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.

• ABDUL KARIM vs Mst. CHAND BEGUM1986 MLD 1443 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-08Read full judgment →
• ABDUL KARIM vs HAM AHMED AND 6 OTHERS1986 PLD Karachi 206 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-18Read full judgment →
• ABDUL KARIM SHORO vs Syed ZAFRUDDIN AHMAD and another1986 MLD 2428 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-14Read full judgment →
• ABDUL KARIM And Another vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 847 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-23Read full judgment →
• ABDUL KARIM and 4 others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (L)/ADDITIONAL1986 MLD 1724 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-04Read full judgment →
• ABDUL KALAM vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1587 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-22Read full judgment →
• ABDUL KABIR QURESHI AND 3 OTHERS vs THE ACCOUNANT-GENERAL, AZAD1986 PLD Azad J & K 239 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1986-07-13Read full judgment →
• ABDUL JABBAR vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND through Secretary, Department of Health, Karachi and 2 others1986 MLD 160 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-15Read full judgment →
• ABDUL JABBAR vs THE STATE1986 MLD 2778 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-08-09Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAYEE AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ AND OTHERS1986 PLD Lahore 165 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-01Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HASSAN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS), MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN and others1986 MLD 2310 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-14Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HASSAN And Another vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2514 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-07Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAQUE vs BALU1986 PLD Rev. 38 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1977-12-12Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAQ AND ANOTHER vs DAD1986 PLD Rev. 48 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1978-02-13Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HANNA N KHAN vs CHAIRMAN, EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD,1986 MLD 392 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-13Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAMID vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 1087 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-03Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAMID vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2701(1) · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-10Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY vs DIRECTOR EXTENSION, PRODUCTION AND1986 PLC (C.S.) 916 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-01-05Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAMID And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2351 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-15Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAMID And 3 Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 1580 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-21Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAMID and 3 others vs Ch. ALLAH BAKHSH and 2 others1986 MLD 541 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-26Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAMEED vs REHMAT KHAN and 5 others1986 MLD 161 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-28Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAMEED And Others vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 25 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-01Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HALIM vs THE STATE1986 PLD Peshawar 92 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-12-02
  post-arrest bailstatutory baildelay in trialhardened desperate criminalprevious convictSection 497 CrPChistory-sheeter
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application arose from a case registered under Sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the accused-petitioner was charged with murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to statutory bail under the third proviso (b) to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on account of continuous detention exceeding two years, or whether bail was barred under the fourth proviso on the ground of being a previous convict, hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal. The Peshawar High Court held that mere allegations, charges, or a police history-sheet do not establish a person as a hardened or desperate criminal, nor do they make one a previous convict where past convictions were set aside on appeal. The Court laid down that unless a person is proved guilty by a final court of law, they are presumed innocent. The petitioner was accordingly granted bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does continuous detention for over two years entitle an accused to statutory bail under Section 497(1) CrPC when trial delay is not attributed to the accused?
  • Can a person be treated as a previous convict or a hardened criminal based merely on untried charges, police history-sheets, or convictions set aside on appeal?
  • What degree of proof is required to disentitle an accused from statutory bail under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) CrPC?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAKIM WARSI vs CHIEF EXECUTIVE, INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS1986 PLC 760 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-05-03
  resignationworkman statuslabour court jurisdictionnewspaper employeeindustrial relationsgrievance petitioncivil court remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the dismissal of the petitioner's claim for financial benefits by the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner, a former employee who had voluntarily resigned, sought recovery of various dues under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question was whether a former employee who has resigned retains the status of a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, or a 'newspaper employee' under the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a resigned employee is neither a 'workman' nor a 'newspaper employee' for the purposes of these statutes. The court established the principle that the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, specifically includes dismissed or discharged persons but excludes those who voluntarily resign. Consequently, such individuals cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 25-A. The court clarified that while the Labour Court lacks jurisdiction, the petitioner may pursue claims for dues not covered by the Payment of Wages Act in a civil court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a former employee who has voluntarily resigned qualify as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Can an ex-employee invoke the jurisdiction of a Labour Court under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, to claim financial benefits?
  • Does the definition of 'newspaper employee' under the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, include individuals who have resigned from their employment?
