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.
- ZAHOOR AHMAD AND 5 OTHERS vs MANZOOR HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 417 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-18Read full judgment →
- ZAHOOR AHMAD and 3 others vs NOOR MUHAMMAD and another1985 MLD 761 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
- ZAHID HUSSAIN And Others vs ABDUL ATTIQUE1985 SCMR 1016 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court dismissing the petitioners-tenants' rent appeal against ejectment orders passed on the grounds of personal requirement and default in rent payment. The core legal questions involved whether a second eviction petition on the ground of personal requirement is barred when an earlier petition failed, and whether default in rent payment was established. The Supreme Court held that the previous petition did not bar the fresh proceedings because the requirement urged was based on different grounds, and further noted that no evidence was examined on merits in the previous ex parte proceedings. Furthermore, the default in rent payment stood established as the tenants failed to produce receipts for certain periods, and the Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact and the exercise of discretion regarding eviction. The key principle laid down is that a subsequent ejectment petition for personal requirement is maintainable when the prior petition was not decided on merits and involved different grounds, and that established default in rent payment justifies eviction.
Questions settled- Whether a second eviction petition on the ground of personal requirement is barred when an earlier petition failed?
- Does the principle of res judicata under section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to rent controller proceedings?
- Whether the Supreme Court interferes with the concurrent exercise of discretion by lower courts in directing eviction on the ground of default?
- ZAHID BASHIR vs MUMTAZ BEGUM1985 MLD 933 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-16Read full judgment →
- ZAHEER AHMED vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1247 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-22Read full judgment →
- ZAFRULLAH KHAN vs PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION And Other1985 SCMR 1193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the selection process for the post of Mines Labour Welfare Officer. The petitioner challenged the High Court's decision, which had directed the Punjab Public Service Commission to re-examine candidates after finding that the initial selection process was flawed because the Commission failed to interview all eligible candidates, specifically excluding the respondent. The core legal question was whether the High Court could direct the Commission to re-evaluate candidates when the selection process was deemed procedurally unfair and whether a subsequent appointment notification rendered the constitutional petition infructuous. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's direction for the Commission to perform its statutory recommendatory role in accordance with law was appropriate. The Court affirmed that the exclusion of eligible candidates from the interview process invalidated the selection, and a subsequent appointment notification did not displace the grievance regarding the Commission's improper functioning. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, maintaining the High Court's order for a fresh, comprehensive evaluation of the competing candidates.
Questions settled- Can a High Court direct a Public Service Commission to re-examine candidates if the initial selection process was procedurally flawed?
- Does a subsequent appointment notification issued during the pendency of a constitutional petition render the petition infructuous?
- Is the exclusion of an eligible candidate from an interview process by a Public Service Commission a valid ground for judicial intervention?
- ZAFFAR ULLAH KHAN and others vs ABDUR REHMAN and others1985 MLD 1574 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil suit was instituted by the legal representatives of the original allottee of State land, Miran Bakhsh, along with their subsequent lessee, seeking declarations of ownership, possession, and the cancellation of certain revenue mutations regarding land situated in Tehsil Toba Tek Singh. The core legal questions revolved around whether the original owner had validly sold his proprietary rights during his lifetime, whether the suit was barred by limitation, and whether a subsequent purchaser acquired good faith title. The High Court held that although the initial mutation of sale was prematurely attested and void, the subsequent execution of a joint document and full payment of the sale consideration by the vendees effectively completed the sale during the vendor's lifetime, thereby extinguishing the plaintiffs' right to the property. The Court laid down the principle that a revenue mutation is not a title-creating instrument but a piece of evidence, and that a plaintiff in actual possession suing for a declaration is governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 rather than Article 91.
Questions settled- Which article of the Limitation Act governs a suit for declaration of title brought by a plaintiff who is in actual physical possession of the immovable property?
- Does a revenue mutation operate as a document creating legal rights or establishing legal relationship?
- Whether proprietary rights vest in a tenant of State land upon the deposit of the purchase price in the Government Treasury without the execution of a formal sale-deed?
- Does a premature attestation of a sale mutation render a subsequent valid completion of sale through an agreement and full payment nugatory?
