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.
- SAEED AHMAD vs DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, RAWALPINDI REGION1985 PLC (C.S.) 618 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1977-06-12Read full judgment →
- SAEED AHMAD KHAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2489 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-25Read full judgment →
- SAEED AHMAD KHAN and others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) and others1985 CLC 2504 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-05Read full judgment →
- SAEED AHMAD BUTT vs WAPDA1985 PLC (C.S.) 75 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-08-12Read full judgment →
- SAEED AHMAD Alias SAEED AKBAR vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1455 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his wife, sentenced to life imprisonment. The core legal questions were whether a First Information Report (FIR) constitutes substantive evidence capable of forming the basis of a conviction, and whether circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to sustain such a conviction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in treating the FIR as substantive evidence, reaffirming the established rule that an FIR is not substantive evidence but may only be used to contradict or corroborate its maker. However, the Court upheld the conviction based on the cumulative weight of circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the deceased’s body from the appellant's house, the recovery of blood-stained clothing from the appellant, and the recovery of the weapon of offense. The Court established that circumstantial evidence, when consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and incompatible with innocence, is legally sufficient to support a conviction, provided it excludes every other reasonable hypothesis except that of the accused's guilt.
Questions settled- Can a First Information Report be treated as substantive evidence to base a conviction?
- Under what circumstances can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence?
- How can a First Information Report be utilized during a criminal trial if it is not substantive evidence?
- SAEED AHMAD @ SAEED AKBAR vs THE STATE1985 MLD 745 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-08Read full judgment →
- SAEE MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2993 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
- SADIQ SHAH vs QURBAN SHAH And Other1985 SCMR 979 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the order of the Lahore High Court granting bail to respondents Nos. 1 to 9, who were implicated in a case registered under Sections 148, 149, 302, and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 following an incident arising from a long-standing land dispute resulting in injuries and the subsequent death of an injured party. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in granting post-arrest bail to the respondents. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court exercised its discretion properly, noting that the intention of the respondents was not to commit murder and their conduct warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that no grounds existed for the cancellation of bail and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that where the common object and intention of accused persons require further inquiry and do not prima facie reflect an intent to murder, the grant of bail by the High Court will not be interfered with.
Questions settled- Whether bail granted to accused persons by the High Court can be cancelled when their common intention requires further inquiry?
- Does causing blunt weapon injuries in a land dispute warrant the cancellation of post-arrest bail under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Was the discretion exercised by the High Court in granting bail proper in the absence of an intention to commit murder?
- SADAR DIN vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others1985 MLD 1537 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
- SABZ ALI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 437 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-10-29Read full judgment →
- SABIR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2723 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-25Read full judgment →
- SABIR HUSSAIN vs The STATE1985 P Cr. L J 18 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-07Read full judgment →
- SABAR HUSSAIN vs CHAUDHRY TEXTILE MILLS1985 PLC 528 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
- SABAN vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD1985 P Cr. L J 1721 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-11Read full judgment →
- SA DR U DDIN vs THE MEMBER (LAND UTILIZATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, SIND, HYDERABAD and 2 others1985 CLC 962 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-05Read full judgment →
- S.S. QURESHI And 15 Others vs THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS1985 SCMR 1953 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court challenges the judgment of the Service Tribunal regarding the seniority, induction, and promotion of Section Officers in the Foreign Affairs Group. The core legal questions involve the competency and time-bar of service appeals against induction notifications, the maintainability of successive departmental representations, the validity of permanent induction into the Foreign Affairs Group without fulfilling pre-conditions, and whether a rule of eligibility for promotion creates an enforceable right to be promoted from the date of eligibility. The Supreme Court held that the respondents' appeals before the Tribunal were barred by time and incompetent because the induction notifications issued in 1977 were not challenged within the prescribed limitation period, successive representations are not recognized by law, and the promotion orders could not serve to revive time-barred grievances regarding induction. Furthermore, a provisional seniority list not circulated for objections cannot furnish a cause of action, and eligibility alone does not confer a right to promotion. The appeals were accordingly accepted and the Tribunal's order was set aside.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal against an induction order is time-barred if the initial departmental representation was not made within thirty days of the notification?