  • Is a civil court the appropriate forum for an ex-employee to claim dues not covered by the Payment of Wages Act?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAKIM vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, GUJRANWALA and 21986 MLD 410 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-28Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAKEEM vs THE STATE-1986 P C r. L J 1214 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-13Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAFIZ KHAN vs Malik IFTIKHAR KHAN1986 MLD 917 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAFEEZ vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, CENTRE III, FARIDKOT1986 MLD 406 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-04Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHANI vs ZULFIQAR AL! AND 3 OTHERS1986 PLD Sh. C (A J & K) 50 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-12-25Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHANI vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2047 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-01Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHANI vs Sh. INAYATULLAH and others1986 MLD 531 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-20Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHANI vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB Through The Secretary, Forestry And Wildlife Department, Lahore1986 PLC (C.S.) 240 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-12-21Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHANI vs HABIB AHMAD AND 4 OTHERS1986 PLD Lahore 113 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHANI And 5 Others vs THE STATE--Opponent1986 P Cr. L J 2445 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-06Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHAFOOR vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF1986 MLD 1676 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-21Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHAFOOR MULTAN REGION And Another vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD,1986 PLC (C. S.) 804 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-06-19Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHAFOOR and another vs THE STATE1986 MLD 1551 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-09Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHAFOOR And Another vs GENERAL MANAGER, UNITED SUGAR MILLS1986 PLC 152 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1985-08-18Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHAFFAR vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 860 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-01Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHAFFAR vs OKARA TEXTILE MILLS Ltd.1986 PLC 315 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-10-11Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHAFFAR vs ALTAF And 2 Others1986 P Cr. L J 2518 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-01Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHAFFAR vs ABDUL QADIR1986 MLD 1636 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-28Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHAFFAR LAKHANI vs FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1986 PLD Karachi 525 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-12
  quo warrantoterritorial jurisdictionarmed forcesoffice of profitconstitutional petitionbar of jurisdictionchief of army staff
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, filed before the Sindh High Court, sought a declaration that respondent No. 3, General Muhammad Ziaul Haq, ceased to hold the office of Chief of Army Staff upon assuming office as the elected President of Pakistan, as holding an office of profit in the service of Pakistan is barred under Article 43 of the Constitution. A Full Bench was constituted to consider the preliminary objections regarding maintainability, specifically whether the petition was barred under Article 199(3) in respect of members of the Armed Forces and whether the court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The Full Bench unanimously held that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain a quo warranto petition since the respondent neither resided nor had his office within the territorial jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court. Furthermore, by majority opinion, the court held that the petition was barred by Article 199(3) of the Constitution because the matter arose out of the service of a member of the Armed Forces. The court established that quo warranto proceedings require the person or office to be located within the court's territorial limits and that service-related matters of Armed Forces personnel are insulated from judicial review under Article 199(3).

  Questions settled

  • Does a High Court have territorial jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto against a respondent whose office and residence are located outside the territorial limits of that High Court?
  • Whether a constitutional petition challenging the holding of the office of Chief of Army Staff by the President of Pakistan is barred under Article 199(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Whether the matter of a serving military officer holding or ceasing to hold the office of Chief of Army Staff constitutes a matter arising out of his service within the meaning of Article 199(3) of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHAFFAR KHAN vs Dr. MUHAMMAD QABIL KHAN1986 SCMR 1389 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-08
  non-prosecutionadjournmentrented premisesrestoration of appealdiscretionary powereviction order
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an order of the Sind High Court dismissing an appeal against an eviction order for non-prosecution. The appellant challenged the High Court's refusal to adjourn the hearing and its subsequent dismissal of an application for readmission of the appeal. The core legal question was whether the High Court acted arbitrarily in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution when the appellant's counsel sought an adjournment on the ground of illness, and whether the subsequent refusal to restore the appeal was justified. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's discretion was exercised properly. The Court found that the medical certificate provided was suspect due to the delay in its production and that the counsel holding the brief was only present to request an adjournment, not to argue the case. Consequently, the dismissal for non-prosecution was upheld. The key principle laid down is that a court is competent to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution when the counsel present is only authorized to seek an adjournment and not to prosecute the merits of the case, particularly where prior conduct suggests an attempt to delay proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court competent to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution when the counsel present is only holding a brief for the limited purpose of seeking an adjournment?