- ZAFARUL HASAN vs ALI MUHAMMAD1985 CLC 2076 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR YAB ALI and others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1985 CLC 2647 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-21Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR SHAH and others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 752 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-18Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR ISLAM ABID vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1529 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-19Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR IQBAL vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1606 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR IQBAL vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAHAWALPUR1985 PLC (C.S.) 791 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-02-15Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR IQBAL vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAWALPINDI and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 208 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-10-09Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR HAYAT and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1272 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1288 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-15Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR ALI MALIK vs PROGRESSIVE PAPERS LTD., LAHORE1985 PLC 845 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
- Z.U. KHAN vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 361 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-10-02Read full judgment →
- YUSUF vs Mst. RABIA1985 SCMR 1066 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court order dismissing an application for the re-admission of a rent appeal, which had previously been dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner contended that Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, mandated the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits, regardless of the appellant's absence. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that the appellate authority is not required to consider the merits when the appellant fails to prosecute the appeal. The Court affirmed that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, governs the hearing of statutory appeals in the High Court unless explicitly excluded. Consequently, the High Court possesses the inherent power under Order XLI, Rule 17, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution when the appellant fails to appear. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the absence of his counsel and himself. The petition was dismissed, upholding the High Court's refusal to re-admit the appeal.
Questions settled- Does Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, mandate an appellate authority to decide an appeal on merits even when the appellant fails to appear?
- Does the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, govern the procedure for hearing statutory appeals in the High Court?
- Can a High Court dismiss a statutory appeal for non-prosecution under Order XLI, Rule 17, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- YUSUF KHAN And 24 Others vs Wader MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE And 2 Other1985 SCMR 1692 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court setting aside an order of the Deputy Commissioner Kachhi at Dhadar and remanding the case for fresh disposal. The respondents had filed a suit for declaration and possession of land under the Dastoor-ul-Amal Diwani Kalat, which the Deputy Commissioner dismissed on the ground of limitation. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Commissioner, acting as Hakim-e-Adalat under the Dastoor-ul-Amal, was competent to exercise powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject a plaint or dismiss a suit without transmitting the case to the Kazi for trial. The Supreme Court held that the trial forum under the unamended Dastoor-ul-Amal is a two-tiered system comprising the Hakim-e-Adalat and the Kazi, and that sections 7, 20, and 22 of the Dastoor-ul-Amal were not repealed or replaced by the Code of Civil Procedure in this regard. The Court affirmed that the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to reject a plaint or dismiss a suit on limitation or merits himself, but must frame issues and transmit the case to the Kazi.
Questions settled- Whether the Deputy Commissioner as Hakim-e-Adalat is competent to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure under the unamended Dastoor-ul-Amal Diwani Kalat?
- Does the Deputy Commissioner possess the jurisdiction to dismiss a suit on the ground of limitation without transmitting the case to the Kazi?
- Whether sections 7, 20, and 22 of the Dastoor-ul-Amal Diwani Kalat stand repealed and re-enacted by the Code of Civil Procedure by virtue of the Central Laws (Statute Reforms) Ordinance, 1960?
- YOUSIF vs THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND ANOTHERPLD 1985 Rev. 70 [Sindh] · Board of Revenue · 1971-06-06Read full judgment →
- YASMEEN KAUSAR vs MESSRS MIDWAY HOUSE LTD. AND OTHERS1985 PLC 735 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-09Read full judgment →
- YASIN ALI SHAH vs CHAIRMAN, P.I.A. CORPORATION and 2 others1985 PLC 47 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-09Read full judgment →
- YASIN AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD QASIM1985 P Cr. L J 384 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-06Read full judgment →
- YASEEN vs HUSSAIN BAKHSH and 4 others1985 CLC 1889 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →
- YARA vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1861 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the appellant's appeal against his conviction and death sentence under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case rested on the ocular testimony of the deceased's husband, who witnessed the attack from a roof, and the recovery of a blood-stained hatchet (Toka) at the appellant's instance. The trial court had acquitted three co-accused on the principle that the uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses is insufficient for conviction, but convicted the appellant due to the corroborative recovery of the weapon. The appellant challenged the reliability of the eye-witnesses and the recovery witnesses due to their relationship with the deceased. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the husband's presence at the scene was natural, his identification of the appellant under moonlight was reliable, and the recovery of the weapon was proved by consistent testimony. The Court reaffirmed that the testimony of close relatives cannot be discarded solely on account of relationship if it is otherwise credible and corroborated.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the testimony of an interested or related witness if it is supported by independent corroborative evidence?
