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.
- Syed MUHAMMAD HASHIM RIZVI vs MEMBER (REVENUE) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1985 PLC (C.S.) 1033 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD ANWAR Advocate vs Sheikh ABDUL HAQ1985 SCMR 1228 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that reversed a trial court's order setting aside an ex parte decree. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in ordering substituted service and whether the proviso to Order IX, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, cured the lack of proper service. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's resort to substituted service was unjustified because the ordinary methods of service, as prescribed by Order V, Rules 9-17, had not been exhausted. The Court further held that the proviso to Order IX, Rule 13, which excuses irregularities in service if the defendant had knowledge of the hearing, does not apply to cases of illegality where the defendant lacked knowledge of the specific date on which ex parte proceedings were initiated. The key principle laid down is that substituted service is a measure of last resort that cannot be ordered without exhausting ordinary service methods, and the proviso to Order IX, Rule 13 does not validate ex parte decrees where the defendant was not duly served.
Questions settled- Can a court order substituted service without first exhausting the ordinary methods of service prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the proviso to Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to cases involving illegality in the service of summons?
- Is an ex parte decree sustainable if the defendant had no knowledge of the specific date of hearing on which the ex parte proceedings were initiated?
- Syed MUHAMMAD AMIN SHAH AND 4 OTHERS vs MECHANISED1985 PLC 672 · Authority under Payment of Wages Act · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD AKRAM SHAH vs AZAD GRNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU1985 PLC (C.S.) 711 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two writ petitions filed by a civil servant challenging disciplinary orders that withheld his promotion and stopped his annual increments. The core legal question was whether disciplinary proceedings conducted by an officer who is personally interested or biased against the accused are valid, and whether such proceedings violate the principles of natural justice. The High Court quashed the impugned orders, declaring them void and without legal effect. The court held that disciplinary inquiries must strictly adhere to the principles of natural justice, specifically the rule that no one should be a judge in their own cause. Where an inquiry officer is biased or maintains a hostile relationship with the accused, the proceedings are fundamentally vitiated. The court emphasized that justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done, and an officer who acts as the complainant or holds a conflict of interest cannot impartially conduct an inquiry. Consequently, the court set aside the penalties, ruling that the proceedings were conducted without jurisdiction and in violation of fair play.
Questions settled- Can an officer who is the complainant or holds a bias against an accused civil servant act as the inquiry officer in disciplinary proceedings?
- Does a disciplinary inquiry conducted by a biased officer violate the principles of natural justice?
- Is a disciplinary order passed by an authority without jurisdiction subject to review under the High Court's writ jurisdiction?
- Must an inquiry officer refer a case to another authority if they are personally interested in the outcome of the proceedings?
- Syed MUHAMMAD ABDUL ALIM vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT1985 PLC (C.S.) 1096 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed MIR AHMAD SHAH AND 22 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD BADSHAH AND 111985 PLD Peshawar 74 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Syed MAZHAR HAIDER RIZVI vs THE PROVINCE OF SIND through Chief1985 CLC 2050 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-23Read full judgment →
- Syed MAHBOOB ALI And Others vs GHULAM RABBANI And Other1985 SCMR 938 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their ejectment appeal by the Sind High Court. The respondents had filed an ejectment application on the grounds of default in rent payment, subletting, and damaging the property. The petitioners denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, but the Rent Controller ruled against them and ordered their ejectment after finding them to be defaulters in rent. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the Rent Controller was legally bound to pass a tentative rent deposit order under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance and could not pass a final eviction order without it. The Supreme Court held that where tenants do not assert having paid or tendered any rent, the Rent Controller is justified in ordering eviction without taking further proceedings. The petition was dismissed, following the precedent set in Muhammad Yousaf v. Asghar Hussain.
Questions settled- Whether the Rent Controller is competent to pass a final order of ejectment without passing a tentative rent order under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance where the tenant denies the relationship of landlord and tenant and fails to tender rent?
- Does the failure to pass a tentative order for deposit of rent vitiate an ejectment order against a defaulter tenant who has not tendered any rent?
- Syed LIAQAT ALI vs THE SECRETARY, COMMUNICATION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and another1985 PLC 208 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed LAL HUSSAIN SHAH vs KAUSAR HUSSAIN SHAH1985 SCMR 572 (2 ) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a review petition filed against the order of the Supreme Court dated 8-3-1980 passed in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.212 of 1980. The core legal question before the court was whether sufficient grounds existed to warrant a review of the court's earlier order. The Supreme Court heard the arguments presented by the learned Advocate-on-Record and held that no proper ground for review of the order had been made out. Consequently, the court dismissed the review petition. The key principle laid down is that a review of a court's order requires valid and proper grounds, failing which the petition must fail.
Questions settled- Whether proper grounds were made out for the review of the court's order dated 8th March, 1980?
- Can a review petition be entertained without establishing proper legal grounds for review?
- Syed KHALID BASHIR and 148 others vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and another1985 MLD 137 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-09Read full judgment →
- Syed JAFFAR NIZAM vs Mrs. MUNIR SHAFIUDDIN1985 CLC 2370 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-13Read full judgment →
- Syed JAFFAR HUSSAIN And 4 Others vs THE ADDITIONAL REHABILITATION1985 SCMR 1076 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the petitioner against the dismissal of a revision petition by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on the ground of laches. The core legal question concerns whether the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner was competent to dismiss a revision application on the ground of laches given that the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act prescribes no period of limitation. The Supreme Court held that the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner possessed the discretion to either entertain the revision petition and decide it on merits or to dismiss it on the ground of laches, and where such discretion was exercised lawfully and without caprice, it warranted no interference in writ jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that authorities possess inherent discretion to refuse belated revision petitions on grounds of laches and negligence even if the statute prescribes no fixed period of limitation, provided such discretion is exercised reasonably.
Questions settled- Whether the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner can dismiss a revision application on the ground of laches when no period of limitation is prescribed under the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act?
- Can the High Court interfere in writ jurisdiction with the discretionary order of a rehabilitation authority dismissing a revision petition for delay?
- Does the absence of a statutory limitation period preclude authorities from refusing to entertain unduly belated revision petitions?
- Syed INTIZAR ALI vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER And Other1985 SCMR 1805 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute over the transfer of property under settlement laws. The appellant and the contesting respondent had previously applied for a joint transfer of properties, agreeing to a specific share distribution of one percent and ninety-nine percent respectively. Following subsequent litigation and a reduction in the property size transferred, the appellant attempted to resile from the joint transfer agreement regarding the remaining property, arguing that the association was limited only to the portions ultimately excluded. The core legal question was whether the appellant could unilaterally withdraw from a long-standing agreement of association that had been acted upon by the parties and the settlement authorities for over a decade. The Supreme Court held that the appellant could not resile from the agreement. The Court affirmed that the jointness of the transfer and the agreed-upon shares remained binding despite the reduction in the extent of the property transferred. The principle established is that parties cannot resile from an agreement of association that has been acted upon, subscribed to, and maintained throughout protracted litigation, as such conduct creates a binding obligation regardless of subsequent administrative modifications to the property's scope.
Questions settled- Can a party resile from an agreement of association after it has been acted upon and maintained throughout protracted litigation?
- Does a reduction in the extent of property transferred by settlement authorities invalidate an existing joint transfer agreement between parties?
- Is a joint transfer order dependent on the formal filing of an agreement of association if the parties have otherwise acted upon the joint application?
- Syed IMTIAZ HUSSAIN SHAH vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, FAISALABAD1985 PLC 338 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed ILTAF HUSSAIN SHAH vs DR. MUHAMMAD DIN AND OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 380 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-13Read full judgment →
- Syed IKRAMUDDIN HYDER vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2559 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-06Read full judgment →
- Syed IKRAM GARDEZI vs THE STATE And Another1985 SCMR 963 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a criminal complaint under Sections 406 and 408 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 282 of the Companies Act, wherein the trial court ordered the accused to produce certain documents under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The accused challenged this order, invoking constitutional protections against self-incrimination under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arguing that an accused cannot be compelled to produce incriminating evidence. The Supreme Court, however, found it unnecessary to adjudicate the constitutional and legal questions regarding the scope of Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against an accused person. The matter was resolved when the appellant voluntarily agreed to produce the majority of the requested documents. Regarding the remaining documents, the appellant stated they were not in his possession. The Court disposed of the appeal by recording the appellant's undertaking and noting that the respondent could seek to produce secondary evidence for the missing documents in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Can an accused person be compelled to produce documents that might incriminate them in a pending criminal case?
- What is the procedure when an accused claims that requested documents are not in their possession?
- Is secondary evidence admissible when the primary documents are not available with the accused?
- Syed IJAZ HUSSAIN vs MUNIR AHMAD and others1985 CLC 1926 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-19Read full judgment →
- Syed HAYAT SHAH vs THE PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN And Other1985 SCMR 2006 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan following an appeal concerning a dispute over land title, specifically regarding shops and a bus stand. The appellant had previously secured an ex parte decree from the Court of Qazi Khuzdar, which was subsequently challenged by the respondents before the Majlis-e-Shoora, where execution was stayed. During the proceedings, the parties reached a mutual compromise. The core legal question involved the interim management of the disputed property and the rent generated therefrom pending the final resolution of the civil litigation. The Court accepted the compromise, holding that the parties are bound to pursue the civil litigation to its final forum. The Court directed that the Deputy Commissioner, Khuzdar, shall collect rent from the subject property and deposit it as 'Amanat' in a profit-bearing bank account. Upon the final adjudication of the civil litigation, the principal amount and accrued profits shall be disbursed to the party entitled under the final decree. The appeal was disposed of in terms of this agreement.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court dispose of an appeal based on a compromise deed agreed upon by the parties?
- How should rent generated from disputed property be managed pending the final outcome of civil litigation?
- Is a party bound by the final judgment of the last available forum in civil litigation pursuant to a compromise agreement?
- Syed HAMID MUQEEM BOKHARY vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 71 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition assails the order of the Additional Sessions Judge summoning the petitioner as an accused to face trial under sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a murder incident arising from labor union rivalry. The investigating agency repeatedly found the petitioner innocent, and the case against him was effectively cancelled by the Magistrate. The core legal questions involved the authority of a Magistrate to cancel a case triable by the Court of Session and the power of the Additional Sessions Judge to summon a person found innocent by the police in the absence of fresh material. The Lahore High Court held that once a case has been cancelled regarding an accused found innocent by the police, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to summon him as an accused without new material on record, and the aggrieved party's proper remedy is to file a private complaint. The petition was accepted and the summoning order set aside.
Questions settled- Whether a Magistrate has jurisdiction to cancel a case or discharge an accused in matters triable exclusively by the Court of Session?
- Can an Additional Sessions Judge summon a person found innocent by the police as an accused without any fresh material coming on record?
- What is the appropriate remedy for a complainant when the police report declares an accused person innocent?
- How should a police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be construed when containing conflicting statements regarding an accused's innocence?
- Syed GULZAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1329 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
- Syed GULZAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION1985 PLC (C.S.) 379 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-10-29Read full judgment →
- Syed GUL MUHAMMAD SHAH vs THE STATEPLD 1985 Rev. 49 [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1984-04-23Read full judgment →
- Syed GHULAM SHAH vs Mst. HAWA BAI And Other1985 SCMR 2035 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal concerns a protracted rent litigation initiated in 1967 against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, Bachal Bibi, resulting in an eviction order. Following the dismissal of various appeals and the failure of subsequent civil suits filed by the petitioner and others to obstruct execution, the petitioner challenged the execution of the ejectment order in Execution Application No. 109 of 1978. The core legal questions addressed were whether the execution proceedings were time-barred and whether the executing court possessed the requisite competence to execute the original ejectment order. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition in limine. The Court held that the petitioner had engaged in a classic instance of avoiding the execution of a valid order for over a decade, thereby depriving the decree-holder of the fruits of their decree. The Court affirmed the High Court's rejection of the petitioner's pleas. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will decline to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favor of a party who has abused the process of law to obstruct the execution of a valid decree for an inordinate period.
Questions settled- Can a judgment-debtor successfully obstruct the execution of a valid ejectment order for over a decade through protracted litigation?
- Is the Supreme Court's discretionary jurisdiction available to a petitioner who has abused the legal process to avoid execution of a decree?
- Does an executing court have the competence to execute an ejectment order despite the passage of time and multiple intervening legal proceedings?
- Syed GHULAM JILANI SHAH and another vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 462 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-03-29Read full judgment →
- Syed GHULAM ALI SHAH vs THE STATE and 6 others1985 P Cr. L J 1572 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
- Syed GHULAM ABBASS SHAH vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, MIRPUR and 2 others1985 CLC 1582 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-02-16Read full judgment →
- Syed RAZI HAIDER NAQVI and another vs WASI ALI1985 CLC 2330 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-25Read full judgment →
- Syed FARHAT ALI vs Syed ABBAS ALI SHAH and another1985 MLD 556 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →
- Syed BARKAT HUSSAIN SHAH and others vs DIVISIONAL CANAL OFFICER and others1985 CLC 2679 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-06Read full judgment →
- Syed AZHAR IMAM RIZVI vs Mst. SALMA KHATOON1985 SCMR 24 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Sindh High Court dismissing the tenant's appeal against an eviction order passed on the ground of default in payment of rent. The petitioner-tenant argued that he was not served with a formal notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 regarding the transfer of property to the respondent-landlady, that the pendency of eviction proceedings absolved him of paying rent until a Section 13(6) deposit order was made, and that the second eviction application was barred under Section 14 of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that service of the copy of the initial ejectment application mentioning the sale constituted substantial compliance with Section 13-A. The Court held that pendency of an application or absence of a Section 13(6) deposit order does not relieve a tenant of the statutory obligation to pay or offer monthly rent. Furthermore, the default for the subsequent period provided an independent cause of action not barred by res judicata or Section 14. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does service of a copy of an eviction application disclosing the sale of property constitute sufficient notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Does the pendency of eviction proceedings or lack of a Section 13(6) deposit order absolve a tenant from paying or tendering monthly rent to the landlord?
- Does a subsequent application for eviction based on a fresh period of rent default bar the application under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Syed AZADAR HUSSAIN vs ABDUL MAJID and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 2099 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-14Read full judgment →
- Syed ASIF ALI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, HOME DEPARTMENT1985 PLC (C.S.) 446 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
- Syed ASHFAQUL HASSAN HAMDANI and another vs WAPDA1985 PLC 486 · Labour Court · 1984-12-03Read full judgment →
- Syed ASHFAQUAL HASSAN vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA1985 PLC 745 · Authority under Payment of Wages Act · 1985-02-25Read full judgment →
- Syed ASHFAQ HUSSAIN vs Syed TAHIR HUSSAIN1985 SCMR 1369 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute between two cousins regarding the sale of a tractor. The respondent (plaintiff) had sold a tractor to the petitioner (defendant) for Rs. 5,000, but the petitioner failed to pay the agreed amount. Consequently, the respondent filed a suit for the possession of the tractor or, in the alternative, for the recovery of the sale price. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, granting the alternative relief of recovery of Rs. 5,000. This decree was upheld by the Additional District Judge and subsequently by the Lahore High Court in a Regular Second Appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the respondent was only entitled to sue for the price, not possession. The Supreme Court observed that the trial court's decree explicitly granted the alternative relief of Rs. 5,000. The Court held that since the petitioner was free to discharge his liability by paying the decreed amount in execution, there was no ground for interference. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a plaintiff seek alternative relief for possession of a chattel or recovery of its price in a suit for breach of contract?
- Does a decree granting alternative relief allow a defendant to discharge liability by paying the monetary amount in execution?
- Syed ARSHED HUSSAIN and 7 others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND), KHAIRPUR DIVISION, SUKKUR and 3 others1985 CLC 1692 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-11Read full judgment →
- Syed ANSAR HUSSAIN vs Syed RISALAT HUSSAIN and 10 others1985 MLD 265 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-06Read full judgment →
- Syed ANISIJR RAHMAN vs Mst. SARA BAI1985 PLD Karachi 714 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This First Rent Appeal under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 was filed against the Rent Controller's order directing the tenant's eviction. The landlady sought eviction on the ground of personal bona fide requirement, claiming her son needed the shop to start an independent business. The tenant resisted, alleging that the application was a mala fide attempt to coerce a rent increase and seize a running business. The High Court analyzed the statutory requirement of "requires in good faith" under Section 15(2)(vii) of the Ordinance. It held that a mere vague assertion of intent to start a business, without specifying the nature of the business, financial means, or prior experience in the pleadings, is insufficient to establish bona fides. The Court emphasized that "good faith" must be evaluated objectively based on human probabilities and surrounding circumstances, rather than the landlord's mere ipse dixit. Finding the landlady's claim lacked genuine details and credibility, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the eviction order.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord's mere assertion of a desire to start a business for their child is sufficient to establish a "requirement in good faith" under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- How should a Rent Controller evaluate the credibility and bona fides of a landlord's claim for personal use when the pleadings lack specific details about the proposed business?
- Does the failure of a landlord to specify the nature, experience, and financial means for a proposed business in an eviction application affect the genuineness of the claim of good faith?
- Syed AMJAD ALI SHAH vs IQBAL AHMAD FAROOQI AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 242 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil appeals concern the eviction of tenants from urban properties originally constructed as residential units but subsequently utilized for commercial purposes. The core legal question is whether a landlord can seek eviction of a tenant from such premises on the ground of personal residential requirement, notwithstanding the property's current commercial use. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the character of a building remains residential for the purposes of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, regardless of its actual usage, unless conversion permission is obtained from the Rent Controller under Section 11. The Court established that the unauthorized conversion of a residential unit into a commercial one does not legally alter the building's character. Consequently, a landlord is not barred from seeking eviction for personal residential use under Section 13 simply because the property was previously rented for business purposes. The Court emphasized that the Rent Restriction Ordinance does not intend to permanently deprive landlords of their residential property rights due to such commercial leasing arrangements.
Questions settled- Can a landlord evict a tenant from a residential property used for commercial purposes on the ground of personal residential requirement?
- Does the conversion of a residential building to commercial use without permission under Section 11 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 legally change the character of the building?
- Does the definition of 'building' in the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 allow for the eviction of a tenant from a property based on its original residential character despite its current commercial use?
- Syed ALTAF SHAH vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND through Chief Secretary and 51985 CLC 1624 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-06Read full judgment →
- Syed ALTAF HUSSAIN vs PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION1985 CLC 914 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-16Read full judgment →
- Syed ALTAF HUSSAIN SHAH SHERAZI vs THE STATE1985 MLD 826 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-08Read full judgment →
- Syed ALIMUDDIN AHMAD vs THE STATE THROUGH THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION1985 PLD Karachi 660 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-21Read full judgment →
- Syed ALI SHAH vs NOOR MUHAMMADPLD 1985 Rev, 96 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1971-11-09Read full judgment →
- Syed ALI ASGHAR and others vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and another1985 CLC 183 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-25Read full judgment →
- Syed ALI AKBAR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 411 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-29Read full judgment →
- Syed AKHTAR ALI SHAH vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD.1985 PLC 824 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
- Syed AJAB SHAH vs MESSRS BURJORJEE COWASJEE & COMPANY, KARACHI1985 PLC 961 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-01-26Read full judgment →
- Syed AFZAL HUSSAIN NAQVI vs The GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Director Manpower & Training Punjab and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 133 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
- Syed AFZAL AHMED HYDERI vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 521 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-02-09Read full judgment →
- Syed ABU JAFER vs Shaikh KARIM BUX-1985 CLC 1952 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-09Read full judgment →
- Syed ABID HUSSAIN SHAH vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUNJAB HIGHWAY1985 PLC 697 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed ABDUS SALAM ZAIDI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 294 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-20Read full judgment →
- Syed ABDULLAH SHAH AND 3 OTHERS vs ABDUL GHAFFAR KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Quetta 152 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-04-23Read full judgment →
- Syed ABDUL HADI SHAH vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 21985 PLC (C.S.) 709 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1985-03-06Read full judgment →
- SWAR KHAN and 2 others vs NOOR ALAM and another1985 CLC 1082 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-12-12Read full judgment →
- SUTLEJ COTTON MILLS, OKARA vs MUNSHI1985 PLC 49 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-06Read full judgment →
- SUSHILA DEVI JAIN vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , .1985 PTD 85 · Delhi High Court · 1981-08-05Read full judgment →
- SURAJ GHEE INDUSTRIES, SHEIKHUPURA vs Haji MUHAMMAD KHALIQUE1985 PLC 39 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-12Read full judgment →
- SULTAN vs JAM ALI And Other1985 SCMR 1810 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, by leave of the court, was filed by the complainant brother of the deceased to challenge the acquittal of four respondents by the High Court of Lahore from charges under section 302/307/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The underlying incident arose from a violent clash over land possession in Village Dagger Aulakh, District Bhakker, resulting in the death of one person and injuries to several others from both the complainant and defence parties. The trial court had convicted the respondents, but the High Court set aside the convictions, finding the prosecution genesis unnatural, the defense version probable, and noting significant weaknesses in the prosecution's narrative and independent corroboration. The Supreme Court examined the competing versions of the incident, the evidence regarding land possession, and the established principles governing appeals against acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no legal error in appreciating the evidence and that the acquittal was justified given the probabilities of the case. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the convictions for murder and attempted murder based on the improbability of the prosecution's genesis?
- Does an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal when another view of the evidence is possible but no legal error is shown in the appreciation of evidence?
- How should a court evaluate competing versions of a violent occurrence involving cross-cases and injuries on both sides?
- SULTAN vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1985 PLC 700 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- SULTAN vs DARYAKHAN and 5 others1985 MLD 177 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-07Read full judgment →
- SULTAN vs AZHAR ALI SHAH And Other1985 SCMR 592 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the central legal question was whether the suit should have been dismissed as time-barred due to the late payment of a court-fee deficiency. The trial court had initially rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, but an appellate court remanded the case, directing the trial court to determine the deficiency and grant time for payment. The plaintiffs complied with this subsequent order. The trial court, however, dismissed the suit upon remand, citing the precedent in Walayat Khan v. Khalil Khan, arguing that the plaintiffs' default had created vested rights for the defendant. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court was bound by the un-agitated remand order which had attained finality. The Court distinguished the present case from Walayat Khan, noting that the plaintiffs had complied with the court's direction upon remand. The key principle established is that once a remand order directing the determination and payment of court-fee deficiency attains finality, the trial court must comply, and upon payment, the defect in the plaint is cured retrospectively from the date of filing.
Questions settled- Does a trial court have the authority to disregard a remand order that has attained finality?
- When a deficiency in court-fee is made good pursuant to a court order, from what date is the defect in the plaint deemed to be removed?
- Can a trial court dismiss a suit as time-barred after a remand order has specifically directed it to determine and allow time for the payment of court-fee deficiency?
- SULTAN PRESS LTD. vs MUHAMMAD HASAN1985 PLD Karachi 624 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This First Rent Appeal under Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 arose from an order of the Rent Controller granting an eviction application filed by the respondent landlord against the appellant tenant on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. The respondent sought possession of non-residential premises to open a motor training school. The High Court analyzed the legal requirements of Section 15(2)(vii) of the Ordinance, emphasizing that the burden lies on the landlord to prove that he requires the premises in good faith for his own reasonable need. The court observed that a landlord's mere ipse dixit or wish is insufficient; specific, consistent details and valid reasons must be presented. Upon reviewing the record, the High Court found contradictions in the landlord's evidence, failure to justify the prior sale of another property, and prolonged delay in seeking eviction. Consequently, the High Court held that the landlord failed to prove personal requirement in good faith, set aside the Rent Controller's order, and dismissed the eviction application.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord's mere ipse dixit is sufficient to prove personal requirement in good faith under Section 15(2)(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- What details must a landlord place on record to satisfy the Rent Controller that his requirement for non-residential premises is bona fide?
- Does shifting or contradictory evidence regarding personal use negate the landlord's claim of requiring premises in good faith?
- SULTAN MUHAMMAD vs Syed MUHAMMAD ISMAIL1985 MLD 1249 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
- SULTAN MAQSOOD vs THE STATE1985 PLD Supreme Court 305 · Shariat Appellate BenchRead full judgment →
- SULTAN MAHMUD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1302 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-05Read full judgment →
- SULTAN MAHMOOD vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and 3 others1985 PLC 267 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-21Read full judgment →
- SULTAN and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 569 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
- SULTAN and anothers vs BAHAR SHAH and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 1577 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-26Read full judgment →
- SULTAN and another vs CHAT ANMAL and 3 others1985 MLD 526 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-07Read full judgment →
- SULTAN AHMAD and 21 others vs CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY and 9 others1985 CLC 565 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-09Read full judgment →
- SULLEMAN SANWAL vs MUHAMMAD JUMANsPLD 1985 Rev. 195 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1978-11-18Read full judgment →
- SUI GAS EMPLOYEES UNION vs SUI GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY1985 PLC 668 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1985-04-09Read full judgment →
- Sufi MIR ZAMAN KHAN (Deceased) Through FAZLUR REHMAN And Others vs Mst. SHAHRO And Another1985 SCMR 2063 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the judgment of the High Court. The core legal question examined by the court is the correctness of the High Court's view that a power-of-attorney executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of Khuda Bakhsh was invalid due to a lack of attestation by witnesses, notwithstanding the fact that the execution of the said document was specifically admitted by the executant in his written statement. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider this question. The key principle relates to the legal effect of a specific admission of the execution of a document in pleadings vis-a-vis formal requirements of attestation.
Questions settled- Is a power-of-attorney invalid for lack of witness attestation when its execution is specifically admitted by the executant in a written statement?
- Sufi ABDUL HAMEED vs GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN and others1985 CLC 58 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-02Read full judgment →
- SUER MUHAMMAD vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and 2 others1985 PLC 219 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Subedar Major (Retd.) GUL KHAN And Others vs THE STATE And Other1985 SCMR 1679 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Baluchistan High Court judgment that rejected a reference seeking to set aside a Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order terminating proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in upholding the termination of proceedings where the petitioners themselves had argued that the proceedings were incompetent due to the absence of a dispute regarding physical possession and the lack of apprehension of a breach of peace. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly refused to interfere, noting that the petitioners' own stance in the lower courts undermined the necessity of the Section 145 proceedings. The Court affirmed that where a party admits that the conditions precedent for initiating Section 145 proceedings—namely, a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace—are absent, the magistrate is justified in dropping the proceedings. Regarding the petitioners' concern over a lingering attachment order, the Court clarified that if the attachment order survived the termination of the main proceedings, the petitioners were at liberty to approach the magistrate for its vacation.
Questions settled- Can proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be sustained when the parties themselves admit there is no dispute regarding physical possession?
- Is a magistrate justified in dropping proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if there is no longer an apprehension of a breach of peace?
- Does the termination of main proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically vacate an existing order of attachment of property?
- Subedar (Rtd.) MUHAMMAD ALI vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR and 3 others1985 CLC 668 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the appointment of a Lambardar by the Revenue Authorities, specifically contesting the eligibility of the appointee due to a past criminal conviction. The petitioner argued that the respondent’s conviction for theft in 1959, involving moral turpitude, disqualified him from holding the office of Lambardar under the Land Revenue Rules, 1968. The core legal question was whether a decades-old conviction constitutes an absolute, perpetual disqualification for such an administrative appointment and whether the High Court should interfere with the discretionary selection made by revenue authorities. The Court held that the appointment of a Lambardar is an administrative function, and no individual possesses a vested right to the office. It determined that a conviction from twenty-four years prior, for which the respondent had already served his sentence and maintained a clean record, did not render him unsuitable. The Court affirmed that revenue authorities possess the discretion to assess candidate suitability, and absent illegality, such administrative decisions are not subject to interference in writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does a decades-old criminal conviction constitute a permanent disqualification for the office of Lambardar?
- Does an individual have a vested right to be appointed as a Lambardar?
- Can the High Court interfere with the discretionary appointment of a Lambardar by revenue authorities in writ jurisdiction?
- SUBA And Another vs REHMAT ALI1985 SCMR 1831 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning the sale of agricultural land. The petitioners, who purchased the land, contested the respondent's pre-emption suit by asserting a superior right of pre-emption based on their status as tenants. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, concluded that the petitioners were not tenants on the land in dispute and decreed the suit in favor of the respondent. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Additional District Judge on appeal and by the High Court in a Regular Second Appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners sought to challenge these findings. The Supreme Court observed that all three lower courts had reached a concurrent finding of fact regarding the petitioners' lack of tenancy status. As the petitioners failed to raise any significant question of law or demonstrate any misreading or omission of evidence by the lower courts, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact reached by lower courts in a pre-emption suit?
- Does a claim of superior pre-emption right based on tenancy require proof of tenancy status?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when no question of law or misreading of evidence is demonstrated?
- SUB. FAQIRULLAH KHAN vs MUHAMMAD ARIF AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Azad J & K 1 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-07-26Read full judgment →
- TIKAM DAS vs SAGHAIR AHMAD BAIG1985 MLD 947 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-28Read full judgment →
- STATE vs MUHAMMAD NASIR KHAN and 2 others1985 P Cr. L J 1546 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
- STATE vs MUHAMMAD AFSAR KHAN and 2 others1985 P Cr. L J 495 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-10-21Read full judgment →
- STATE vs MANZOOR HUSSAIN1985 MLD 1029 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-14Read full judgment →
- STATE vs KHALIQ DAD AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Karachi 4 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
- STATE vs ABDUL SATTARPLD 1985 Rev. 131 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1971-10-09Read full judgment →
- STATE through the AdvocateGeneral, N.W.F.P. vs Haji GULZAR AHMAD1985 P Cr. L J 1153 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-02-12Read full judgment →
- STATE Through National Bank Of Pakistan vs MUMTAZ AHMAD And Other1985 SCMR 1264 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an application seeking clarification of a previous court order dated 30-1-1984, specifically regarding whether a private complainant's counsel should be regarded as a Public Prosecutor in cases under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958. The core legal question is whether the term 'hear the complainant' under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitles a private complainant to be represented and addressed by counsel during a summons case trial. The Supreme Court dismissed the application, holding that the contention is misconceived. The ratio laid down is that the expression 'hear the complainant' in Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not mean the complainant is entitled to engage a counsel to address arguments; rather, it means the complainant shall be required to make statements like other witnesses before evidence is examined.
Questions settled- Whether the expression 'hear the complainant' in Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitles a private complainant to address arguments through counsel?
- Can a complainant's counsel be regarded as a Public Prosecutor in trials under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958?
- What is the true import of the requirement to hear the complainant under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in summons cases?
- STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN vs WALI MUHAMMAD1985 CLC 2865 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
- State Bank Of Pakistan, Karachi. vs M/S. Chenab Contractors Ltd.,Sialkot.PTCL 1985 (CL.) 433 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-21Read full judgment →
- STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI vs MESSRS CHENAB CONTRACTORS LTD., SIALKOTPLD 1985 Lahore 404(2) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN vs ZOR ENGINEERS LTD. and 3 others1985 MLD 199(1) · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
- STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN vs DIRECTOR OF LABOUR, SIND and 5 others1985 CLC 945 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-13Read full judgment →
- STATE AND 3 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD FAROOQ AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Sh. C (A J & K) 24 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- STAR TEXTILE MILLS Ltd. And 5 Others vs K.E.S.C. And Another1985 SCMR 2049 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns six petitions for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court, which dismissed constitutional petitions filed by textile mills challenging demands for additional security deposits by the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (K.E.S.C.). The petitioners, having entered into electricity supply agreements, were issued notices by the K.E.S.C. demanding additional security deposits under threat of supply disconnection, citing insufficiency of existing security. The core legal questions involve whether the K.E.S.C. retains the power to disconnect electricity due to insufficient security following amendments to the Electricity Act, 1910, by Ordinance No. LXII of 1979, and whether contractual clauses regarding security deposits can override statutory provisions. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, identifying these as questions of general public importance. As an interim arrangement, the Court ordered the petitioners to deposit the disputed amounts in court, permitting the K.E.S.C. to withdraw such funds upon furnishing a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Nazir of the High Court. The Court directed that the appeals be prepared and fixed for hearing within six months.
Questions settled- Whether the K.E.S.C. can disconnect electricity supply on the ground of insufficient security following the amendments made to the Electricity Act, 1910 by Ordinance No. LXII of 1979?
- Whether contractual clauses regarding security deposits can prevail over the statutory provisions of the Electricity Act, 1910?
- Does Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910 authorize the disconnection of electricity supply due to insufficient security?
- St. JOHN AMBULANCE ASSOCIATION (Pakistan) vs PAKISTAN RED-CROSS1985 CLC 2146 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This order disposes of a miscellaneous application filed by Defendant No. 2 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to amend its written statement in a suit for ejectment and possession initiated by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed absolute ownership under a 1941 gift deed, while Defendant No. 2 originally defended as a co-beneficiary under the deed. Defendant No. 2 sought to add an alternative plea of adverse possession at an advanced stage after evidence had closed. The plaintiff resisted the amendment on grounds of inordinate delay, lateness, and inconsistency with the original defense.
The Sindh High Court allowed the amendment, holding that inconsistent legal pleas based on non-contradictory factual allegations are permissible as alternative defenses. Inconsistency exists only where factual allegations are mutually destructive, not in alternative legal deductions drawn from the single factual state of continuous possession. Inordinate delay alone does not bar an amendment aimed at deciding real controversies, provided it can be compensated with costs.
The court permitted the amendment subject to payment of Rs. 1,000 as costs within ten days.
Questions settled- Can a defendant raise an alternative plea of adverse possession by amending the written statement after alleging title under a gift deed?
- Does inordinate delay alone bar an application for amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What constitutes mutually destructive or inconsistent pleas in civil pleadings?
- SR. AMAR MAFTOON vs DISTRICT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, SARGODHA AND 21985 PLC (C.S.) 826 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-10-14Read full judgment →