  • Does the failure to produce a medical certificate at the time of an adjournment request justify the court's subsequent refusal to restore an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution?
  • Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution if the appellant's counsel fails to demonstrate sufficient cause for absence?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GH AFOOR vs SARWAT SAMINA SHAH1986 MLD 318 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-18Read full judgment →
• ABDUL FATEH KAZI And Other vs THE SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION1986 PLC 749 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-12Read full judgment →
• ABDUL BASIT SUHAIL vs CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 898 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• ABDUL BAQI AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1986 PLD Quetta 193 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-12-24Read full judgment →
• ABDUL AZIZ vs THE STATE-1986 P Cr. L J 2614 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-06Read full judgment →
• ABDUL AZIZ vs The DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN1986 PLC 1145 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-06-24Read full judgment →
• ABDUL AZIZ vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL And 5 Others1986 P Cr. L J 2061 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-04Read full judgment →
• ABDUL AZIZ vs ABDUL GHANI1986 SCMR 1857 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-25
  default in payment of rentwilful defaulterrent restrictionejectment petitionlandlord and tenantlump sum rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court dated 20-10-1985, which set aside the Rent Controller's order directing the eviction of the respondent-tenant. The core legal question concerns whether the respondent constituted a wilful defaulter in the payment of rent under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, given that the landlord had established a consistent practice of accepting rent in lump sum after irregular intervals. The Supreme Court held that where the landlord himself adopts a practice of receiving rent in lump sums spanning several months without objection, his conduct furnishes sufficient justification for treating the tenant not as a wilful defaulter. The court affirmed the High Court's decision and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, laying down the principle that a landlord's established course of conduct in accepting irregular lump sum payments precludes them from successfully alleging wilful default against the tenant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant can be held to be a wilful defaulter when the landlord has a established practice of accepting rent in lump sums after irregular intervals?
  • Does the acceptance of rent in lump sum by the landlord disentitle him from seeking eviction on the ground of default?
  • Can unilateral conditions printed on the back of rent receipts bind the tenant when the tenancy agreement is oral and unaccepted by the tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ali And Others vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE And OTHER1986 CLC 1011 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
• ABDUL ALEEM vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS) and 2" others1986 MLD 2370 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-03Read full judgment →
• ABDUI: REHMAN WAHLA vs DR. SHER DIL BATRA1986 PLD Supreme Court 234 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-10
  summary suitleave to defendlimitationservice of summonsrevisional jurisdictionprocess serverfinding of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a money suit instituted under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The trial court granted the defendant leave to appear and defend, finding that service of summons was effected on 12-10-1982, making the application timely. The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, reversed this finding by relying on an undated process-server report subsequently filled with the date 7-10-1982, thereby dismissing the application as time-barred. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by interfering with a finding of fact that suffered from no material irregularity. Upon examining the original record, the Supreme Court found clear evidence of overwriting on the process-server's report and verified that the authentic date of service was indeed 12-10-1982. The Court held that the provisions of Order V Rules 16 and 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, requiring signatures and identification, are salutary safeguards to prevent fraud and must be strictly complied with. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere with a trial court's finding of fact regarding the date of service of summons under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the absence of any material irregularity?
  • Whether the requirement under Order V Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for a process-server to obtain the signature of the person served is a mere technicality or a mandatory safeguard?
  • How should a court resolve a discrepancy between an undated process-server report and a subsequent verification on oath regarding the actual date of service of summons?