- Does a second or subsequent departmental representation extend the period of limitation when the service rules do not provide for such a second representation?
- Can a promotion order of another authority be treated as a final departmental order for the purpose of challenging a distinct induction notification under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- Does eligibility for promotion automatically confer a legal right to be promoted from the exact date eligibility was attained?
- Can an uncirculated provisional seniority list furnish a valid cause of action for a civil servant to challenge seniority before the Service Tribunal?
- S.QABAD SHAH vs COMMANDANT, SIND CONSTABULARY and 3 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 413 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1984-07-23Read full judgment →
- S.MOINUL HASSAN vs A.H.JUNAID1985 CLC 882 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. The respondent, a retired employee of Pakistan Burmah Shell Limited, sought possession of his house for personal use. The appellant/tenant contested the application, raising inconsistent pleas regarding the respondent's ownership due to intra-family oral gifts and K.D.A. record discrepancies, and argued that the respondent's voluntary retirement constituted a resignation rather than a retirement under Section 14. The High Court held that a tenant is bound by the initial tenancy agreement and cannot challenge the landlord's title on the basis of minor record discrepancies. It further ruled that the term 'landlord' in Section 14 refers to the actual owner of the premises, and that voluntary retirement qualifies as retirement under the section. Finding that the respondent was living in rented premises and genuinely required the house, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the ejectment order.
Questions settled- Can a tenant challenge the title of the landlord who inducted him into the premises based on discrepancies in administrative property records?
- Does the term 'landlord' as used in Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 apply strictly to the owner of the premises rather than a mere rent collector or agent?
- Does a voluntary retirement from service qualify as retirement for the purposes of seeking ejectment under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Is a landlord precluded from seeking ejectment under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 if he owns another property but is not in actual physical occupation of it?
- S.MAHMOOD ALAM SHAH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 289 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-17Read full judgment →
- S.M.MOHSAN ZAIDI vs SYED GAUHAR ALI1985 SCMR 344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from the dismissal of a revision petition by the Lahore High Court, concerning an attempt by the appellant to resist the execution of an ejectment order against property transferred under settlement laws. The core legal question was whether the appellant, claiming to be a legal heir of the original occupant, was in possession of the disputed premises in his own right, thereby rendering the eviction order against the judgment-debtors non-binding upon him. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the appellant failed to prove he was in possession of the property in his own right at the time of transfer. The Court held that to successfully resist execution under Order XXI, Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an objector must affirmatively establish possession in good faith on their own account or on behalf of someone other than the judgment-debtor. Furthermore, statutory tenancy under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, requires proof of possession at the time of property transfer, which the appellant failed to demonstrate.
Questions settled- What must an objector establish to successfully resist the execution of an eviction order under Order XXI, Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a person claiming to be a legal heir of a deceased tenant automatically entitled to statutory tenancy under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, without proving possession at the time of transfer?
- Can an eviction order be resisted by an occupant who fails to prove they were in possession of the property in their own right at the time of its transfer?
- S.M.A. SHAH vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, LAHORE REGION and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 126 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-11-27Read full judgment →
- S.M.A. RIZVI vs SECRETARY-GENERAL, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, RAWALPINDI and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 279 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
- S.M. YUSUF And Another vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (SIND) And Other1985 SCMR 2045 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a dispute regarding the transfer of an urban plot in Karachi, initially subjected to conflicting claims by the petitioners as allottees with alleged permanent construction and by a third-party auction purchaser. Following protracted litigation culminating in a previous Supreme Court judgment, the Settlement Commissioner transferred the plot to the petitioners. Successors-in-interest of the auction purchaser successfully challenged this transfer in the High Court, which quashed the Settlement Commissioner's order on the ground that permanent construction was not established. The petitioners sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, contending that the respondents lacked locus standi because their lack of entitlement to the transfer had been conclusively foreclosed by prior judicial decisions up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the respondents had the requisite locus standi to challenge the Settlement Commissioner's order in light of the finality of earlier adjudications concerning the property's transfer.
Questions settled- Whether a party whose lack of entitlement to the transfer of a disputed property has been foreclosed by prior judicial decisions possesses the locus standi to challenge a subsequent transfer order?
- Can the High Court set aside an order of the Settlement Commissioner passed pursuant to remand directions without considering the conclusive findings of superior courts?
- Whether the absence of permanent construction on a disputed plot deprives an allottee of transfer rights when prior appellate judgments have left the matter for reconsideration?
- S.M. YOUNAS SHAMI vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT, LAHORE1985 PLC (C.S.) 225 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-02-01Read full judgment →
- S.M. WAJAHAT ALI SHAH vs HABIB AHMAD1985 CLC 2302 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-08Read full judgment →
- S.M. TUFAIL AHMAD vs KAFILUDDIN AHMAD AND 2 Other1985 SCMR 1976 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former Assistant Administrative Officer, challenged the refusal of his request for a three-year extension in service beyond his superannuation date. He initially filed a civil suit seeking a declaration regarding his entitlement to the extension. The trial court dismissed the suit, citing the abatement of the proceedings under the Service Tribunal Ordinance, 1973. The petitioner subsequently filed a review application, which was dismissed on grounds of being time-barred and lacking merit. A revision application to the High Court was also dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision. Upon seeking leave to appeal, the Supreme Court examined the procedural history. The Supreme Court held that the review application was clearly time-barred, having been filed eight months after the initial order, and the trial court correctly dismissed it on that basis. Consequently, the High Court's dismissal of the revision application was upheld. The Court affirmed the principle that a review application filed well beyond the statutory limitation period is not maintainable, and a revision against such a dismissal is liable to be rejected on that ground alone.
Questions settled- Is a review application maintainable if filed after the expiration of the statutory limitation period?
- Does the promulgation of the Service Tribunal Ordinance 1973 cause the abatement of pending civil suits regarding service matters?
- Can a revision application be dismissed solely on the ground that the underlying review application was time-barred?
- S.M. NAQI vs UNIMPEX1985 MLD 513 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-06Read full judgment →
- S.M. NAQI vs Messrs PAKISTAN INSPECTION CORPORATION and 2 others1985 MLD 407 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-24Read full judgment →
- S.M. BIN SULTAN vs MUHAMMAD ANIS through his attorney Syed Hassan1985 MLD 409 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-07Read full judgment →
- S.A. SAGHIR vs Messrs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd., KARACHI1985 PLC 356 · Labour Court · -Read full judgment →
- S. WARIS MUJTABA vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL1985 MLD 973 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- S. SHAFIQ AHMAD vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF S1ND, EDUCATION1985 PLC (C.S.) 1104 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1985-07-02Read full judgment →
- S. MUNA WAR ALI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 696 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1984-07-25Read full judgment →
- S. MUHAMMAD NOEEM HASHMI vs MUHAMMAD RRFI1985 CLC 2133 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-12Read full judgment →
- S. MUHAMMAD ALAM vs Mst. AQEELA BEGUM1985 CLC 2791 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-04Read full judgment →
- S. MUHAMMAD AHSAN vs Mst. RAZIA and another1985 MLD 983 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-20Read full judgment →
- S. MUHA MMAD QASIM RIZVI vs COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR DIVISION AND 21985 PLC (C.S.) 785 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-06-17Read full judgment →
- SAJJAD HAIDER and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 3 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-12Read full judgment →
- S. MAHMOOD HYDER vs MESSRS ALLIANCE ENTERPRISES1985 PLD Karachi 691 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-05Read full judgment →
- S. M. SHOAIB vs CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, SIND AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC 921 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1985-05-14Read full judgment →
- S. M. GHALIB HYDER vs THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND,KARACHI AND 4 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 754 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1985-03-24Read full judgment →
- S. M. ANIS vs AMIR WAHIDIWALA1985 CLC 1438 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-19Read full judgment →
- S. M. ALI SHAH vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT1985 PLC (C.S.) 1007 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-06-15Read full judgment →
- S. GHOUS MOHIUDDIN vs MEHBOOB ALI KHAN1985 CLC 2098 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-26Read full judgment →
- S. BADAR AMIR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2212 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
- S. AKHTAR ALI vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION and others1985 PLC (C.S.) 480 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-02-12Read full judgment →
- S. AHSAN AHMED RIZVI vs KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.1985 PLC 1021 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-03-25Read full judgment →
- S. A. KAMAL vs PAKISTAN PETROLIUM LTD., KARACHI1985 PLC 957 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-05-29Read full judgment →
- S. A. ANSARI vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDAND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C.S.) 694 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1985-03-26Read full judgment →
- S. A. ABBASI vs CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COUNCIL GULSHANEIQBAL, KARACHI1985 PLD Karachi 400 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff filed a suit against the Chairman, District Council, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi, seeking a declaration that the disconnection of water supply to his poultry farm was illegal and mala fide, alongside a permanent mandatory injunction for its restoration. Concurrently, the plaintiff moved an interim application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking interim mandatory restoration of the water supply. The core legal question concerned whether a court can grant an interim mandatory injunction to restore a disrupted utility supply pending the disposal of the main suit. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiff established a prima facie case, a balance of convenience in his favour, and potential irreparable loss, thereby warranting the grant of an interim mandatory injunction. The court laid down the principle that while interim mandatory injunctions are granted rarely and only in special circumstances, courts possess the inherent and procedural power under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 to issue such orders to prevent grave injury and insufferable inconvenience, provided the standard conditions for temporary injunctions are met.
Questions settled- Can a court grant an interim mandatory injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to restore a disrupted utility supply?
- What are the essential conditions required for the grant of a temporary injunction in civil proceedings?
- Does the issuance of an interim injunction to a public department improperly interfere with its working under Section 56 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
- S H A MS H A D A LI vs DISTRICT-JUDGE and 2 others1985 CLC 1202 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-29Read full judgment →
- S A FIA BEG UM vs KHADIM HUSSAIN1985 CLC 1869 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-24Read full judgment →
- RUSTOM F. COWASJEE AND 2 ormas vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND 21985 PTD 529 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Full Bench reference before the Sindh High Court was convened to resolve the proper construction of section 45-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, specifically whether it could be applied to non-payment of tax that became due and payable under assessment orders and demand notices issued prior to its enactment on July 1, 1963. The core legal question centered on whether section 45-A operates prospectively or retrospectively regarding past tax arrears, and how to interpret the statutory phrase 'from the date on or before which it was originally made payable'. The court held by majority that the provisions of section 45-A apply prospectively from July 1, 1963, restricting the imposition of additional tax to the period on or after that date for pre-existing arrears, or applying it to demands created after the provision was enacted. The key legal principles established are that fiscal statutes and penalty provisions must be construed strictly against the state, retrospective operation requires clear and unambiguous language or necessary implication, and in the absence of express retroactive intent, ambiguous taxing provisions must be interpreted in favour of the taxpayer.
Questions settled- Whether section 45-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 applies retrospectively to tax demands created prior to July 1, 1963?
- Can additional tax for delayed payment under section 45-A be levied in respect of assessment orders passed before the enactment of the section?
- How should ambiguous fiscal provisions imposing pecuniary burdens or penalties be construed?
- Does the phrase 'from the date on or before which it was originally made payable' in section 45-A manifest an intention for retrospective operation?
- RUSTAM BIBI vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, CHAKWAL1985 PLC 94 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-28Read full judgment →
- RUQIYA BEGUM vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others1985 MLD 942 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-02Read full judgment →
- ROSS' UMRIGAR vs Mrs. JACINTHA D'Sa and others1985 CLC 2979 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-15Read full judgment →
- ROSHAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2312 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-04Read full judgment →
- ROSHAN ALI vs THE STATE1985 MLD 817 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-16Read full judgment →
- ROSHAN ALI vs NOOR KHAN AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 228 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a regular second appeal in a pre-emption matter concerning agricultural land allotted to a refugee and subsequently sold. The core legal question was whether a remand order, which had become final under section 105(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and was based on an earlier view of the law, precluded the application of a subsequent enunciation of law by the Supreme Court delivered during the pendency of the proceedings pursuant to Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court held that the constitutional mandate making its decisions binding on all courts overrides the finality of a remand order under the Code of Civil Procedure, provided the proceedings are still pending and the matter is not a past and closed transaction. Consequently, the subsequent enunciation of law regarding the permanent nature of allotments and pre-emptibility governed the case. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Does a binding enunciation of law by the Supreme Court under Article 189 of the Constitution override the finality of a remand order under section 105(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in pending proceedings?
- Whether a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court can reopen a past and closed transaction?
- Are agricultural land allotments to Jammu and Kashmir displaced persons pre-emptible under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
- RIZWANULLAH vs DISTRICT MALARIA CONTROL OFFICER, PESHAWAR ZONE, PESHAWAR AND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C.S.) 553 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1984-08-08Read full judgment →
- RIYAZ HUSSAIN vs Mst. JAMILA KHATOON and 2 others1985 P Cr. L J 2087 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-23Read full judgment →
- RIAZUL HAQ vs SETH KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Supreme Court 223 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses two separate matters decided by the Supreme Court. The first matter, concerning an election dispute, examines whether an Election Tribunal or a Returning Officer is mandated to draw lots in the event of an equality of votes under the relevant local government legislation. The core legal question was whether the Returning Officer could draw lots upon remand or if the Election Tribunal itself was required to perform this function. The court held that rule 16(1) of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petition) Rules, 1979 makes it mandatory for the Election Tribunal to itself draw lots in cases of equality of votes, rendering any remand to the Returning Officer for that purpose unlawful. The second matter involves a criminal petition concerning the jurisdiction of a Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, to try a private person under section 162 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core question was whether a non-public servant could be tried by a Special Judge. The court held that offences under section 162 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 are exclusively triable by a Special Judge under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958, notwithstanding that the accused is not a public servant, laying down the principle that private persons committing offences under sections 161 to 166 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Special Judges.
Questions settled- Is it mandatory for an Election Tribunal to itself draw lots in the case of equality of votes under rule 16(1) of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petition) Rules, 1979?
- Can an Election Tribunal remand a case to a Returning Officer to draw lots upon an equality of votes?
- Does a Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, have jurisdiction to try a person who is not a public servant for an offence under section 162 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Are offences under sections 161 to 166 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 exclusively triable by a Special Judge under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958?
- RIAZUDDIN vs Haji MUHAMMAD ASLAM REPRESENTED EVY LEGAL HEIRS AND 21985 PLD Karachi 411 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns seven second appeals challenging a judgment that upheld the striking off of the appellants' defense in rent proceedings for failing to comply with a tentative rent order. The core legal questions were whether the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction because the subject matter was an "open plot" rather than a "building" or "rented land" under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and whether the Rent Controller was required to explicitly find a default "wilful" before striking off the defense. The court held that because the tenants had constructed residential structures on the plot, the premises constituted a "building" or "rented land" subject to the Ordinance. Furthermore, the court ruled that a jurisdictional plea regarding the nature of the property could not be raised for the first time in second appeal after fifteen years of litigation. Finally, the court established that when a Rent Controller rejects a tenant's explanation for failing to deposit rent, it implicitly constitutes a finding of wilful default, satisfying the statutory requirements for striking off a defense.
Questions settled- Can a plea regarding the jurisdiction of a Rent Controller be raised for the first time in a second appeal after prolonged litigation?
- Does the construction of a building on an open plot of land bring the premises within the definition of 'building' or 'rented land' under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Is a Rent Controller required to explicitly state that a default in depositing rent was 'wilful' before striking off a tenant's defense?
- Does the rejection of a tenant's explanation for failing to comply with a tentative rent order constitute an implied finding of wilful default?
- RIAZUDDIN JAUHAR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1849 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-26Read full judgment →
- RIAZAT ALI alias GOGI SAIN vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 625 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-03Read full judgment →
- RIAZ vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2886 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-05Read full judgment →
- RIAZ MUHAMMAD BAJWA AND ANOTHERs vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 590 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-16Read full judgment →
- RIAZ HUSSAIN vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION and others1985 MLD 360(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-04Read full judgment →
- RIAZ HUSSAIN QURESHI And Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (L), MULTAN And Other1985 SCMR 440 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a dispute over the allotment and subsequent auction of an urban plot in Multan, involving competing claims between original allottees and auction purchasers. The primary issue was whether the High Court erred in setting aside the auction and the Settlement Commissioner’s orders without remanding the case for a proper determination of the land's nature (agricultural versus building site) based on the relevant revenue records. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Court held that the High Court should not have decided the nature of the land itself but should have remanded the matter to the notified Settlement authorities to determine the land's classification using the special Jamabandi records. The judgment affirms that when a lower authority fails to base its findings on the correct statutory records, such as the special Jamabandi for land classification, the appropriate judicial remedy is to remand the case for a fresh decision based on the proper evidence rather than adjudicating the factual classification at the appellate level.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is empowered to determine the nature of land classification without remanding the matter to the Settlement authorities?
- Does the Settlement Commissioner have the jurisdiction to declare land as a building site under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
- Is the determination of land nature based on special Jamabandi a prerequisite for valid allotment under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme?
- RIAZ HUSSAIN KHURRAM vs MUHAMMAD SAFDAR KHAN and another1985 PLC 101 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →
- RIAZ and another vs THE STATE1985 MLD 752(1) · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-27Read full judgment →
- RIAZ and 3 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 517 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AKHTAR vs SECRETARY, POPULATION PLANNING DIVISION, ISLAMABAD1985 PLC (C.S.) 276 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-04-13Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AHMAD vs UM E SALMA1985 SCMR 1740 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendant vendee against the dismissal of his Regular Second Appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had affirmed the lower courts' decrees in favor of the respondent pre-emptor. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the appellant's claim of being a tenant of the disputed land—and thereby possessing a superior right of pre-emption—was duly established in accordance with law, particularly regarding entries in the revenue records. The Supreme Court held that the revenue entries (Khasra Girdawari) explicitly recorded the appellant's possession in the capacity of a vendee rather than a tenant, and such entries could not be selectively accepted while rejecting the character of possession shown therein. Furthermore, revenue records are presumed to relate to the state of things prevailing on the date they are prepared and cannot be ante-dated. The key principle laid down is that the nature of possession recorded in revenue documents as that of a vendee cannot be altered to that of a tenant to claim a superior right of pre-emption.
Questions settled- Whether an entry in the Khasra Girdawari showing possession as a vendee can be construed as possession in the capacity of a tenant for claiming pre-emption?
- Can a part of a revenue record entry be accepted while rejecting the remaining part that indicates the nature of possession?
- Do revenue records raise a presumption of ante-dating possession prior to the date on which they are prepared?
- RIAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1533 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AHMAD vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1985 PLC 117 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-19Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AHMAD vs Maj.-Gen. (Retd.) M. ANWAR KHAN and others1985 CLC 799 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-26Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AHMAD and others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 864(2) · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-30Read full judgment →
- RIASAT ALI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2770 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-08Read full judgment →
- RIASAT ALI VIRK vs DIRECTOR, EXCISE AND TAXATION, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 254 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-06-12Read full judgment →
- RIASAT ALI and others vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN1985 MLD 971 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-16Read full judgment →
- REHMATULLAH And Others vs YUSAF And Other1985 SCMR 1274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court regarding the transfer of disputed property. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners had the locus standi to question a property transfer made in favour of the respondents in 1960, given that the departmental authorities and the High Court found no proof that the petitioners had ever filed the requisite transfer forms, and further noted their delay of over a decade in approaching the authorities. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the non-filing of forms and the conduct of the petitioners precluded any interference. The Court concluded that the petitioners lacked locus standi to challenge the transfer. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a party lacking proof of filing requisite transfer forms possess the locus standi to challenge the transfer of property?
- Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to interfere with concurrent departmental findings regarding the non-filing of settlement forms after a prolonged delay?
- REHMAT ULLAH vs AMIR and others1985 MLD 203 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-14Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ULLAH AND ANOTHERs vs Mst. BEBO alias BIBI alias MAHLANPLD 1985 Rev. 43 [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1984-08-01Read full judgment →
- REHMAT MASIH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1262 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-25Read full judgment →
- REHMAT KHAN vs ABDUL GHAFOOR and 2 others1985 P Cr. L J 875 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-30Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ELAHI and others vs MUHAMMAD ALI and others1985 MLD 452 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-22Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ALI vs THE STATE1985 MLD 25 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-03Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ALI and others vs MUHAMMAD YUSUF1985 CLC 72 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenged a remand order passed by the District Judge, which had set aside a trial court's judgment. The original suit concerned a property dispute resolved by the trial court after the defendant took a special oath on the Holy Quran, as offered by the plaintiff. The core legal question was whether a decree passed pursuant to a special oath constitutes a consent decree under Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, thereby precluding an appeal. The High Court held that once parties agree to resolve a suit via a special oath and the oath is duly taken, the agreement matures into an adjustment of the suit. Consequently, the resulting decree is a consent decree, which is not appealable under Section 96(3), Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court further affirmed that advocates possess inherent authority to compromise or accept special oaths unless expressly restricted by their clients. Accordingly, the District Judge lacked jurisdiction to remand the matter, and the remand order was set aside.
Questions settled- Is a decree passed based on a special oath considered a consent decree?
- Is a consent decree appealable under Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does an advocate have the inherent authority to accept a special oath on behalf of a client without express written authorization?
- Does a District Judge have the jurisdiction to remand a case where the underlying decree was a consent decree?
- REHMAT ALI and others vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others1985 P Cr. L J 2887 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-19Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ALI and another vs Sh. MUHAMMAD ALI and 3 others1985 MLD 108 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-04Read full judgment →
- REHMAN CORPORATION, HYDERABAD vs THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, MIRPURKHAS AND ANOTHER1985 PTD 787 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, challenged a demand notice issued by the Income-tax Officer under section 92 read with section 50(7-A) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, requiring a deduction of tax from the petitioner who held an Export Tax Contract awarded by a District Council. The core legal question was whether the auction of the right to collect export tax constituted a 'sale' of 'property' under subsection (7-A) of section 50 of the Ordinance, and whether the subsequent Explanation added by the Finance Act, 1984—explicitly including leases and rights to collect octroi duties within the definition of sales—applied retrospectively. The Sindh High Court held that the right to collect export tax is property and that the Explanation added to section 50(7-A) is declaratory in nature, designed to clarify the law and remove doubts, and therefore operates retrospectively to cover pending matters. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that the revenue's demand for advance tax collection via the lease of collection rights was valid and unexceptionable.
Questions settled- Whether the right to collect export tax or octroi constitutes 'property' under the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979?
- Does the Explanation added to section 50(7-A) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979 by the Finance Act, 1984 operate retrospectively?
- Can an Income-tax Officer issue a notice under section 92 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979 for the recovery of advance tax on the awarding of a lease for collecting export taxes?
- What is the distinction between a declaratory statute and a penal or charging statute regarding retrospective application?
- REHMAN ALI vs MECHANISED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN LTD.1985 PLC 685 · Authority under Payment of Wages Act · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
- REHANA KHATOON vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1402 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
- REHAMT ALI vs JAVED UR REHMAN And Other1985 SCMR 698 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of writ petitions regarding an ex parte ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller. The respondent-landlords filed for the petitioner's ejectment from a shop on grounds of lease violation and property reconstruction. Following the petitioner's failure to appear, the Rent Controller passed an ex parte order. The petitioner's subsequent application to set aside the ex parte order was dismissed by the Rent Controller, a decision upheld by the District Judge on appeal and subsequently by the High Court in writ jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had demonstrated sufficient cause for his non-appearance to justify setting aside the ex parte order. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had correctly evaluated the evidence and concluded that the petitioner failed to establish sufficient cause. The Court found that the petitioner's actions were a deliberate attempt to prolong proceedings to maintain unauthorized occupation of the premises. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' findings on the lack of sufficient cause.
Questions settled- Whether an application to set aside an ex parte order in rent proceedings requires the demonstration of sufficient cause for non-appearance?
- Can a party prolong legal proceedings to maintain occupation of demised premises through repeated appeals and applications?
- REHAM DIN vs THE STATE1985 PLD Quetta 272 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-09-06Read full judgment →
- REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MIRPUR vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD SC (A I & K) 56 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1981-11-29Read full judgment →
- REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS LAHORE REGION, LAHORE vs MUSLIM1985 PLC 1045 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-05-23Read full judgment →
- SAJJAD HUSSAIN and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2949 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-11Read full judgment →
- RAZIA BIBI vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1362 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-23Read full judgment →