others-1986 P Cr. L J 253 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs Messrs PACKAGES Ltd.1986 PLC 488 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-05-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID KHAN and others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE1986 MLD 782 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID And Others vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1354 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID AND OTHERS vs MUSTHAQ AHMAD AND OTHERS1986 PLD Supreme Court 123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal addressed the question of whether arrears of rent could be calculated and recovered by the Rent Controller pursuant to a security furnished under an interim order of the High Court, or if a separate civil suit was required. The appellant-tenant and his surety challenged the execution proceedings, arguing that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to order security for arrears of rent and that such orders were unexecutable under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that the order of the High Court requiring security for arrears of rent had attained finality between the parties when leave to appeal was earlier refused, precluding a second round of challenge. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that appellate authorities and the High Court possess co-extensive powers with the Rent Controller under the relevant statutory provisions and the Code of Civil Procedure to direct the deposit of rent or the furnishing of security. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Can arrears of rent be calculated and recovered by the Rent Controller pursuant to a security furnished under an interim order of the High Court?
- Whether an order of the High Court requiring the furnishing of security for arrears of rent is executable under section 17 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Does an appellate court hearing a second appeal under the rent restriction law possess the power to order the deposit of rent or the furnishing of security for the same?
- Does the principle of finality prevent a party from challenging an interim security order in a subsequent round of litigation after leave to appeal has been refused?
- ABDUL MAJID AND ANOTHER vs KADIR BUX AND ANOTHER1986 PLD Rev. 140 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1970-12-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID And 4 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1578 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJEED vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1794 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-02-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJEED vs Mst. ZUBAIDA BEGUM1986 MLD 2108 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJEED vs Messrs PAK ELEKTRONE LTD.1986 PLC 498 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJEED vs GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, GUJRAT And 2 Others1986 PLC 1074 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF vs PIONEER STEEL MILLS LIMITED, MURIDKE1986 PLC 467 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF vs Nawab FAIZ MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1986 PLD Rev. 134 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1971-03-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF vs I.-G. OF POLICE And 2 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 419 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-09-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF QURESHI And Another vs CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE1986 SCMR 953 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF ANWAR vs KASHIF HOSIERY, FAISALABAD1986 PLC 1117 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-05-31Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHANAN AND OTHERS vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS1986 PLD Peshawar 39 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-10-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQUE vs THE STATE and 38 others1986 MLD 1077 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQ vs THE STATE1986 PLD Peshawar 119 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-03-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQ vs ABDUL HAMID And Another1986 P Cr. L J 416 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQ And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2039 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIL and others vs ABDUL AZIZ and others1986 MLD 653 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM vs UMAR HAYAT and others-1986 P Cr. L J 97 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM vs SAFIA MIRZA and 5 others1986 MLD 1333 · Sindh High Court · 1936-02-22Read full judgment →