- Whether the recovery of a weapon of offence can be discarded solely because the recovery witnesses are closely related to the deceased?
- Is identification of an accused during the night reliable if the witness is familiar with the accused and the incident occurred under bright moonlight?
- YAR MUHAMMAD And Others vs GUL MUHAMMAD1985 SCMR 1609 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Baluchistan High Court judgment upholding the dismissal of applications filed under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, concerning land disputes. The core legal question was whether the Magistrate followed the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 145 and whether the dismissal, based on existing material and admissions rather than a full evidentiary trial, was legally sound. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Magistrate had complied with the essential procedural steps, including affording parties a hearing and considering the material on record. The Court clarified that Section 145 proceedings do not determine ownership or the right to possess, but only actual possession. It established that Magistrates may rely on admissions and material placed on record to dismiss applications where no genuine dispute exists or where the applicant's claim is demonstrably meritless. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that if a Magistrate cannot determine possession, they should not decide in an uncertain manner but should instead proceed under Section 146, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, while noting that Section 145 is not a substitute for civil litigation.
Questions settled- What are the essential procedural steps a Magistrate must follow in proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 authorize a Magistrate to determine ownership or the right to possess property?
- What should a Magistrate do if they are unable to determine actual possession in proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a Magistrate rely on admissions and material placed on record by parties to dismiss an application under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without recording further evidence?
- YAR MUHAMMAD And 3 Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (L), LAHORE1985 SCMR 1346 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition concerning a land allotment dispute. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, claiming as successors-in-interest to one Mst. Aisha Bibi, were entitled to notice and a hearing before the cancellation of an allotment made in her name. The Supreme Court held that since Mst. Aisha Bibi had died in 1965, the allotment made in her name in 1967 was obtained through fraudulent impersonation. Consequently, the Court ruled that no valid or valuable rights accrued to the petitioners through this fraudulent transaction. The Court affirmed that the failure to provide notice to the petitioners before the cancellation of such a void allotment was of no legal consequence. The principle laid down is that an allotment procured through the impersonation of a deceased person is fraudulent and void, conferring no locus standi upon successors-in-interest to challenge subsequent administrative orders restoring the land to rightful temporary allottees. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does an allotment obtained through the impersonation of a deceased person confer any legal rights upon the successors-in-interest?
- Is a party entitled to notice before the cancellation of an allotment that was procured through fraud?
- Do successors-in-interest have locus standi to challenge the cancellation of an allotment that was void ab initio?
- YAQOOB vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1825 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-18Read full judgment →
- YAQOOB SULEMAN MAYET vs DEPUTY, REGISTRAR, CO-COPERATIVE SOCIETIES1985 CLC 311 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-06Read full judgment →
- YAQOOB DASOO vs Mst. AMTUL BARI1985 MLD 1151 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-01Read full judgment →
- YAQOOB ALI vs PRESIDING OFFICER, SUMMARY MILITARY 'COURT, KARACHI1985 PLD Karachi 243 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-28Read full judgment →
- WORKS MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS CARRIAGE FACTORY, ISLAMABAD vs MUHAMMAD ANIS and 52 others1985 PLC 233 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- WORKERS AND STAFF UNION Regd. (C.B.A.) KOH-I-NOOR TEXTILE MILLS, FAISLABAD and another vs PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT No, 4, FAISALABAD and 4 others1985 PLC 190 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- WILAYAT KHAN vs REHAM DAD And Other1985 SCMR 532 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed his writ petition challenging the Election Tribunal's order dated 22-10-1983. The parties had contested a Local Council Election where a tie was resolved by drawing lots in favor of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 challenged the election via an election petition under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The Election Tribunal recounted the votes upon the respondent's narrowed objections, found one vote cast for the petitioner to be invalid, and declared the respondent successful. The core legal question was whether the Election Tribunal's failure to frame formal issues under the Election Petition Rules vitiated the recount and decision. The Supreme Court held that strict compliance with civil procedure was not necessary in such matters, provided the Tribunal did what was essential to resolve the dispute, and that substantial justice had been done. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether strict compliance with the procedure prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure is necessary for an Election Tribunal?
- Does the failure of an Election Tribunal to frame issues vitiate the recount of votes?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an election order where substantial justice has been done?
- WI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD. vs REHMAT MASIH AND 8 OTHERS1985 PLC 859 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-05Read full judgment →
- WEST PUNJAB TEXTILE MILLS Ltd., LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN1985 PLC 172 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-10Read full judgment →
- WEST PAKISTAN CROAM TENNERIES vs ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LABOUR1985 PLC 846 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- WERAM vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 372 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-13Read full judgment →
- WAZIR MUHAMMAD vs DURRANI AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Peshawar 17 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-06-17Read full judgment →
- WAZIR KHAN vs MECHANISED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN1985 PLC 687 · Authority under Payment of Wages Act · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
- WAZIR KHAN and anothers vs THE STATE and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 1426 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
- WAZIR KHAN and another vs Ch. MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE, SETTLEMENT1985 MLD 201 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-15Read full judgment →
- WAZIR ALI INDUSTRIES Ltd. and another vs The SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT1985 CLC 1843 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-28Read full judgment →
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs ABID HUSSAIN1985 SCMR 135 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), sought leave to appeal against an interlocutory order passed by the Service Tribunal, which clarified the scope and effect of a previously issued status quo order concerning the termination of the respondent's services. The core legal question involved whether the interlocutory clarification issued by the Service Tribunal regarding the status quo order warranted interference under the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the impugned order was interlocutory in nature, subject to modification during the pendency of the main appeal, and was based on a factual determination regarding the employment status of the respondent at the relevant time. The Court laid down the principle that an interlocutory order of a Service Tribunal resting on factual determinations and lacking any substantial question of law of general public importance does not meet the requirements for granting leave to appeal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Does an interlocutory clarification of a status quo order by a Service Tribunal raise a question of law of general public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against an interim order of a Service Tribunal that is subject to modification and depends on factual determinations?
- WATER AND POWER DEV$1OPMENT AUTHORITY through its Director Legal vs RAHWALI SUGAR MILLS, RAHWALI, GUJRANWALA1985 MLD 1624 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
- WASAL alias NILO vs SH. MUHAMMAD AMJAD AND 3 OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 56 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-16Read full judgment →
- WARYAM and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 162 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-03Read full judgment →
- WARYAM and 8 others vs FAIZ AHMAD and others1985 CLC 2259 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →
- WARRIS ALI vs NAZIR And 4 Other1985 SCMR 1212 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner, Warris Ali, challenging the acquittal of the respondents, Nazir, Rehmat, Hassan, and Allah Ditta, who were accused of the murder of Ashiq Ali. The respondents were originally tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, who acquitted them of charges under sections 148 and 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The State subsequently filed an appeal against this acquittal, which was dismissed by the High Court. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking to overturn the High Court's decision. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel were identical to those raised before and rejected by the courts below. The Court found that the High Court had delivered a well-reasoned judgment that addressed the evidence and legal contentions appropriately. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there were no valid grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of acquittal recorded by the lower courts. The petition was accordingly dismissed for lacking merit.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal where the lower courts have provided well-reasoned judgments?
- Can a petitioner successfully challenge an acquittal in the Supreme Court by merely repeating arguments already rejected by the High Court?
- WARIS ALI And Others vs GHULAM RASOOL And Another1985 SCMR 967 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- WAQAR UL HAQ vs The STATE1985 SCMR 974 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the Lahore High Court's order refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was accused of firing fatal shots at the deceased. The petitioner contended that he was innocent, relying on a plea of alibi supported by affidavits of ninety-six notables, multiple police investigations declaring him innocent, and an exculpatory confession by a co-accused claiming sole responsibility. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the co-accused's confession and tentatively found it to be exculpatory rather than a true confession, as it raised a plea of self-defence. The Court held that the plea of alibi and the opinions of the investigating officers regarding innocence could not be evaluated at the bail stage in the face of prima facie material linking the petitioner to the shooting. The Court affirmed that such matters, including the alleged false implication due to enmity, are within the domain of the trial court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the observation that the petitioner may repeat his bail application after some evidence is recorded.
Questions settled- Can a plea of alibi be conclusively evaluated by the court at the stage of deciding a bail application?
- What is the evidentiary value of an investigating officer's opinion of innocence when deciding a bail application in the face of prima facie incriminating material?
- Can an exculpatory statement by a co-accused claiming self-defence serve as a valid ground for granting bail to the principal accused?
- WAQAR AHMAD vs RAB NAWAZ And Another1985 SCMR 1481 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondents under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for being in possession of stolen ornaments. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in re-assessing the evidence and acquitting the respondents based on material discrepancies, unreliable recovery witnesses, and suspicious circumstances surrounding the investigation and delayed lodging of the First Information Report. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondents were rightly acquitted by the High Court as the prosecution case suffered from fundamental flaws, including a manipulated recovery, false statements by key recovery and police witnesses, and an unexplained, highly suspicious one-month delay by the complainant in reporting the theft. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence is riddled with material contradictions, interested and untruthful witnesses, and manipulated recoveries, the appellate court's acquittal order is well-founded and will not be interfered with.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in setting aside a conviction under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the recovery witnesses and police officials are found to be unreliable and untruthful?
- Does an unexplained and prolonged delay in lodging the First Information Report regarding stolen valuables render the prosecution case suspicious?
- Can a criminal conviction be sustained when material links in the investigation and the identification of the accused are shrouded in mystery and manipulation?
- WAPDA, LAHORE and 2 others vs ABBAS ULLAH1985 PLC 497 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-10-29Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs ZAFAR IQBAL1985 PLC 188 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-07-11Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs PERVAIZ HASSAN1985 PLC (C.S.) 460 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-25Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs ALI MUHAMMAD1985 PLC 877 · Labour Court · 1985-07-08Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs ABDUL MANAF and another1985 PLC 92 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-06Read full judgment →
- WAPDA Through Its Chairman vs SAEED AHMAD1985 SCMR 1887 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by WAPDA against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the dismissal of the respondent, its Chief Auditor. The respondent had been dismissed from service under the West Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, for alleged misconduct after giving a statement as a defence witness before a Summary Military Court levelling allegations against the Chairman and senior officers of WAPDA. The core legal questions involved whether WAPDA was justified in dispensing with regular inquiry proceedings, whether statements made by an employee as a witness in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings could form the basis of arbitrary departmental action, and whether the Chairman could act as a judge in his own cause when his personal conduct was challenged. The Supreme Court held that the action taken by WAPDA was arbitrary, lacked a firm foundation since no authentic text of the deposition was ever supplied, and violated fundamental notions of justice as the Chairman was an interested party. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's reinstatement of the respondent.
Questions settled- Whether an employer can dispense with regular inquiry proceedings and proceed under summary provisions based on assumptions without a firm foundation of evidence?
- Does an employee giving evidence as a defence witness in a court or military tribunal render himself liable to departmental disciplinary action for misconduct based on that testimony?
- Can a departmental head whose personal conduct and integrity are questioned initiate and finalize disciplinary proceedings against a subordinate who deposed against him?
- WAPDA through its Chairman vs PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO.2, LAHORE and others1985 PLC (C.S.) 360 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-06Read full judgment →
- WAPDA and another vs Rana RAHSID AHMAD1985 PLC 34 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-13Read full judgment →
- WAPDA AND ANOTHER vs NAZIR AHMAD AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC 629 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-30Read full judgment →
- WAPDA AND 2 OTHERS vs ZAHOOR HAIDER SHAH AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC 856 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-20Read full judgment →
- WALOO alias WALI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1762 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-15Read full judgment →
- WALLAYAT HUSSAIN RAJA vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION and 198 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 1056 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-06-30Read full judgment →
- WALLA COTTON MILLS LTD. vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS1985 PTD 510 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-09Read full judgment →
- WALL MUHAMMAD And Others vs INAMUL HASSAN KHAN And Other1985 SCMR 352 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court challenges the judgment of the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, which dismissed the appellants' appeal regarding the transfer of a big mansion known as Dinga Singh Building in Lahore under the Displaced Persons laws. The core legal questions involved whether the Letters Patent Appeal was rightly dismissed as time-barred, whether the delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was competent to exercise suo motu review powers, and whether the summary disposal of the review application was arbitrary. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's finding on limitation was unexceptionable, that the delegatee was duly competent to handle the review case pursuant to valid notifications, and that neither party held a vested statutory right of transfer since they were merely competing bidders. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a Letters Patent Appeal filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation is liable to be dismissed when no sufficient ground for condonation of delay is established?
- Whether an officer invested with the delegated powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner is competent to review an order passed by a predecessor officer?
- Whether parties competing for the transfer of a big mansion under settlement laws possess a vested statutory right to obtain the property?
- Whether the summary disposal of a review application by a delegatee authority constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power when higher bids are submitted subsequently?
- WALIUR REHMAN vs MUHAMMAD SHAFT KHAN MUSAFIR and 2 others1985 CLC 2113 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD vs GHULAM HYDER And Other1985 SCMR 2021 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's revision petition regarding agricultural land rights. The petitioner, a permanent Hari, claimed a right of pre-emption over land he had cultivated since 1947. Following a dispute involving the termination of his tenancy by the Mukhtiarkar under the Sind Tenancy Act, 1950, the Assistant Commissioner subsequently recognized the petitioner's right of pre-emption. However, the respondents challenged these revenue orders in a civil suit, which was ultimately decreed in their favor by the Additional District Judge on grounds of procedural unfairness and the absence of a formal pre-emption prayer in the original application. The High Court upheld this decision. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner’s contentions—specifically regarding whether the respondents were afforded a sufficient opportunity of hearing during the revision proceedings and whether the pre-emption claim was validly raised—merited further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to resolve these substantial questions of law and procedure regarding tenancy and pre-emption rights.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a party to raise a specific prayer in an initial application preclude an appellate authority from considering that prayer if it was raised in the memo of appeal?
- Can a civil court set aside revenue orders on the grounds of violation of natural justice if the aggrieved party had an opportunity to represent their grievance in subsequent revision proceedings?
- Is a permanent Hari entitled to a right of pre-emption under the Land Reforms Regulation upon the sale of the land they cultivate?
- WALI MUHAMMAD vs DUR MUHAMMAD and others1985 CLC 516 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-30Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 756 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-22Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD and 4 others vs THE STATE and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 1342 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-18Read full judgment →
- WALI KHAN and 3 others vs Messrs UNION TEXSAS PAKISTAN INC.1985 PLC 344 · Labour Court · 1983-11-29Read full judgment →
- WALI AHMAD vs COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION And Other1985 SCMR 224 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a land acquisition dispute where the appellant challenged the dismissal of his reference under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The core legal questions were whether the trial court correctly invoked Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to close the appellant's evidence, and whether the appellant was estopped from seeking enhanced compensation for failing to explicitly record a protest on the receipt (Qabzul Wasul) despite having filed for a reference beforehand. The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in closing the evidence, as the adjournments were routine rather than granted specifically for the appellant's default. Furthermore, the Court held that the appellant’s prior application for a reference and the submission of a bond (Zamanatnama) clearly indicated his protest against the award. The absence of a protest note on the receipt was deemed a technicality. The Court established that a party is not estopped from challenging compensation if the intent to protest is evidenced by prior filings or bonds, and that Order XVII, Rule 3 cannot be invoked for routine adjournments.
Questions settled- Can a court close evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the adjournment was not granted specifically for the party's default?
- Does the absence of a protest note on a receipt (Qabzul Wasul) estop a landowner from seeking enhanced compensation if a reference application was already pending?
- Is a bond (Zamanatnama) filed by a landowner sufficient evidence of protest against a land acquisition award?
- WALDO alias WALI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2330 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-08Read full judgment →
- WALAYAT AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 278 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This direct appeal by the defendants challenged the Lahore High Court's judgment decreeing the plaintiff's suit for possession of land based on a transfer order issued by the Settlement Department. The core legal questions involved whether a suit for possession of evacuee property against alleged trespassers is governed by Article 142 or Article 144 of the Limitation Act 1908, whether trespassers can challenge a transfer order issued by a competent settlement authority, and whether the non-appearance of the plaintiff as a witness vitiates the suit when an authorised attorney testifies. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a suit filed shortly after acquiring title via a transfer order against trespassers is based on title and falls under Article 144, not Article 142. The Court laid down that persons who are neither allottees nor entitled to transfer cannot dispute a transfer made in favour of another under the settlement laws, and that an authorised attorney's testimony does not prejudice the principal's case where the attorney is competent to institute and pursue the proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for possession of property acquired through a settlement transfer order against trespassers is governed by Article 142 or Article 144 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can a trespasser or a person with no independent entitlement challenge a transfer order issued by a competent authority under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Does the non-appearance of a plaintiff in the witness-box vitiate the suit when their authorised attorney has validly instituted the proceedings and testified?
- Whether property demarcated on a site plan countersigned by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner is sufficiently identifiable for the grant of a decree for possession?
- WAKIL SHAH AND ANOTHERs vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 520 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-25Read full judgment →
- WAJID ALI (Represented By Legal Heirs) vs Syed SAJID ALI (Represented By Legal Heirs)1985 SC M R401 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by the plaintiff arose from a High Court judgment making an umpire's award the rule of the court and dismissing a suit concerning land ownership. The core legal questions involved whether an appellate court in a regular second appeal has the power under section 21 of the Arbitration Act to refer a dispute to arbitration, whether such reference must be confined strictly to questions of law, and whether the umpire's award suffered from judicial or personal misconduct. The Supreme Court held that the appellate court, possessing all powers of the court of first instance, is competent to make a reference to arbitration during a second appeal, that the proceedings of a suit and appeal form an intrinsic unity making reference to facts permissible, and that no misconduct on the part of the umpire was established. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs, affirming the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court hearing a regular second appeal has the power under section 21 of the Arbitration Act 1940 to refer a dispute to arbitration?
- Can a reference to arbitration during a second appeal extend to controversies of fact, or must it be strictly confined to questions of law?
- Does section 39 of the Arbitration Act 1940 curtail or control the constitutional appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 185 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- What constitutes sufficient ground for revoking the authority of an umpire or setting aside an award based on personal or judicial misconduct?
- WAJAHATULLAH AKHOON vs MA H MOO DUR RA B1985 CLC 1949 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-13Read full judgment →
- WAHEED AHMAD vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD and 2 others, Badami1985 PLC 42 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-10Read full judgment →
- WADHO and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2007 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
- W.Z. AHMAD vs Dr. A.A.KHAN And Other1985 SCMR 1518 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the demarcation of evacuee property, specifically Bungalow No. S-41-R-8, Lahore. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Commissioner, tasked with implementing a prior order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, possessed the authority to re-interpret the division of the property or if his role was limited to ministerial demarcation. The Chief Settlement Commissioner had previously exercised his power under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, to divide the property based on the parties' respective possession. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner’s attempt to re-interpret the term "occupation" and alter the division was legally flawed, as he lacked jurisdiction to revisit the substantive division already finalized by the superior authority. The Court affirmed the principle that subordinate authorities in the settlement hierarchy must implement, rather than re-adjudicate, the orders of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Consequently, the High Court’s decision to remand the case for proper demarcation in accordance with the original order was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a subordinate Settlement Commissioner have the authority to re-interpret the division of property ordered by the Chief Settlement Commissioner?
- Is the role of a Settlement Commissioner during the implementation of a transfer order limited to ministerial demarcation?
- Can a Settlement Commissioner alter the scope of a property division order passed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- W. WOODWARDS (PAKISTAN) LTD and 5 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2064 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-14Read full judgment →
- VIDARBHA CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VIDARBHA AND MARATHWADA, NAGPUR1985 PTD 599 · Bombay High CourtRead full judgment →
- VICTOR AZARIAH vs The SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,LAHORE and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 156 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-10-26Read full judgment →
- VICE-PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN GUJRANWALA ZONE and another vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 7 others1985 PLC 1053 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Constitutional petitions were filed challenging orders of the Labour Courts and Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding nationalised bank employees, raising questions regarding the jurisdiction of Labour Courts vis-a-vis the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), the enforceability of Wage Commission Awards under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, and the applicability of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968. The Lahore High Court held that nationalised banks are run by or under the authority of the Federal Government and governed by statutory rules framed under the Wage Commission Award, thereby excluding the Standing Orders Ordinance pursuant to its Section 1(4) proviso and Section 38-I of the IRO. The High Court further held that a Wage Commission Award is not an 'award' under Section 2(ii) enforceable via Section 25-A before a Labour Court, and jurisdiction to enforce rights thereunder vests exclusively with the NIRC under Section 22-B(3)(a). Consequently, the Labour Courts lacked jurisdiction, rendering their orders void. The banks' petitions were allowed, and the employees' petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the National Industrial Relations Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to the exclusion of Labour Courts in matters relating to the enforcement of Wage Commission Awards?
- Whether an award delivered by a Wage Commission falls within the definition of 'award' under Section 2(ii) enforceable under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Whether the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 applies to employees of nationalised banks governed by a Wage Commission Award?
- Whether a dismissed employee whose dismissal is not connected with an industrial dispute qualifies as a 'worker' under Section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB And 2 Others vs MUHAMMAD ZAHUR NASIR1985 SCMR 802 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a High Court judgment setting aside a University Disciplinary Committee's order that disqualified a student for examination malpractice. The student had been found guilty of conspiring to inflate his marks after his result sheet showed higher marks than the original award list. The core legal question was whether a disciplinary body in an educational institution can presume a student’s guilt solely because they benefited from unauthorized record tampering, without providing evidence of the student's complicity or a fair opportunity to defend. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while domestic tribunals are not bound by the strict technical rules of evidence, they must adhere to the principles of natural justice. The Court ruled that mere benefit from an inflated result does not constitute sufficient proof of guilt. A decision cannot rest on conjecture or suspicion; it requires tangible evidence linking the accused to the misconduct. Consequently, the failure to provide the student an opportunity to confront the involved staff rendered the disciplinary proceedings unfair and the resulting order unsustainable.
Questions settled- Can a disciplinary committee in an educational institution presume a student's guilt solely because the student benefited from an error or forgery in examination records?
- Are domestic tribunals in educational institutions required to adhere to the principles of natural justice when conducting disciplinary proceedings?
- Does the absence of strict technical rules of evidence in domestic tribunals allow them to base disciplinary findings on conjecture or suspicion?
- VAINS MUHAMMAD and another vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB, through Collector, Sargodha and 4 others1985 MLD 1122 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-24Read full judgment →
- UZIN EXPORT IMPORT ENTERPRISES FOR FOREIGN TRADE vs M.IFTIKHAR &1985 CLC 713 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-22Read full judgment →
- UTILITY STORES CORPORATION vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL1985 SCMR 1931 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-22Read full judgment →
- UTILITY STORES CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN Ltd. and another vs MUHAMMAD1985 PLC 521 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- UTILITY STORES CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER vs EJAZ AHMAD1985 PLC 591 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-10-26Read full judgment →
- USMAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and another1985 MLD 1571 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-03Read full judgment →
- USMAN PIRZADA vs THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, LAHORE1985 MLD 549 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →
- USMAN GHANI and another vs ALI MUHAMMAD1985 MLD 315 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
- USMAN GHANI alias SHAN and another vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1359 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-07Read full judgment →
- UNITED LABOUR UNION G.T.S., MULTAN, through General Secretary vs PUNJAB1985 PLC 17 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-18Read full judgment →
- UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES UNION vs UNITED INSURANCE1985 PLC 967 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-03-30Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK Ltd., MULTAN vs SHAHID RAFIQ1985 PLC 204 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-07-23Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK Ltd., LAHORE vs Rao AKBAR LATIF, OFFICER, GRADE-I, UNITED1985 PLC 196 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →