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.
- SAZUDDINAppellaht vs AMIR BUX1985 CLC 30 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →
- SAYEDA BINTE ASGHAR vs ALI GHAZANFAR and another1985 MLD 1163 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-21Read full judgment →
- SAWAR vs GULFAM HUSSAIN1985 SCMR 1012 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a civil revision stemming from a pre-emption decree passed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The petitioner's father had previously sold land to the respondent's father, which was subjected to a successful pre-emption suit decreed on the basis of a compromise in 1964. The petitioner asserted that a subsequent 1978 sale-deed executed in his favour by the respondent's father was not a fresh sale, but merely a document executed in confirmation of the earlier pre-emption decree. Nonetheless, the respondent filed a successful pre-emption suit regarding this transaction, leading to concurrent findings against the petitioner. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the transaction sought to be pre-empted was in fact a sale and to address related questions arising from the execution and revenue records.
Questions settled- Whether a subsequent document executed in confirmation of an earlier pre-emption decree constitutes a sale subject to pre-emption?
- Can a transaction framed as a sale-deed be treated as merely completing documentation for a prior pre-emption decree?
- SATTAR MUHAMMAD RAJA vs ANWARULLAH KHAN1985 CLC 1550 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
- SATHI KHAN vs NOOR MUHAMMADPLD 1985 Rev. 119 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1971-09-03Read full judgment →
- SARWAR SHAH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1142 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-30Read full judgment →
- SARWAR KHAN and 3 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1088 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-30Read full judgment →
- SARWAR HAYAT KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Additional Chief Secretary, Services, General Administration and Information Department, Lahore and 32 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 228 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-02-01Read full judgment →
- SARFRAZ And Another vs The STATE1985 SCMR 501 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the conviction of the petitioners for murder but commuted their death sentences to life imprisonment. The core legal questions were whether the ocular evidence was reliable given the alleged lack of lighting at the crime scene, and whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence from death to life imprisonment based on the rejection of the prosecution's motive. The Supreme Court held that the ocular evidence provided by the relatives of the deceased was credible and corroborated by the recovery of weapons, despite the delay in sending them to the Chemical Examiner. Regarding the sentence, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision to impose life imprisonment, reasoning that the motive alleged by the prosecution was too remote and lacked immediacy. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to establish a convincing immediate motive for a pre-meditated murder, the imposition of the lesser sentence of life imprisonment is legally justified and appropriate.
Questions settled- Is the testimony of related eye-witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder when corroborated by the recovery of weapons?
- Does a delay in sending recovered crime weapons to the Chemical Examiner necessarily invalidate the recovery evidence?
- Is the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment justified when the prosecution's alleged motive is found to be remote or doubtful?
- SARFRAZ ALI and 8 others vs GENERAL MANAGER (T), LTR, LAHORE and 121985 PLC 1047 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
- SARFARAZ KHAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 167 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-05-29Read full judgment →
- SARDUL vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1732 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →
- SARDARA vs MUHAMMAD ABID and another1985 MLD 467 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →
- SARDARA vs Mst. RAZIA and others1985 MLD 96 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-02Read full judgment →
- Sardar SHAMS ALI KHAN vs DEPUTY COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND1985 PLC (C.S.) 1002 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-06-12Read full judgment →
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1035 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction and death sentence for the murder of Bashir Ahmad under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the petitioner's guilt through eye-witness testimony, medical evidence, and recovery of the weapon, and whether the capital sentence was justified given the circumstances. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution's case was supported by the testimony of three natural eye-witnesses, whose presence was justified, and corroborated by the recovery of the blood-stained weapon and clothing from the petitioner at the scene. The medical evidence confirmed the brutality of the attack, noting twenty-three injuries. The Court held that the petitioner, having been provided shelter by the deceased, committed a brutal murder following a dispute over his immoral conduct toward the deceased's wife. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the conviction and the capital sentence were appropriate given the cruel and ghastly nature of the offense.
Questions settled- Is the testimony of eye-witnesses who are related to the deceased sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
- Does the recovery of a blood-stained weapon and clothing from the accused at the scene corroborate eye-witness testimony?
- Is the imposition of the death penalty justified when the accused commits a brutal murder against a benefactor who provided him shelter?
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF And Another1985 SCMR 1681 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of an evacuee property plot measuring 8 Marlas in Nawan Kot, Lahore. The petitioner claimed possession and construction on the plot since 1950, while the respondent claimed a larger area including the disputed plot, supported by a Permanent Transfer Deed issued in 1965. Following prior litigation, the Lahore High Court remanded the matter to the Settlement Commissioner to determine if any evacuee area remained available for transfer to the petitioner after the respondent's prior transfer. The Settlement Commissioner concluded that the entire available evacuee area had already been transferred to the respondent, leaving no land for the petitioner, and that the petitioner's possession actually fell within the respondent's validly transferred property. The High Court upheld this finding, noting it aligned with revenue records and spot inspections. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Settlement Commissioner had factually determined the absence of available evacuee land, and the petitioner was precluded from challenging these factual findings after acquiescing to the initial remand order without appeal.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner challenge factual findings regarding the availability of evacuee property after acquiescing to a remand order?
- Does a prior Permanent Transfer Deed issued to one party preclude the subsequent transfer of the same land to another claimant?
- Is a finding by a Settlement Commissioner regarding the availability of evacuee land based on spot inspection and revenue records conclusive?
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 389 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the classification and computation of produce index units for Chahi Jhalari land allotted to the appellant under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The core legal question is whether the confirmation of land allotment based on an initial incorrect evaluation created a vested right that could not be altered retrospectively by subsequent instructions issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that the instructions issued on 17th May 1960 were merely clarificatory and reiterated the pre-existing principles enshrined in the Produce Index Booklet and paragraph 16(3) of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme (Part-II), and that excess land obtained through a wrong application of the Scheme does not create a permanent vested right. The ratio decidendi is that an unlawful or excess allotment does not vest in an allottee, and authorities are empowered to rectify classification errors and withdraw excess land without violating vested rights.
Questions settled- Whether the confirmation of an land allotment based on an incorrect classification creates a permanent vested right in the allottee?
- Can instructions issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner clarifying the evaluation of Chahi Jhalari land be deemed to have retrospective effect?
- Are settlement authorities empowered to cancel and withdraw land found to be in excess of an allottee's actual entitlement?
- Sardar MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other1985 SCMR 616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose out of a dispute regarding the transfer and division of evacuee property comprising two distinct plots, Plot No. 75 (a house) and Plot No. 76 (servant quarters), under settlement laws. The primary legal questions were whether structures built on distinct plots could be treated as separate units rather than appurtenant property under Section 2(4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and whether the High Court in writ jurisdiction was justified in overturning concurrent findings of fact recorded by Settlement Commissioners. The Supreme Court held that since the properties were situated on separate, individually demarcated plots meant for independent construction, the quarters on Plot No. 76 could not be deemed appurtenant to the house on Plot No. 75. The Settlement Commissioners possessed lawful competence to divide the premises and treat them as distinct residential units. The High Court had erroneously interfered with these concurrent factual findings. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and Plot No. 76 was ordered transferred to the appellant.
Questions settled- Whether structures constructed on separate, individually demarcated plots can be treated as appurtenant outhouses under Section 2(4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Does the Settlement Authority possess the jurisdiction and competence to divide adjacent structures on distinct plots and treat them as independent residential units?
- Is the High Court justified in reversing concurrent findings of fact reached by Settlement Authorities regarding the divisibility and valuation of evacuee property in writ jurisdiction?
- Sardar MUHAMMAD ASLAM SIAL And 3 Others vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1985 SCMR 9 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against High Court judgments involving the resumption of state land leases (stud farms) by the Punjab Government. The core legal question was whether the government could resume these leases or refuse their renewal without granting the lessees a hearing. The appellants argued they were entitled to renewal under the terms of their grants, while the government contended the leases had expired. The Supreme Court held that while the government possessed the discretion to renew or resume leases, this discretion could not be exercised arbitrarily. Because the refusal to renew was predicated on allegations of the tenants' poor performance (a 'bad record'), the principles of natural justice mandated that the tenants be provided an opportunity to defend themselves against such adverse findings before a final decision was reached. Consequently, the Court set aside the Division Bench's judgment, affirming that the authorities must act fairly and observe natural justice when making decisions that adversely impact a party's established interest in land tenure.
Questions settled- Does the principle of natural justice require that a lessee be heard before the government refuses to renew a lease based on allegations of poor performance?
- Can administrative authorities exercise discretion to resume state land leases without providing an opportunity for the affected tenant to defend their record?
- Are the conditions of a land grant issued under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, enforceable against the government?
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD And Others vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL And Other1985 SCMR 1221 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the High Court dismissing the petitioners' Regular Second Appeal. The core legal matter involves a challenge to a gift of land made by the deceased Ghulam Ghaus in favour of his grandsons, which was subsequently contested by his other sons upon his death. The trial court, the district judge in appeal, and the High Court concurrently dismissed the suit as being barred by time. The Supreme Court heard the petitioner's counsel and observed that he failed to demonstrate that the suit was within time. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings regarding the suit being time-barred were unexceptionable, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal on the ground of lacking merit. The key principle affirmed is that where concurrent lower courts dismiss a suit as time-barred and the petitioner fails to establish limitation, leave to appeal will be refused.
Questions settled- Whether a suit challenging a gift can proceed when concurrently found to be barred by time?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against the dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal when the petitioner fails to establish limitation?
- SARDAR MUH ANIMA D vs THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (SCHOOLS) and another1985 CLC 590 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-20Read full judgment →
- Sardar MISRI KHAN vs MUHAMMAD AZIM KHAN and another1985 CLC 75 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-08-06Read full judgment →
- Sardar MISRI KHAN vs BARKAT HUSSAIN1985 PLD Azad J & K 77 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-04-26Read full judgment →
- Sardar MEHTAB KHAN vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL, RAWALAKOTE AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Azad J& K 65 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-04-19Read full judgment →
- SARDAR MASIH vs ASSISTANT ENGINEER NO. 6, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, FAISALABAD1985 PLC 819 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- SARDAR KHAN vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 306 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-05-07Read full judgment →
- SARDAR KHAN vs Haji ABDUL GHAFFAR AND 3 OTHERS1985 PLD Quetta 167 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-05-21Read full judgment →
- SARDAR KHAN vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL and others1985 MLD 1298 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-23Read full judgment →
- SARDAR KHAN and others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 879 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-15Read full judgment →
- SARDAR KHAN and others vs MUHAMMAD SADIQ1985 CLC 2786 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-06Read full judgment →
- SARDAR KHAN and another vs MUHAMMAD SADIQ1985 CLC 116 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-15Read full judgment →
- Sardar BAHRAM KHAN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASH M1R1985 PLD SC (A J & K) 39 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- SARDAR and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2424 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-12Read full judgment →
- SARDAR and 10 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1659 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-19Read full judgment →
- SARDAR ALI vs THE STATE1985 MLD 6 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-09Read full judgment →
- SARDAR ALI SHAH vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MAILSI, DISTRICT VEHAR I1985 PLD Lahore 238 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-21Read full judgment →
- Sardar ABDUR RASHID through Legal Heir and another vs Ch. NAZIR AHMAD, ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS) and another1985 MLD 496 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-13Read full judgment →
- Sardar ABDUL RAHMAN KHAN DURRANI vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1985 SCMR 778 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed by a former Deputy Superintendent of Police (D.S.P.) challenging the Supreme Court's earlier judgment which upheld his dismissal from service. The petitioner argued that his dismissal and the issuance of his charge-sheet were invalid because they were not executed by the Governor, who was his appointing authority. He further contended that any delegation of the Governor's disciplinary powers to the 'Government' was ultra vires under Article 181(1) of the 1956 Constitution, which prohibited dismissal by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. The Court rejected these contentions, noting that the dismissal order was, in fact, passed by the Governor. Furthermore, the Court found that the initial charge-sheet was duly authenticated as being issued 'By Order of the Governor' and that the proceedings were validly continued under the West Pakistan Government Servants (Discipline and Efficiency) Rules, 1959. The Court held that since the final dismissal order was issued by the competent authority, the review petition lacked merit and was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant be dismissed by an authority subordinate to the one that appointed him?
- Does the authentication of a charge-sheet 'By Order of the Governor' satisfy the requirement that the Governor must issue the charge-sheet?
- Is a delegation of disciplinary powers by the Governor to the 'Government' ultra vires under the 1956 Constitution?
- SANAWAL SHAH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 955 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →
- SANAULLAH vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1488 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a police constable, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing his appeal against conviction under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency and credibility of the prosecution evidence regarding the demand and recovery of tainted bribe money during a raid. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below regarding the creditworthiness of the prosecution witnesses and the recovery of the tainted money from the petitioner's pocket were unexceptionable. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact on the credibility of prosecution witnesses in a corruption case warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Is the testimony of police officers and the complainant sufficient to maintain a conviction under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether the recovery of tainted money from the pocket of an accused constitutes sufficient proof of acceptance of a bribe?
- SANAULLAH vs THE ST ATE1985 MLD 82 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-09Read full judgment →
- SANAULLAH vs THE PRINCIPAL, TRAINING INSTITUTE WAPDA, FAISALABAD1985 PLC 582 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-07-16Read full judgment →
- SANATA and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2395 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-31Read full judgment →
- SANA ULLAH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 130 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-08Read full judgment →
- SAMMAN and 2 others vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1985 CLC 1466 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-09Read full judgment →
- SAMIULLAH AND 37 OTHERS vs KARIM COTTON MILLS LTD.1985 PLC 675 · Labour Court · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →
- SAMINA ABID vs ABID RAZA SAMI1985 CLC 2685 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-01Read full judgment →
- SAMI ULLAH alias Sami and 4 others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 908 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-16Read full judgment →
- SAMI PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND 31985 PLC 754 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal setting aside a Labour Court's order and remanding the matter for decision on merits. The core legal questions involved the scope of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal's suo motu revisional powers under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, specifically whether such powers can be invoked to examine an order when an appeal against it was dismissed as time-barred, and whether a Labour Court is competent to restore an application dismissed in default. The Sindh High Court held that since the prior appeals were incompetent in law, they did not acquire finality under Section 37(3), and thus the Tribunal validly exercised its suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 38(3-a) to rectify a miscarriage of justice. The Court further laid down the principle that a Labour Court possesses the inherent competence to set aside an ex parte order or a dismissal in default upon sufficient cause being shown, as it constitutes a procedural review rather than a review on merits.
Questions settled- Whether the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal can exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, when an appeal filed against the impugned order was dismissed as time-barred?
- Does a Labour Court have the competence to set aside an order of dismissal of an application in default if sufficient cause is shown by a party?
- Can the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal entertain information from a party to trigger its suo motu revisional powers under Section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Whether the dismissal of an appeal on the ground of limitation constitutes a decision that acquires finality under Section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 so as to bar revisional review?
- SAMI AHMED vs Mrs. REHANA ZAIDI1985 CLC 540 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-02Read full judgment →
- SALMAN ASLAM vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and others1985 MLD 1286 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-29Read full judgment →
- SALIM UDDIN vs THE STATE1985 PLD Karachi 594 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant Salimuddin sought bail on the ground of sickness and unsoundness of mind while facing trial for offences under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. Although the trial court previously rejected bail and declared the applicant fit, a medical specialist summoned by the court confirmed the applicant was of unsound mind and required treatment. With no objection from the Additional Advocate-General, the High Court granted bail under section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subject to surety. Furthermore, the applicant challenged the trial court's order declaring him fit to defend himself. Finding the trial court's order contrary to sections 464, 465, and 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the High Court, in exercise of its powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, set aside the impugned order and directed that the medical officer be examined and the accused given an opportunity to cross-examine him before deciding how the trial should proceed.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be granted on the ground of unsoundness of mind of the accused?
- Can an order of the trial court regarding the fitness of an accused to stand trial be set aside under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is it necessary to examine and cross-examine a medical expert regarding the mental state of an accused claimed to be of unsound mind?
- SALIM KHAN vs THE STATE1985 PLD Peshawar 136 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
- SALIM CHOUDHRY vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and another1985 CLC 355 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
- SALEH SHAH vs S.I.T.E. and others1985 CLC 1259 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-28Read full judgment →
- SALEH MUHAMMAD vs WAPDA1985 PLC (C.S.) 478 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
- SALEH MUHAMMAD vs MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 149 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-10-30Read full judgment →
- SALEH MUHAMMAD vs ABDUR REHMAN and 2 others1985 P Cr. L J 1055 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
- SALEH MUHAMMAD and 4 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 292 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
- SALEEM MASIH and others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 799 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-18Read full judgment →
- SALEEM MASIH alias NEELA vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1411 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-10Read full judgment →
- SALEEM J. MUFTY vs GHULAM SARWAR DAWOODI1985 MLD 992 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-20Read full judgment →
- SALEEM and 3 others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 900 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-15Read full judgment →
- Saleem Akhtar, PAKISTAN NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION vs PROVINCE1985 CLC 1558 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-24Read full judgment →
- Saleem Akhtar, .1 ABDUL RAHIM vs THE COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD and 131985 CLC 2059 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-23Read full judgment →
- SALEEM AKHTAR BHALLI And Others vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS DEPARTMENT, LAHORE And Other1985 SCMR 950 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns nine petitions for leave to appeal against judgments of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding seniority disputes among Engineers in the Communications and Works Department. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, initially recruited as Temporary Engineers, were entitled to seniority benefits under the West Pakistan Service of Civil Engineers (Buildings and Roads) Class-I Rules, 1967, specifically by carrying forward seniority from lower grades despite never being formally inducted into Class II service. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, holding that the petitioners could not claim such seniority benefits without formal induction into the service, a process requiring consultation with the Public Service Commission. The Court affirmed that seniority is generally reckoned from the date of continuous appointment in a grade, and administrative notifications or provisional lists do not confer legal status or vested rights where statutory requirements for induction remain unfulfilled. Furthermore, the Court clarified that merit-based promotions to higher grades, such as Superintending Engineer, do not automatically entitle an officer to pro forma seniority following reinstatement from removal. Leave to appeal was consequently refused.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant claim seniority benefits based on lower-grade service without having been formally inducted into the relevant service class?
- Does a government notification or seniority list acquire legal efficacy solely because it remained unchallenged by affected parties?
- Can a departmental authority dispense with the requirement of consulting the Public Service Commission for the purpose of inducting officers into service?
- Does reinstatement in service after removal under Martial Law Regulation 114 automatically entitle an officer to pro forma promotion and seniority?
- SALEEM AHMAD NASEER vs THE STATE and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition arose from an order of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, granting an application for the re-examination of a complainant witness under section 540, Cr.P.C., after the witness had resiled from his previous statement during trial. The core legal question was whether a witness who has already been examined and cross-examined can be recalled under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to change his stance or give a fresh statement on the same aspect. The Lahore High Court held that the discretionary power under section 540, Cr.P.C. to recall and re-examine a witness must be exercised judicially and is meant to bring on record essential evidence that was omitted due to oversight or failure, rather than to permit a witness to make a volta-face or take a completely different stand. The revision petition was accepted, and the trial court's order summoning the witness was set aside, establishing that the provision cannot be used to undermine the sanctity of trials by allowing witnesses to retract previous testimony under the guise of court examination.
Questions settled- Can a witness who has already been examined and cross-examined be recalled under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to give a fresh statement on the same aspect?
- Whether the discretionary power under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be exercised to allow a witness to make a volta-face or retract earlier testimony?
- What are the parameters for exercising judicial discretion to recall a witness for re-examination under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- SALAMAT SULTAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 913 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
- SALAHUDDIN KHAN AND 10 OTHERS vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE III AND 181985 PLD Quetta 192 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-07-07Read full judgment →
- SALAHU DDIN vs THE PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION through its1985 CLC 1220 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-11Read full judgment →
- SALA H U DDIN vs PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and another1985 CLC 1506 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-11Read full judgment →
- SAKHI MUHAMMAD vs Mst. TAJ BEGUM and 4 others1985 CLC 734 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-08-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which granted a decree for divorce via khula to the respondent-wife and dismissed the appellant-husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The primary legal questions were whether the appeal was validly presented given the absence of signatures on the memorandum of appeal and the lack of a valid Vakalatnama, and whether the grant of khula was justified. The Court held that the appeal was incompetent because it was neither signed by the appellant nor his counsel, and the Vakalatnama was blank, constituting an irresponsible act rather than a curable irregularity. Furthermore, on the merits, the Court affirmed the lower courts' decision, holding that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to mutual hatred and the husband's lack of confidence in the wife's chastity. The key principle laid down is that where spouses fail to maintain mutual respect and confidence, and there exists shakak (discord), separation via khula is the appropriate legal remedy to ensure parties live within the limits prescribed by Almighty Allah.
Questions settled- Is an appeal filed without the signature of the appellant or his counsel and accompanied by an incomplete Vakalatnama valid?
- Can a procedural defect in the presentation of an appeal be cured if the appellant has not acted in good faith?
- Under what circumstances is a wife entitled to a decree for divorce on the basis of khula?
- Does the existence of mutual hatred and lack of confidence between spouses justify the dissolution of marriage?
- SAKHI MUHAMMAD and others vs MUHAMMAD YAR and others1985 MLD 1481 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-14Read full judgment →
- SAJJAD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1414 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
- SAJJAD ALI KHAN THROUGH 6 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES vs PERVEZ MIRZA1985 PLD Karachi 667 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-03Read full judgment →
- SAJJAD AHMAD vs Mst. ASMA KHATUN1985 SCMR 696(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision against an ex parte decree. The petitioner, having been divorced from the respondent, faced a suit for the recovery of dowry, resulting in an ex parte decree after he failed to appear in court. Subsequently, the petitioner's brother filed an objection petition against the execution of the decree, which was dismissed. The petitioner's later appeal against the ex parte decree was dismissed as time-barred, and the High Court affirmed this decision. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was unaware of the ex parte decree and whether the lower courts erred in their findings. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was aware of the decree, noting that his brother's objection petition regarding the execution proceedings served as constructive notice. The Court affirmed the dismissal, establishing the principle that questions of fact, such as knowledge of an ex parte order, cannot be re-agitated at the appellate stage when evidence suggests awareness.
Questions settled- Can a question of fact regarding knowledge of an ex parte decree be agitated in a revision petition?
- Does the filing of an objection petition by a family member against the execution of a decree constitute evidence of the judgment debtor's knowledge of that decree?
- SAJJAD AHMAD KHAN vs DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, FAISALABAD1985 PLC (C.S.) 98 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-07-10Read full judgment →
- SAJID MAHMOOD vs Sh. KABIR AHMAD and others1985 CLC 2543 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-25Read full judgment →
- SAJID HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1603 · Lahore High Court · 1985-08-02Read full judgment →
- SAIN DAS vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 979 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
- SAIFULLAH vs The STATE1985 SCMR 410 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the death sentence of the appellant, Saifullah, convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Ghulam Qasim. The prosecution relied upon ocular testimony from two alleged eye-witnesses, a recovery of a blood-stained knife, motive, and medical evidence. The Supreme Court examined the effect of two official telegrams dispatched by an Assistant Station Master based on information from a cabinman, which indicated the crime was discovered after a train was delayed due to an unclosed railway gate. Upon re-evaluating the evidence, the Court held that the occurrence was unwitnessed and that the alleged eye-witnesses were not present at the scene. Consequently, the Court excluded the ocular testimony, rendered the corroborative recovery evidence insufficient, and laid down the principle that contemporaneous official communications and independent railway operational evidence can falsify subsequent oral testimonies of ocular witnesses, warranting an acquittal when no reliable direct evidence remains to connect the accused to the crime.
Questions settled- Whether contemporaneous official telegrams can be used to falsify the presence of alleged eye-witnesses in a murder trial?
- Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained solely on recovery evidence when the ocular testimony has been excluded?
- What is the effect of material contradictions between a prosecution witness's trial statement and their earlier police statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- SAIFAL vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2668 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
- SAIFAL and others vs DISTRICT JUDGE, MUZAFFARGARH and others1985 CLC 2684 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-04Read full judgment →
- SAID SHAH And Others vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1476 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-05-12Read full judgment →
- SAID RASOOL and 6 others vs ABBAS1985 CLC 1205 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-14Read full judgment →
- SAID MUHAMMAD vs THE JUDGE, FAISIL COURT and others1985 CLC 2509 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-03Read full judgment →
- SAID KHAN and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 188 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-06-26Read full judgment →
- SAID GUL vs Mst. SOSAN JAN And Other1985 SCMR 1013 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed a civil revision in a land tenancy dispute. The petitioner sought a declaration that he and his ancestors were occupancy tenants of the suit-land and had thus become owners by operation of law, alleging that revenue entries recording them as tenants-at-will were void due to fraud and collusion. The core legal questions pertained to whether the discontinuance of occupancy tenancy was established by the record and whether a change in tenancy status requires a formal mutation. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the discontinuance of the petitioner's occupancy tenancy since 1946-47 were supported by overwhelming documentary and oral evidence, and further held that the lack of a separate mutation did not render the change illegal, particularly where subsequent ejectment proceedings established the tenant-at-will status. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the discontinuance of occupancy tenancy can be interfered with when supported by documentary evidence?
- Does a change in tenancy status from occupancy tenant to tenant-at-will necessarily require a formal mutation to be legally valid?
- Can subsequent ejectment proceedings properly establish and validate a party's status as a tenant-at-will?
- SAHIB DAD vs INAM AND 4 OTHERS1985 PLD Quetta 69 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-11-02Read full judgment →
- SAGHIR HUSSAIN and others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1353 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-12Read full judgment →
- SAFDAR KHAN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 804 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
- SAFDAR HUSSAIN and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1117 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-02Read full judgment →
- SAFDAR and another vs THE STATE1985 MLD 744 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-14Read full judgment →
- SAFDAR ALI WAHLA And Another vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1748 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two criminal petitions for special leave to appeal filed by Safdar Ali Wahla and Abdul Majid against a High Court judgment that upheld their convictions. The petitioners challenged their conviction under Section 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arguing that the allegations did not satisfy the legal requirements because no force was used against the complainant. Additionally, the petitioners contended that the prosecution's case relied solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant, Saeeduddin (P.W. 3), which they argued was insufficient for conviction. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions. Regarding the first argument, the Court held that the contention was misconceived when read in light of the definition of assault provided in Section 351 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Regarding the second argument, the Court found no material defects in the complainant's testimony that would necessitate independent corroboration or warrant interference with the conviction. Consequently, the Court dismissed both petitions, affirming the lower court's judgment.
Questions settled- Does the definition of assault in Section 351 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 support a conviction under Section 353 where the use of force is contested?
- Can a conviction be maintained solely on the testimony of a complainant without independent corroboration?
- SAFDAR ALI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2604 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-03-06Read full judgment →
- SAFDAR ALI CHAUDHRY vs CHIEF SECRETARY, PUNJAB AND OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 972 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-05-27Read full judgment →
- SAFDAR AHMED AND 5 OTHERS vs Mst. FARUKH NISA1985 PLD Karachi 633 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This First Rent Appeal challenges an order of the Rent Controller allowing an ejectment application against the appellants on the ground of default in rent payment following the death of the original tenant. The core legal questions concern whether legal heirs, upon becoming statutory tenants after the death of the original tenant, can be held in default for rent accruing prior to the creation of the statutory tenancy, and how default is calculated when no written agreement exists. The Sindh High Court held that while legal representatives succeed to the liabilities of the deceased under ordinary law, they cannot be considered tenants in default for the period prior to the inception of their statutory tenancy on the death of the original tenant. The court laid down the principle that arrears of rent predating the statutory tenancy cannot form the basis of an eviction order under special rent legislation, as statutory tenants are only liable for obligations arising from their own tenure.
Questions settled- Are legal heirs of a deceased tenant liable to eviction for default in rent accrued prior to the death of the original tenant?
- Does the statutory tenancy of legal heirs commence from the date of the original tenant's death?
- Can arrears of rent predating the statutory tenancy be recovered through rent eviction proceedings under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- When does rent for a month become due in the absence of a written tenancy agreement?
- SAEEDA KHANUM and 5 others vs STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE1985 MLD 555 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-05Read full judgment →
- SAEED AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2985 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-28Read full judgment →