  Read full judgment →
• ABBAS vs THE STATE1986 P Cr. L J 386 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
• AASIA ISHAQUE SIDDIQUI vs THE SELECTION BOARD OF ADMISSION IN THE MEDICAL COLLEGES OF SIND and others1986 MLD 2079 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-23Read full judgment →
• A.S. BOKHARI vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through Secretary To Government Of Punjab Forestry And Wildlife Department, Lahore And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 1006 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• A.M. QURESHI vs SIND PROVINCE and other1986 MLD 840 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-29Read full judgment →
• A. KAFEEL ANSARI vs PAKISTANSTEEL MILLS Corpt4ration LTD., KARACHI And 91986 PLC 239 · Labour Court · 1985-08-30Read full judgment →
• A. ISMAILJEE & SONS LTD. vs PAKISTAN1986 PLD Supreme Court 499 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  barter contractexchange of goodsbreach of contractmeasure of damagesimputed knowledgepenal interestsale of goods
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals arise out of a civil suit filed by the plaintiffs against the Government of Pakistan seeking specific performance or alternatively damages for breach of a barter contract. Under the written agreement, the Government was to supply certain rusted tubings in exchange for steel bars and angles. The Government subsequently repudiated the contract, alleging lack of proper authority and fraud, and failed to complete delivery. The trial court decreed the suit for damages, which was modified on appeal by the High Court. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court examined the legal nature of barter and exchange contracts, the application of section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872 regarding the measure of damages, and the doctrine of imputed knowledge concerning sub-sales. The Supreme Court held that the contract was validly executed with proper authority, that the Government had imputed knowledge of the intended resale using special couplings, and that the measure of damages should be based on the established book value of the goods by consent. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, modifying the decretal amount.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a barter or exchange contract is governed directly by the Sale of Goods Act, 1930?
  • What is the correct measure of damages for non-delivery in a contract of barter or exchange under section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872?
  • Can knowledge of the buyer's intention to resell be imputed to the seller based on trade practices and the nature of the goods?
  • Whether pendente lite interest can be awarded on an unascertained claim for damages before the principal sum is determined by the court?
  Read full judgment →
• A. ASHID AHMAD vs THE DIRECTOR FOOD PUNJAB, LAHORE And 2 Others1986 PLC (C .S.) 927 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-03-26Read full judgment →
• A TTAULLAH KHAN vs SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, NAZIMABAD, KARACHI and 8 others1986 MLD 302 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-26Read full judgment →
• A DMINISTRATORGENERAL PUNJAB vs M. STANLEY CHARLES WILLIAM ROSE1986 PLD Lahore 333 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-22Read full judgment →
• A BDUR RASHID vs Mst. AISHA BIBI and another1986 MLD 656 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-16Read full judgment →
• ZULFIQAR vs The STATE1985 SCMR 783 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-04
  murderdying declarationocular testimonyinterested witnessesdiscrepanciessentence modificationtransportation for life
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court upholding the appellant's conviction for the murder of Muhammad Yaqoob and altering his sentence. The core legal question involved the re-appraisal of ocular testimony from interested witnesses and discrepancies between the First Information Report and the dying declaration. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the discrepancies between the dying declaration and the ocular testimony were minor and immaterial, and that the presence of the eye-witnesses at the scene was natural. The Court upheld the conviction of the appellant based on consistent dying declarations, reliable ocular testimony, medical evidence, and motive. However, noting that the occurrence took place before the coming into force of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972, the Court modified the sentence from imprisonment for life to transportation for life. The key principle laid down is that minor discrepancies between dying declarations and ocular accounts do not discredit an otherwise consistent and trustworthy prosecution case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor discrepancies between a dying declaration and an F.I.R. are sufficient to discard the prosecution case?
  • Can the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence in a criminal appeal arising from concurrent findings?
  • Whether transportation for life should be substituted for imprisonment for life for an offense committed before the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972?
  Read full judgment →
• ZULFIQAR ALI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1449 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-09Read full judgment →
• ZULFIQAR ALI vs HABIB BANK Ltd., SIALKOT1985 PLC 178 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-07-10Read full judgment →
• ZULFIQAR ALI TOOR, CITY MAGISTRATE And 7 Others vs PUNJAB SERVICE1985 SCMR 904 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-20
  senioritycivil servantsinitial recruitmentpromoteesservice tribunalinter se seniority
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition directed against the judgment of the Punjab Services Tribunal dismissing the petitioners' appeal in a seniority dispute. The core legal question concerns the determination of inter se seniority between direct appointee magistrates and promotee magistrates under the applicable statutory framework, specifically whether the West Pakistan Civil Servants (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964 or the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 governs the field. The Supreme Court held that pursuant to section 23(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, pre-existing rules not inconsistent with the Act continue to be deemed as rules framed under the Act, thereby making rule 9(3) of the 1964 Rules applicable for determining the seniority of promotees vis-a-vis initial appointees appointed prior to the enforcement of the new 1974 rules. The key principle laid down is that older service rules saved under transition provisions govern inter se seniority where the new statutory provisions require a prescribed manner and new rules have not yet occupied the field.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the seniority of civil servants appointed prior to the framing of the new service rules is governed by the pre-existing rules saved under section 23(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  • Do persons appointed by promotion in a particular year rank senior to persons appointed by initial recruitment during the same year under rule 9(3) of the West Pakistan Civil Servants (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964?
  • How is the inter se seniority between direct appointees and promotees determined under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• ZULFIQAR ALI AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD RAMZANPLD 1985 Rev. 143 [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1984-09-12Read full judgment →
• ZULFIQAR ALI alias JAPHU vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2728 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-28Read full judgment →
• ZULFIQAR AHMAD vs GULZAR KHAN And Another1985 SCMR 2000 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-13
  evacuee propertyconstitutional jurisdictionwrit petitionproperty disputePermanent Transfer DeedBoard of RevenueHigh Court interference
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a property dispute over a room situated between two adjacent evacuee houses, House No. 245/251 and House No. 246/252 in Sibi. The appellant, Zulfiqar Ahmad, claimed the room was part of his house, while the respondent, Gulzar Khan, claimed it as part of his. Following the enactment of the Evacuee Properties Law Repeal Ordinance, 1974, the pending dispute was transferred to the Board of Revenue. The Member, Board of Revenue, determined the room was part of the appellant's property and ordered its transfer. The High Court subsequently set aside this order via a Constitutional Petition, asserting the room was already included in the respondent's Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.). The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the Board of Revenue's factual determination. Relying on the principle established in Begum Shams-un-Nisa v. Akbar Abaasi, the Court ruled that even if an authority's jurisdiction is questioned due to legal changes, the High Court should not interfere with a bona fide, just, and proper order aimed at rectifying a wrong. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the Board of Revenue's order.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction with a bona fide and just order passed by an authority even if that authority's jurisdiction is questioned due to subsequent changes in law?
  • Is a finding of fact by the Board of Revenue regarding the inclusion of a room in a property transfer subject to interference by the High Court in writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• ZUBAIR AHMAD vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI AND ANOTNERs1985 PLD Karachi 760 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-02
  workmanindustrial establishmentcommercial establishmentstanding ordersmanual or clerical workskilled or unskilled workburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference before the Full Bench of the Sindh High Court arose from a constitutional petition concerning the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(i) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. A Division Bench had referred two questions to the Full Bench addressing whether the terms 'skilled or unskilled' and 'manual or clerical' are used disjunctively, thereby creating distinct categories of workmen, or whether the former terms merely qualify the latter. During the pendency of the reference, the Supreme Court of Pakistan rendered a binding judgment in Ganga B. Maahani v. Standard Bank Ltd. (1985 SCMR 1511), approving the test that a workman is one employed to do skilled or unskilled work which is manual or clerical, and that the true test is to look to the direct and substantial part of the work rather than incidental duties. Following this authoritative pronouncement under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the Full Bench concluded that only persons performing manual or clerical work, whether skilled or unskilled, fall within the definition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether in section 2(i) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 the words 'skilled or unskilled' and 'manual or clerical' have been used disjunctively so that a person employed to do skilled or unskilled work is a workman?
  • Whether a person employed to do skilled manual work, unskilled manual work, skilled clerical work, or unskilled clerical work qualifies as a workman under section 2(i) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • What is the correct test to determine whether an employee is a 'workman' within the meaning of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• ZOYAB vs Hakim MUHAMMAD FAZAL HAQUE1985 SCMR 1600 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-08
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide needleave to appealrent controllandlord-tenant disputeburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court affirming an ejectment order against the petitioner, a tenant of a shop in Karachi. The respondent-landlord sought ejectment on grounds of default, subletting, and the personal bona fide need of his son. While the Rent Controller rejected the grounds of default and subletting, the ejectment was granted solely on the ground of personal need. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that the respondent provided contradictory statements regarding the availability of other shops in the same market, specifically alleging that the respondent had rented out other shops during the pendency of the litigation, thereby undermining the claim of personal need. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the respondent's son was employed in the Sind Secretariat, rendering him unavailable for the proposed business. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the evidence and the conflicting testimonies regarding the occupancy status of other shops, found that the record required re-examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the claim of personal need was bona fide.

  Questions settled

  • Does the renting out of other properties by a landlord during the pendency of an ejectment suit negate the claim of personal bona fide need?
  • Is a landlord required to prove that a shop allegedly occupied by a trespasser was not voluntarily re-let to a new tenant?
  • Does the employment of a landlord's son in government service preclude a finding of personal bona fide need for business premises?
  Read full judgment →
• ZIAUL HAQ vs THE STATE1985 SCMR 1912 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-25
  criminal petitionre-appraisal of evidenceconcurrent findingsimpersonationforgerymatriculation examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Ziaul Haq against his conviction under sections 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, after the High Court maintained the said convictions while setting aside his conviction under section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question involved the propriety of interfering with concurrent findings of fact regarding impersonation in a Matriculation Examination form. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petition merely sought a re-appraisal of evidence, which is impermissible against concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts on a question of fact. The petition was accordingly dismissed as having no merit. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not re-appraise evidence to interfere with concurrent factual findings of lower courts where no legal infirmity is shown.

  Questions settled

  • Will the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence on a question of fact when there are concurrent findings by the courts below?
  • Can a conviction under sections 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained in an impersonation case based on concurrent factual findings?
  Read full judgment →
• ZIAUL HAQ vs Mir GHULAM MUHAMMAD1985 CLC 194 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-03Read full judgment →
• ZIAUL HAQ and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1015 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-16Read full judgment →
• ZIA MOHIUDDIN KHAN vs SECRETARY GENERAL, FINANCE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Other1985 SCMR 969 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-31Read full judgment →
• ZIA AHMAD BOKHARI vs DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION AND ANTI-SMUGGLING, F.I.A., ISLAMABAD and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 214 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
• ZAWAR HUSSAIN and 2 others vs ASSISTANT CUSTODIAN OF ENEMY PROPERTY1985 PLC 193 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• ZARIN SHAH vs WALL MUHAMMAD and 4 others1985 CLC 1303 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
• ZARIN PATEL vs HOMI PATEL1985 CLC 251 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-25Read full judgment →
• ZAR BADSHAH MASOOD vs COMMANDANT/MAGISTRATE IST CLASS and1985 P Cr. L J 499 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-02Read full judgment →
• ZAMIR HAIDER vs DOABA RICE MILLS Ltd.1985 PLC 108 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-12Read full judgment →
• ZAMIR AHMED vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 94 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-08-15Read full judgment →
• ZAMEER-UD-DIN AHMAD vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, FIRST PROVINCIAL1985 PLC (C.S.) 250 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-08-07Read full judgment →
• ZAMAN vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 566 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
• ZAKIR HUSSAIN vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARACHI WATER AND SEWERAGE1985 PLC 261 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-10-31Read full judgment →
• ZAKIR HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2428 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-24Read full judgment →
• ZAKI BAHADUR and 2 others vs ABDUL WASIH and. 3 others1985 CLC 509 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-11-30Read full judgment →
• ZAKAULLAH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 85 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-14Read full judgment →
• ZAKA KHALID vs WAPDA1985 PLC (C.S.) 646 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
• ZAHOORUL HASAN ZAIDI vs GOVERNOR OF SIND AND MARTIAL LAW1985 PLC (C.S.) 691 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
• ZAHOOR MAHMOOD FAROOQI vs THE PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, LAHORE1985 PLD Lahore 358 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-06Read full judgment →
• ZAHOOR HUSSAIN and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 862 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-07Read full judgment →
• ZAHOOR HUSSAIN and another vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB FORESTRY, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and 5 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 324 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-03-15Read full judgment →
• ZAHOOR AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2289 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-13Read full judgment →
• ZAHOOR AHMAD vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd. through its President, Karachi and 2 others1985 PLC 174 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• ZAHOOR AHMAD and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1879 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →