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.
- SHAMSHER ALAM vs UMER SONS LABORATORIES, ISLAMABAD1985 PLC 75 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →
- SHAMSHER ALAM vs Sh. MUHAMMAD SAFDAR, PARTNER OF UMER SONS1985 PLC 80 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- SHAMSHAD HUSSAIN alias SHADA vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2494 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
- SHAMSHAD HAIDER vs ABDUR RAHIM1985 CLC 1445 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-18Read full judgment →
- SHAMS DIN vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 508 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-04Read full judgment →
- SHAMMAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 8 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-08-08Read full judgment →
- SHAMIM SIDDIQUI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others1985 MLD 951 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
- SHAMIM PERVEZ And Others vs NOOR MUHAMMAD And Other1985 SCMR 1278 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which arose from an urban settlement dispute regarding the transfer of evacuee property. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, acted beyond its authority by dividing the disputed property between two sets of claimants based on their respective possession, rather than transferring the entire property to one party. The Supreme Court held that the High Court did not exceed its jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the High Court’s decision to grant relief only to the extent of the portion in the respondents' possession was a valid exercise of its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction, rather than a formal division of property under settlement laws. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the respondents, as direct claimants, held a superior claim over the petitioners, who were indirect claimants. The Court also rejected the argument that the respondents' appeal was time-barred, noting that the Settlement Commissioner had decided the revision on merits, thereby waiving the limitation issue. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction grant partial relief to claimants by dividing property based on possession?
- Does a decision on merits by a Settlement Commissioner in revision proceedings cure a potential defect of limitation at the lower appellate stage?
- Are direct claimants entitled to preference over indirect claimants in the transfer of evacuee property?
- SHAMIM AHMED KHAN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 851 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-06Read full judgment →
- SHAMIM AHMAD vs PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE And Other1985 SCMR 878 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding his seniority status relative to respondents 2 to 7. The Tribunal had previously rejected the petitioner's claim, noting that the respondents were promoted in 1966 through the prescribed manner via the Public Service Commission, while the petitioner was promoted later in 1974. The petitioner argued that he should be granted pro forma promotion retrospectively based on government instructions regarding honourable acquittal after suspension. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that the petitioner failed to provide evidence demonstrating that he would have been promoted at the same time as the respondents had he not been under suspension. Consequently, the Court held that in the absence of proof that the petitioner would have been promoted but for his suspension, no grounds existed to interfere with the Tribunal's decision. The petition was dismissed as the petitioner could not substantiate his claim for retrospective seniority.
Questions settled- Can a government servant claim retrospective promotion after honourable acquittal without evidence that they would have been promoted but for their suspension?
- Does the Punjab Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to adjudicate claims regarding seniority based on retrospective promotion under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974?
- SHAMAS-UD-DIN vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SIALKOT1985 PLC (C.S.) 818 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-03-10Read full judgment →
- SHAMAS SAEED AHMAD KHAN vs SHAFAULLAH And Another1985 SCMR 1822 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-05-13Read full judgment →
- SHAMAS DIN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 679 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-05Read full judgment →
- SHAMAS DIN vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and others1985 MLD 1266 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-04Read full judgment →
- SHAMAS DIN and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1744 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-15Read full judgment →
- SHAMAN and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1008 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
- SHAMAN alias GHULAM RASOOL and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 583 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-01Read full judgment →
- SHAM MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2157 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-08Read full judgment →
- SHALAY AND 7 OTHERS vs THE MEMBER II, BOARD OF REVENUE, BALUCHISTAN, QUETTA AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Quetta 94 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-12-23Read full judgment →
- SHAKIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 809 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-27Read full judgment →
- SHAKIL AHMED vs A. AZIZ1985 MLD 589 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-30Read full judgment →
- SHAKIL AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1403 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-02Read full judgment →
- SHAKEEL ABBAS vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND through Secretary, Department of Health,Karachi and 2 others1985 CLC 2407 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-14Read full judgment →
- SHAKARGANJ MILLS LTD. vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL1985 PLC 595 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-10-29Read full judgment →
- SHAJAR ALI HOTI vs ESMAIL SOBHANI1985 CLC 342 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a civil suit for the specific performance of an alleged agreement of sale concerning immovable property. The core legal question is whether a receipt acknowledging the payment of earnest money, which omits essential terms such as the sale consideration and completion timeline, constitutes a binding and concluded agreement of sale, and whether parties were ad idem. The Sindh High Court held that the document relied upon by the plaintiff was merely a receipt and did not constitute a concluded contract because it lacked the essential term of sale consideration, and the parties were not of one mind. The court established the key principle that sale consideration is an essential term of a contract of sale, and in its absence, no binding agreement of sale can legally come into existence, nor can a subsequent unilateral offer by a plaintiff to pay a higher amount cure the initial lack of consensus.
Questions settled- Does a receipt for earnest money that omits the sale consideration constitute a binding agreement of sale?
- Can a suit for specific performance be decreed when the parties were not ad idem on the essential terms of the contract?
- Can a plaintiff's belated offer during trial to pay the defendant'cure the absence of a settled sale consideration in the initial agreement?
- SHAIKH TAHIR IQBAL vs MAZHAR-UL-HASSAN, CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL1985 PLC (C.S.) 757 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-11Read full judgment →
- Shaikh ISMAIL vs Mst. MAHBOOB BI1985 MLD 1214 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-05Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Haji ALI MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD YOUSUF ZAMAN AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Karachi 694 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-24Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Haji ALI MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD YOUSIF ZAMAN AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Karachi 657 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-30Read full judgment →
- Shaikh ABDUL MALIK vs MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 1768 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-01Read full judgment →
- SHAHZAMAN AND ANOTHERs vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND 3 OTHERS1985 PLD Peshawar 35 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was filed against the judgments of the lower courts refusing to restore an application aimed at setting aside an ex parte decree. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree had been dismissed in default during early morning hours on a date fixed merely for filing a written reply. The core legal questions pertained to whether a suit or application can be dismissed in default in early court hours, and whether a second application lies for restoring a previously dismissed restoration application under Order IX read with Section 141 or Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court set aside the lower courts' orders and restored the application, holding that procedural rules must advance substantial justice rather than defeat it on technicalities. The Court held that dismissals in default should not occur during early hours without recalling the matter later, and that a second restoration application is maintainable.
Questions settled- Is a suit or application liable to be dismissed in default during the early morning hours without waiting or recalling the matter towards the end of the day?
- Is a second application for restoration of a previously dismissed application under Order IX maintainable under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can procedural provisions and legal formalities be allowed to defeat the ends of substantial justice?
- SHAHZAD TABASSAM BHATTI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2214 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-21Read full judgment →
- SHAHZAD MAHMOOD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1968 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-14Read full judgment →
- SHAHZAD BABAR KHAN vs PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPLIES CORPORATION, LAHORE1985 PLC 254 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- SHAHRIYAR ALI PATUDI AND 3 OTHERs vs MESSRS DECORA FURNISHERS1985 PLD Karachi 47 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from an ejectment application filed by the appellants against the respondent tenant in respect of a commercial building in Karachi on the grounds of default in rent payment and bona fide personal use for a partnership business. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, holding that no default occurred, no bona fide need was established, and a statutory notice under section 13-A was required. The core legal questions involved the necessity of a section 13-A notice where the property was gifted prior to tenancy, whether the tenant could challenge the gift's delivery of possession, the validity of lump-sum rent payments, and whether the landlord waived any default by withdrawing deposited rent and remaining silent. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, holding that a pre-tenancy gift requires no section 13-A notice, a third-party tenant cannot challenge the delivery of possession in a valid oral gift, delayed rent payments do not establish a legal practice contrary to statute, and an unreasonable delay by the landlord in taking action after withdrawing deposited rent constitutes an implied waiver of that specific default. However, the appellants successfully established their bona fide personal requirement for the premises.
Questions settled- Whether a notice under section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance is necessary when the transfer of ownership by way of gift occurs prior to the commencement of the tenancy?
- Can a tenant, being a third party to a gift, legally challenge the factum of the delivery of possession under Muslim Law?
- Does a landlord's acceptance of accumulated or lump-sum rent over a period amount to a variation of statutory payment obligations or establish a legally binding practice?
- Does a landlord's unreasonable delay in taking action after withdrawing rent deposited by the tenant constitute an implied waiver of a rent default?
- SHAHNAZ BIBI vs ZULFIQAR ALI1985 PLD Lahore 115 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-29Read full judgment →
- SHAHID RIAZ vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1985 PLC 589 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-16Read full judgment →
- SHAHID JAMAL AND 2 OTHERS vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT (WORKSHOPS)1985 PLC 632 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- SHAHID Alias BABU vs The STATE1985 SCMR 180 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises out of a criminal conviction under sections 366 and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, originating from an incident in 1968. The trial court convicted the petitioner in 1969, and his appeal remained pending before the High Court for approximately fifteen years before being dismissed and maintaining the conviction. Upon conversion of the petition into an appeal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the core legal question concerned the appropriate quantum of sentence given the extreme delay in the final disposal of the case and the subsequent passage of sixteen years. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the conviction itself but held that, considering the lengthy delay, the fact that both parties were now married with grown-up children, and that serving further imprisonment would not serve the ends of justice, the sentence of imprisonment should be reduced to the period already undergone. The key principle laid down is that inordinate and unexplained appellate delay, coupled with subsequent rehabilitation and passage of time, can be a mitigating factor for reducing a sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone.
Questions settled- Whether inordinate appellate delay can constitute a mitigating ground for reducing a sentence of imprisonment?
- Does the passage of a long period of time since the commission of an offence justify reducing a sentence to the term already undergone?
- SHAHBAZ KHAN vs MUHAMMAD UMAR and another1985 MLD 366 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-01Read full judgment →
- SHAHBAZ KHAN and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 23 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-08Read full judgment →
- SHAHBAZ AHMAD And Others vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI And Other1985 SCMR 604 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged a pre-emption suit filed against them, arguing it was time-barred because it was initially instituted in the Court of the Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot, rather than the Court of the Civil Judge, Daska, where the property was located. The central legal question was whether internal administrative correspondence between the High Court and the District Judge, directing that cases relating to Daska Tehsil be instituted in Daska, constituted a 'direction to the contrary' under Section 10(2) of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, thereby restricting the territorial jurisdiction of the Sialkot Civil Judge. The Supreme Court held that such internal correspondence did not amount to a valid 'direction to the contrary.' The Court established the principle that for a restriction on a Civil Judge's statutory jurisdiction to be effective against the public, it must be formally notified and publicized. Because no such formal notification was issued, the suit was deemed validly instituted in the Sialkot court, and the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does internal administrative correspondence between a High Court and a District Judge constitute a 'direction to the contrary' under Section 10(2) of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962?
- What is the requirement for a valid restriction on the territorial jurisdiction of a Civil Judge posted to a district?
- Is a suit filed in a court with general district-wide jurisdiction valid even if an administrative order suggests filing in a specific sub-division?
- SHAHADAT ALI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for post-arrest bail arose out of a matter where the Additional Sessions Judge cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner by the trial court. The petitioner was accused of inflicting a single bughda (heavy butcher knife) blow on the knee of the victim following a prior dispute. The cancellation of bail was based on the prior refusal of anticipatory bail, the victim's 21-day hospital stay, and the assumption that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court considered whether the refusal of anticipatory bail acts as a bar to post-arrest bail and whether an offence tried by a Magistrate empowered under Section 30, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 falls within the prohibitory clause. The High Court held that the principles governing pre-arrest and post-arrest bail are distinct, and because the Magistrate could award a maximum sentence of seven years' imprisonment, the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause. Setting aside the cancellation, the High Court granted post-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Does the refusal of anticipatory bail create a bar against granting post-arrest bail to an accused?
- Is an offence falling within the jurisdiction of a Section 30 Magistrate carrying a maximum sentence of seven years' imprisonment subject to the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail granted after arrest be cancelled solely on the ground of the maximum sentence prescribed by law without considering the sentence likely to be awarded upon conviction?
- SHAHABUDDIN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 609 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-04Read full judgment →
- SHAHABUDDIN JUNEJO vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.1985 PLC 274 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
- SHAH SULTANA And Another vs Syed SHAUKAT ALI And 3 Other1985 SCMR 1568 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Lahore High Court order dismissing a Regular Second Appeal, thereby maintaining a trial court decree for specific performance of a contract for the sale of immovable property. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could successfully challenge the decree on the grounds that time was of the essence of the contract and that the purchaser failed to perform his obligations within the stipulated period. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the purchaser had demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform the contract, evidenced by his presence at the Sub-Registrar's office and written notices. The Court held that the question of whether time is of the essence is a question of fact dependent on the parties' intention, surrounding circumstances, and conduct, which must be raised and adjudicated upon during the trial. Since this plea was not raised in the lower courts, it could not be introduced at the second appeal stage or before the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Is the question of whether time is of the essence in a contract for the sale of immovable property a question of law or a question of fact?
- Can a party raise the plea that time was of the essence for the first time during a second appeal if it was not raised or adjudicated upon in the trial court?
- Does a presumption of service apply to a notice sent to the correct address of the addressee?
- SHAH NAWAZ vs HASSAN ALIPLD 1985 Rev. 24 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1984-09-15Read full judgment →
- SHAH MUHAMMAD vs THE STATEPLD 1985 Rev. 142(1) [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1979-12-15Read full judgment →
- SHAH MUHAMMAD vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through District Collector1985 CLC 2683 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-12Read full judgment →
- SHAH MUHAMMAD vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE1985 CLC 2675 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-06Read full judgment →
- SHAH MUHAMMAD vs MEMBER (COLONIES).BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others1985 CLC 2676 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-01Read full judgment →
- SHAH MUHAMMAD vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL, URBAN LOCAL COUNCIL, CHISHTIAN1985 PLD Supreme Court 282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an election dispute regarding Unit No. 10, Municipal Committee, Chishtian under the Punjab Local Council (Election) Rules, 1979. The petitioner was initially declared successful, but the Election Tribunal set aside the result after excluding two unsigned ballot-papers counted for the petitioner and adding a tendered ballot-paper to the respondent's tally. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the petitioner's writ petition. The core legal question was whether the requirement under Rule 34(2)(d) read with Rule 40(4)(a) of the Punjab Local Council (Election) Rules, 1979—that ballot-papers must be signed by the Presiding Officer—is mandatory or directory, and whether unsigned ballot-papers must be excluded from the count. The Supreme Court held that the relevant rules contain express and categorical terms defining unsigned ballot-papers as invalid and requiring their exclusion. Distinguishing prior precedents under earlier election statutes, the Supreme Court affirmed that the provisions are mandatory and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Are the provisions of Rule 34(2)(d) read with Rule 40(4)(a) of the Punjab Local Council (Election) Rules 1979 mandatory or directory in nature?
- Whether ballot-papers lacking the signature of the Presiding Officer must be mandatorily excluded from the count as invalid under the Punjab Local Council (Election) Rules 1979?
- SHAH MUHAMMAD QURESHI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and another1985 CLC 2448 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-11Read full judgment →
- SHAH MUHAMMAD And Another vs BAKHTAWAR And Another1985 SCMR 1496 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Shah Muhammad and Muhammad Hadees petitioned for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that accepted a second appeal filed by Bakhtawar. The dispute arose when Abdul Hayee agreed to sell land to Bakhtawar, but subsequently sold the same land to the petitioners. Bakhtawar filed a suit for declaration and, alternatively, specific performance of the contract, which the trial court decreed for specific performance. The District Judge allowed the subsequent purchasers' appeal, but the High Court reversed it. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were protected as bona fide purchasers for value without notice under section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to plead, discharge the onus, or prove that they were transferees in good faith without notice, especially since one petitioner admitted knowledge of the prior agreement during cross-examination. The Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, ruling that subsequent purchasers with notice of a prior contract are not protected, and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a subsequent purchaser claiming protection under section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act bears the burden of proving good faith and lack of notice?
- Can specific performance of a contract of sale be enforced against a subsequent transferee who had notice of the original contract?
- SHAH MUHAMMAD And 5 Others vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM And Another1985 SCMR 1723 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the defendants (petitioners) sought to defeat the claim by arguing, at the appellate stage, that the suit property fell within Cantonment limits, thereby exempting it from pre-emption laws. The core legal question was whether an appellate court is obligated to adjudicate a new plea regarding the factual status of land location based on a notification, without the matter having been pleaded or evidenced at the trial stage. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' dismissal of this plea, holding that the inclusion of land within Cantonment limits is a question of fact requiring proper pleadings, issues, and evidence. The Court affirmed that while judicial notice may be taken of a notification, it cannot substitute for the necessary factual determination of whether specific land falls within the scope of that notification. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, establishing that a party cannot introduce a new factual defense in appeal without having established the foundational facts through proper trial proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a party introduce a new factual plea regarding the location of land within Cantonment limits for the first time during an appeal?
- Does the judicial notice of a notification dispense with the requirement to prove the factual application of that notification to the property in dispute?
- Is a pre-emptor required to maintain a superior right of pre-emption until the date of the decree?
- SHAH BEHRAM IRANI vs PAKISTAN through Secretay, Ministry of Communication, Islamabad1985 CLC 674 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-20Read full judgment →
- SHAFQAT ULLAH KHAN vs Mst. AZIZ BEGUM1985 CLC 1873 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
- SHAFQAT HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2766 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-11Read full judgment →
- SHAFQAT ALI And Others vs LIAQUAT ALI And Other1985 SCMR 1151 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the murder of Muhammad Latif. The core legal questions involved the propriety of altering the conviction of certain accused from section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to section 304 (Part-I), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the acquittal of other co-accused who were present at the scene armed with firearms but caused no physical injuries. The Supreme Court held that the merciless nature of the 22 injuries inflicted, including several sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, negated the conclusion that the accused merely intended to teach a lesson, thereby warranting restoration of the conviction under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Furthermore, the Court held that the active participation of the armed co-accused as part of an unlawful assembly, corroborated by forensic evidence matching recovered crime empties, precluded extending them the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that where medical evidence demonstrates brutal and fatal injuries, the intent to kill is established, and members of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons are vicariously liable for murder under section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 notwithstanding the absence of direct physical blows attributed to them.
Questions settled- Whether the infliction of multiple severe injuries on vital parts of the body negates an intention merely to cause hurt and establishes an intention to kill under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can co-accused members of an unlawful assembly be convicted under section 302 read with section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when they were armed with deadly weapons and present at the crime scene but inflicted no direct physical injuries on the deceased?
- Is the recovery of crime empties matching firearms recovered from specific accused sufficient corroboration of their participation in an unlawful assembly?
- SHAFQAT ALI and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1917 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-20Read full judgment →
- SHAFIUR REHMAN KHAN vs PUNJAB INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD And Other1985 SCMR 2074 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former Labour Welfare Officer of Paras Textile Mills Ltd., sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his constitutional petition and Intra-Court Appeal by the Lahore High Court concerning the termination of his service and abolition of his post. The core legal question was whether the General Manager of Paras Textile Mills Ltd. was competent to terminate the petitioner's service and abolish the post, and whether such action violated section 24-A of the Factories Act. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was appointed by the General Manager, whose appointment letter permitted termination upon notice or payment in lieu thereof, and that any alleged violation of the Factories Act carried prescribed penalties rather than entitling the petitioner to declaratory relief in constitutional jurisdiction. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, establishing that constitutional jurisdiction will not be invoked to grant declaratory relief for statutory violations that carry specific statutory penalties.
Questions settled- Whether constitutional jurisdiction can be invoked to grant declaratory relief for a violation of the Factories Act?
- Is an employee appointed by the General Manager of a mill subject to termination by the same authority under the terms of the appointment letter?
- Does the abolition of a post in violation of the Factories Act entitle an employee to reinstatement through a constitutional petition?
- SHAFI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1399 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-05Read full judgment →
- SHAFI MUHAMMAD And Others vs Mst. SHAFIAT BEGUM And Other1985 SCMR 1947 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an inheritance dispute wherein the respondent claimed a share in the estate of her grandfather under Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, asserting she was the daughter of a pre-deceased son. The trial court dismissed her suit, but the District Judge reversed this decision, relying on an observation by an Assistant Commissioner in prior revenue proceedings as an admission of the respondent's lineage by the petitioner. The High Court upheld this decree in revision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether such an observation by a revenue officer, made in the context of suggesting an amicable settlement, constitutes a valid legal admission of a disputed relationship sufficient to sustain a decree for inheritance. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the lower appellate court’s reliance on said observation as a binding admission was legally flawed, as it did not constitute admissible evidence of the disputed relationship. Consequently, the Court stayed the execution of the decree pending final adjudication, emphasizing that judicial findings must rest on competent, admissible evidence rather than administrative remarks.
Questions settled- Does an observation by a revenue officer regarding a potential amicable settlement constitute a binding legal admission of a disputed relationship?
- Can a court rely on administrative observations from revenue proceedings as conclusive evidence of lineage in an inheritance suit?
- What constitutes a valid judicial admission of fact in inheritance litigation?
- SHAFAAT HUSSAIN and others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others1985 CLC 2516 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-07Read full judgment →
- SHADI K H A N vs MUHAMMAD BEHRAM and 4 others1985 CLC 2218 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-02-23Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR vs Dr. Miss SHAHNAZ SOMJEE1985 CLC 2841 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-18Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR HUSSAIN vs Mst. SHAMIM KHATOON1985 MLD 124 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-25Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR HUSSAIN vs Mst. ANSAR FATIMA AND 3 OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 491 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-18Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR HUSSAIN vs Messrs MECK TRUCKS OF PAKISTAN LTD.1985 PLC 263 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE1985 MLD 777 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-03Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR ALI KHAN vs RICE EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD.1985 MLD 1155 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-25Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1484 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-03Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR AHMAD vs MULLER & PHIPPS (PAK.) Ltd. and another1985 PLC 325 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-05-26Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR AHMAD and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2168 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-03Read full judgment →
- Sh.MUHAMMAD ALI vs Messrs CHINA SILK HOUSE and another1985 CLC 679 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court appeal concerns the limitation period applicable to the execution of decrees passed prior to the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The core legal question was whether the amendment to Section 48, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which reduced the execution limitation period from 12 years to 6 years, applied retrospectively to decrees passed before the Ordinance's promulgation. The Court held that the amendment did not apply retrospectively. It reasoned that the right to execute a decree is a vested, substantive right, not merely a matter of procedure. Consequently, the legislature's reduction of the limitation period could not impair existing rights to execute decrees obtained under the previous law without explicit legislative intent. The Court established the principle that while procedural law changes are generally retrospective, they cannot be applied retroactively if they affect substantive vested rights or cause injustice. The appeals were allowed, and the matters were remanded to the Single Judge for decision on the merits, as the execution applications were found to be within the 12-year limitation period.
Questions settled- Does the amendment to Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 apply retrospectively to decrees passed before its enactment?
- Is the right to execute a decree a vested right that cannot be impaired by subsequent changes in procedural law?
- Does a default clause in an installment decree trigger the limitation period for the entire decretal amount from the date of the first default?
- Sh.JAMILUR RAHMAN vs AKBAR HASAN1985 CLC 922 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
- Sh. TAJJAMUL HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1357 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-04Read full judgment →
- Sh. SAFDAR RASHID vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE And Other1985 SCMR 653 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition arising from a rent matter. The landlady sought the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant on the grounds of default in rent and personal requirement of the premises for use as a shop. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment based on personal need, and the Additional District Judge dismissed the tenant's appeal. The High Court subsequently dismissed the tenant's writ petition on merits. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was not even competent under the circumstances, and the High Court had rightly dismissed it with a well-reasoned judgment on merits. Consequently, finding no grounds for interference, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower forums and the High Court.
Questions settled- Whether a writ petition against concurrent orders in a rent matter is competent under the circumstances?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a well-reasoned High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition in a rent dispute without valid grounds?
- Sh. NAZIR AHMAD vs Haji GHULAM HUSSAIN and others1985 CLC 7 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract relating to a shop jointly owned by the petitioner and respondents. The petitioner alleged that respondent No.1 agreed to sell a two-third share in the property to him after acquiring it from other co-owners, but subsequently sold the share along with other respondents to third parties. Both the trial court and the district judge dismissed the suit, holding that the subsequent purchasers were bona fide purchasers for value without notice and that the agreement to sell did not confer valid title. The Lahore High Court dismissed the civil revision, holding that an agreement to sell does not confer title enabling a prospective purchaser to further alienate the property before a completed sale, and that subsequent transferees successfully discharged their onus of proving lack of notice of the prior contract. The key principle established is that a person holding merely an agreement to sell cannot validly transfer or agree to sell property lacking completed title, and a subsequent transferee discharges the initial burden regarding lack of notice by testifying on oath.
Questions settled- Does an agreement to sell confer title on a prospective purchaser enabling them to further sell the property?
- How does a subsequent transferee discharge the burden of proving they were a purchaser without notice under section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding a bona fide purchase without notice be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction?
- Sh. NASEEM AHMAD vs DEPUTY INSPECTORGENERAL OF POLICE, SARGODHA1985 P Cr. L J 906 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-26Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUMTAZ ALI and 4 others vs SECRETARY LAW, PUNJAB1985 PLC (C.S.) 138 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD ZAKI And Another vs INCOME TAX OFFICER1985 SCMR 1262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-16Read full judgment →
- SH. MUHAMMAD YASIN vs ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, OKARA AND OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 941 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD ISLAM vs ADEEBA KHANUM and another1985 CLC 1619 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-05Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD HASSAN and others vs Ch. FATEH MUHAMMAD and others1985 CLC 2994 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-06Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD BASHIR and another vs AHMAD ALI CHUGHTAI and others1985 CLC 2704 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-16Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD ALI vs WAPDA1985 PLC (C.S.) 418 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-07-02Read full judgment →
- Sh. FAZAL KARIM vs Sh. AKBAR ALI1985 CLC 2953 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-04Read full judgment →
- Sh. DAW00D AHMAD vs DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE And Other1985 SCMR 881 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the petitioner-tenant's ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller on the basis of a special oath offered by the tenant himself. The core legal question was whether a tenant, having invited an ejectment decision upon a special oath, can subsequently challenge the resulting order or argue that the case must still be decided through independent judicial determination. The Supreme Court held that a party who initiates and invites a decision based on a special oath is barred from questioning his own offer and its compliance, and such conduct properly disentitles him to discretionary relief. The Court affirmed that participating in and inviting such a procedure estops a party from challenging the resulting judicial order, and the High Court correctly refused to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a tenant challenge an ejectment order passed on the basis of a special oath offered by the tenant himself?
- Whether an ejectment proceeding resolved through a special oath requires further independent judicial determination of the merits?
- Does a party who invites a decision on a special oath become barred from questioning its compliance?
- Sh. BARKAT HUSSAIN vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And 161985 SCMR 446 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court examines whether the High Court acted competently in setting aside, within its constitutional jurisdiction, the orders of the Additional Settlement Commissioner passed under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. The core legal question concerned the validity of cancelling a prior confirmed urban agricultural land allotment and making a duplicate allotment to subsequent parties. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in reversing findings of fact and treating a validly confirmed allotment as a mere pending proposal, noting that cancellation without proper notice to the legal heirs was void and that subsequent duplicate allotments of already-disposed land are nullities. The Court established that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be used to interfere with factual determinations of settlement authorities supported by the record regarding duplicate allotments.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can competently interfere with findings of fact recorded by a settlement authority in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Can a confirmed allotment of land be lawfully cancelled without proper notice to the allottee or their legal heirs?
- Is a subsequent allotment of land that was already validly confirmed in favor of another claimant considered a nullity?
- Sh. ANWAR HUSSAIN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LABOUR WELFARE, LAHORE1985 SCMR 1201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a civil servant working as an Assistant Director Labour Welfare, sought leave to appeal against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal which had denied him seniority as a Labour Officer from 12-1-1966. The petitioner was initially appointed on a temporary basis subject to the approval of the Public Service Commission, and later promoted on an ad hoc basis. His regular promotion was subsequently ante-dated to 12-2-1970. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that promotion to the post of Labour Officer required consultation and approval from the Public Service Commission or Selection Board, which was not forthcoming prior to 2-2-1970, rendering his earlier service ineligible for regular seniority calculation. Furthermore, the Court held that the Service Tribunal correctly found the service appeal to be time-barred as time spent seeking a review against the rejection of a representation cannot be excluded, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to interpret orders passed prior to July 1969. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether ad hoc service prior to regular promotion can be counted for the purpose of seniority?
- Does the Punjab Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate on orders passed prior to July 1969?
- Can the time spent in pursuing a review petition against the rejection of a representation extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Sh. ANWAR ALI vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, and others1985 MLD 1544 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-09Read full judgment →
- Sh. AMAR MAFTOON vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB And Another1985 SCMR 1778 (2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves cross-petitions for leave to appeal arising from a service dispute concerning the regularization of promotion and salary entitlements of a government teacher. The petitioner, a teacher in N.P.S. 16, was adjusted to a post in N.P.S. 17 on his own pay and grade, with his promotion subsequently regularized effective from 20-9-1983. The petitioner sought retrospective regularization from his date of joining, 13-5-1981, along with corresponding salary and allowances. The Punjab Service Tribunal granted him the minimum of N.P.S. 17 and annual increments from 13-5-1981 but denied the request for earlier regularization of the promotion itself. Both the employee and the provincial government filed petitions for leave to appeal against the Tribunal's decision. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, identifying that the petitions raised substantial questions of law of public importance regarding the interpretation of service rules and financial entitlements upon promotion, granted leave to appeal in both petitions to examine the validity of the Tribunal's order concerning the effective date of promotion and the entitlement to increments.
Questions settled- Can a government servant claim retrospective regularization of promotion to the date of initial adjustment on own pay and grade?
- Is an employee adjusted to a higher post on own pay and grade entitled to annual increments in that higher scale prior to formal regularization?
- Does the grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court extend to both the employee's claim for earlier regularization and the government's challenge to the award of increments?
- Sh. ABDUL WAHEED vs THE CHIEF SECRETARY, PUNJAB1985 PLC (C.S.) 886 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
- Sh. ABDUL ALEEM vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER SCARP IV CIRCLE, MUGHALPURA and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 111 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-01-19Read full judgment →
- SEVEN SEAS SERVICES LIMITED vs WORLD MARINE SERVICES LTD.1985 MLD 916 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-29Read full judgment →
- SEERAT HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1590 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
- SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, IRRIGATION AND POWER1985 SCMR 689 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These petitions for leave to appeal were filed by the Government of the Punjab against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The respondents, serving as Overseers (Sub-Engineers), had been holding acting charges as Sub-Divisional Officers on a stop-gap basis. The Government terminated these acting charges to accommodate graduate Engineers. The core legal question was whether the respondents were entitled to be considered for promotion against a 20% quota reserved for their class under the relevant service rules, and whether the Tribunal correctly ordered the Department to identify vacancies period-wise to determine eligibility. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal’s decision to require the Department to calculate vacancies and consider the respondents for promotion based on the established 20% quota was correct. The Court found no question of law of public importance warranting interference, noting that the Government possessed the necessary data to perform the required calculations. The key principle laid down is that where service rules prescribe a quota for promotion, the Department is obligated to identify vacancies chronologically and consider eligible candidates accordingly, rather than arbitrarily terminating stop-gap arrangements without adhering to the prescribed promotional framework.
Questions settled- Is the termination of an acting charge of a civil servant valid if the department fails to consider the employee for a reserved promotion quota?
- Does a dispute regarding the calculation of promotional vacancies constitute a question of law of public importance justifying leave to appeal?
- Can a Service Tribunal direct a government department to identify vacancies period-wise to ensure compliance with service recruitment rules?
- SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN, AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, QUETTA and 2 others vs HABIBUR REHMAN1985 PLC 1086 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- SEARLE PAKISTAN LTD. vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 503 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-09Read full judgment →