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.
- RAZA MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1980 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-25Read full judgment →
- RAZA MUHAMMAD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other1985 SCMR 1267 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal arising from a property dispute over a composite property in Vehari. The property was originally transferred to respondent No. 4, Mst. Waheedan, in 1959. Following a dispute with the petitioner, Raza Muhammad, who occupied a portion of the shop, the parties entered into a compromise on November 25, 1967. Under this agreement, specific portions of the shop and the Chaubara were allocated to the petitioner, while the remaining portions were allocated to Mst. Waheedan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having accepted the terms of the 1967 compromise, retained the legal standing to subsequently claim the property portion allocated to Mst. Waheedan. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was bound by the terms of the compromise, which had remained unchallenged. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner lacked the locus standi to assert claims over the property portion transferred to Mst. Waheedan. The key principle laid down is that a party is strictly bound by the terms of a valid compromise agreement and cannot subsequently agitate claims contrary to that settlement.
Questions settled- Is a party bound by the terms of a compromise agreement regarding property transfer?
- Does a party have locus standi to claim property that was previously allocated to another party via a binding compromise?
- RAZA KHAN vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1032 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his conviction and sentence of death under Section 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the abduction of a minor girl. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner forcibly abducted the victim, a minor, and was apprehended by the victim's father and others while carrying her. The petitioner denied the allegations, claiming fabrication by the police and the complainant. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court concern whether the prosecution sufficiently established the victim's age as under ten years, which is a statutory prerequisite for the application of Section 364-A, and whether the prosecution proved the requisite criminal intent specified in the statute. The Supreme Court, noting the petitioner's contentions regarding the lack of evidence on age and intent, as well as the alleged withholding of exculpatory evidence by the prosecution, granted leave to appeal to re-examine the evidence and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed.
Questions settled- Is the age of the victim being under ten years a condition precedent for a conviction under Section 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Must the prosecution prove a specific criminal intent from the list provided in Section 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to secure a conviction?
- RASOOLA and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2929 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-13Read full judgment →
- RASIB And Another vs The STATE1985 SCMR 484 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the conviction and death sentence of appellant Rasib and imprisonment for life of appellant Gulzar under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mohammad Feroz. The core legal question was whether discrepancies between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence regarding the time of death, based on the state of digestion of food in the stomach and small intestines, were sufficient to discard direct eyewitness accounts. The Supreme Court held that medical opinion based on digestion is an unreliable and flexible guide that cannot override trustworthy and natural ocular testimony coming from an unimpeachable source, particularly when the medical data is scanty. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the convictions and sentences.
Questions settled- Whether medical evidence regarding the state of food digestion in the stomach can override direct and reliable ocular testimony?
- Does an opinion on the time of death based on digestion data possess sufficient certainty to discard an eyewitness account?
- Whether multiple knife blows inflicted on a sleeping victim constitute an extenuating circumstance warranting a lesser sentence than death?
- RASHID MAHMUD ROHALLA vs PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION, KARACHI1985 PLC 998 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-02-06Read full judgment →
- RASHID AHMED vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1525 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-28Read full judgment →
- RASHID AHMAD vs THE STATE-1985 MLD 1402 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-17Read full judgment →
- RASHID AHMAD vs Sufi ABDUL LATIF and another1985 MLD 1226 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
- RASHID AHMAD and another vs KHURSHID AHMAD KHAWAR and another1985 CLC 274 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-01Read full judgment →
- RASHAD KHAN vs BASHARAT AHMAD and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 861 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-13Read full judgment →
- RASAB KHAN AND ANOTHERs vs ABDUL GHANI AND 4 OTHERS1985 PLD SC (A J & K) 69 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-01-27Read full judgment →
- Rao KHALIL UL REHMAN vs ALLAH BAKHSH And Other1985 SCMR 1266 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding a land allotment dispute. The petitioner challenged an allotment of 86 Kanals of land originally made to one Abdul Ghani on 17-1-1961. The petitioner's initial claims, based on mortgagee units and inheritance from Mst. Rashidan, were rejected by the authorities on the grounds that the petitioner had already received allotments exceeding his entitlement and lacked locus standi. The High Court, in the impugned order, upheld the rejection, finding that allotments against mortgagee units were not permissible under the relevant scheme and that the petitioner had already received his full share of inheritance. Furthermore, the Court noted that the inheritance had not devolved prior to the date of the original allotment. The Supreme Court found no legal defect in the High Court's reasoning, affirming that the petitioner's claim was barred by the provisions of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, maintaining the validity of the original allotment in favour of the respondents.
Questions settled- Can an allotment of land be claimed against mortgagee units under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme?
- Does a person have locus standi to challenge a land allotment if they have already received allotments in excess of their entitlement?
- Is an inheritance claim valid for land allotment purposes if the devolution occurred after the date of the original allotment?
- RANOMALL vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1126 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-09Read full judgment →
- Rana SHAMSUL HAQUE vs WAPDA through its General-Manager (T & G)1985 PLC (C.S.) 1043 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
- Rana SHAMSUL HAQUE vs WAPDA and others1985 PLC (C.S.) 1068 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-01Read full judgment →
- RANA MUHAMMAD YASIN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Through Secretary, Establishment Division, Rawalpindi1985 SCMR 1761 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by a civil servant under Article 212(3) of the Constitution examined whether his compulsory retirement under section 13(ii) of the Civil Servants Act was based on a completed qualifying service of 25 years. The core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to count his prior military war service towards qualifying service for pension under rule 357-AA of the Civil Services Regulations, which depended on whether his subsequent appointment as a temporary Superintendent of Police in the Punjab Additional Police was to a pensionable post. The Supreme Court held that the post held by the appellant was indeed a pensionable post under the relevant provincial rules and notifications, notwithstanding its temporary nature or short duration, thereby entitling him to count his war service and successfully complete the threshold 25 years of qualifying service. Consequently, the retirement order was competently passed, and the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether military war service can be counted towards qualifying service for pension under rule 357-AA of the Civil Services Regulations?
- Does service rendered on a temporary post in a temporary department constitute service in a pensionable post for the purpose of pensionary benefits?
- Can a civil servant challenge the validity of a compulsory retirement order on grounds outside the scope of leave granted by the court?
- Rana MUHAMMAD ASHGAR vs ELECTION AUTHORITY1985 CLC 2816 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
- Rana MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE and 4 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 298 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-05-01Read full judgment →
- Rana IQBAL AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD DIN AND OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 69 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-16Read full judgment →
- Rana GHULAM HUSSAIN vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUJRANWALA and 21985 PLC (C.S.) 509 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-11-07Read full judgment →
- Rana AMANAT ALI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1985 PLC (C.S.) 454 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-09-27Read full judgment →
- RAMZAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1586 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-05Read full judgment →
- RAJAN SHAH vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL/D.C. and others1985 MLD 1284 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-15Read full judgment →
- Raja WAHEEDUZAMAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1238 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-15Read full judgment →
- Raja MUHAMMAD RIAZ and 3 others vs Sufi GUL TAJ and 7 others1985 CLC 1657 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-04Read full judgment →
- Raja MUHAMMAD HAYAT and others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others1985 MLD 924 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-19Read full judgment →
- Raja MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN1985 PLC (C.S.) 623 · Balochistan Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Raja MUHAMMAD AKBAR DECEASED. Represented By Maj. Lal Khan And Others vs IFTIKHAR JILLANI DECEASED, Represented By Ijaz Jillani And Other1985 SCMR 944 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the alienation of agricultural land. The core legal question is whether the Federal Shariat Court's declaration in Muhammad Ishaq v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1981 FSC 278)—which held that customary law allowing collaterals to challenge alienations by a male full owner is repugnant to Islamic injunctions—extends to the alienation of tenancy rights held under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. The High Court had distinguished the present case, ruling that the Federal Shariat Court's decision was limited to full ownership rights and did not apply to tenancy rights. The petitioners contended that the underlying principle of the precedent, which invalidated customary restrictions on alienation as contrary to Islamic law, should apply broadly to all such customary restraints. The Supreme Court found that the question raised is of general public importance and involves a significant point of law regarding the scope of the Federal Shariat Court's ruling. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the customary restrictions on the alienation of tenancy rights remain valid.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Shariat Court's declaration regarding the repugnancy of customary law to Islamic injunctions extend to the alienation of tenancy rights under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912?
- Can collaterals challenge the alienation of tenancy rights based on agricultural custom after the promulgation of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance XIII of 1983?
- Raja KHUSHBAKHTUR REHMAN And Another vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1314 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order dismissing a quashment petition regarding criminal proceedings. The core legal question concerned the powers and duties of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Session, specifically whether cognizance is taken of the offender or the offence, and whether a Magistrate can selectively send only certain accused to the Sessions Court. The Supreme Court held that under Section 190(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence as a whole, not of specific offenders. Consequently, once cognizance is taken of an offence triable by the Court of Session, the Magistrate must send the entire case to that Court, regardless of whether the police placed specific accused in column 2 or 3 of the challan. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the trial court retains the power to summon accused placed in column 2, and the withdrawal of a private complaint is permissible without violating the principles established in Nur Elahi v. The State. The key principle established is that cognizance is of the offence, granting the trial court jurisdiction over all involved persons.
Questions settled- Does a Magistrate take cognizance of an offender or an offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a Magistrate required to send the entire case to the Court of Session once cognizance is taken of an offence exclusively triable by that court?
- Can a trial court summon an accused person who was placed in column 2 of the police challan?
- Does the withdrawal of a private complaint in a murder case necessarily invalidate ongoing proceedings in a challan case?
- Raja KHUSH BAKHT-UR-REHMAN and another vs THE STATE1985 MLD 723 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-16Read full judgment →
- Raja AZHAR MAHMOOD vs THE STATE1985 PLD Karachi 709 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-12Read full judgment →
- Raja AURANGZEB And Others vs THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER, LAHORE1985 SCMR 876 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld orders from the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge striking off the petitioners' defence in ejectment proceedings. The Rent Controller had ordered the tenants to deposit arrears and future rent; upon their failure to comply fully, their defence was struck off. The petitioners argued that the shortfall was minimal, resulted from inadvertence, and should have been adjusted against a security deposit held by the landlord. The Supreme Court found that the petitioners failed to provide any valid legal ground for the short deposit before the lower courts and did not claim that the order was misunderstood or that compliance was impossible. Consequently, the Court held that the lower courts acted with competence and jurisdiction in striking off the defence due to the proved default. The petition was dismissed, though the Court granted the petitioners four months to vacate the premises, conditional upon the payment of all outstanding and future rent.
Questions settled- Can a tenant's defence be struck off for a short deposit of rent in ejectment proceedings?
- Is a security deposit held by a landlord automatically adjustable against a court-ordered rent deposit?
- Does a failure to provide a valid explanation for a rent deposit shortfall justify striking off a defence in rent proceedings?
- RAJA and 10 others vs Mst. FEROZAN and 10 others1985 CLC 787 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
- RAJ MUHAMMAD vs Ch. ABDUL MAJID and 5 others1985 CLC 213 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-09-26Read full judgment →
- RAIS TAYYAB and 2 others vs RAZA MUHAMMAD and another1985 CLC 2600 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, defendants in a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction, sought to have the suit land and crops placed in official custody (Mianji Khana) to secure alleged Haq-e-Malikana. The trial court and the Majlis-e-Shoora rejected the application, finding that the plaintiffs were in possession and had cultivated the crops, and that placing the property in custody would be unjust and inconvenient. The petitioners challenged this in revision, arguing the application was effectively under Order XL, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the appointment of a receiver is a harsh remedy to be exercised only in extreme cases to prevent waste or irreparable mischief. The Court emphasized that the appointment of a receiver is discretionary, intended to preserve the subject matter of litigation, and should not be used to deprive a party in possession of the fruits of their labor without substantial grounds. As the petitioners failed to demonstrate a risk of waste or irreparable loss, the trial court's refusal to appoint a receiver was upheld.
Questions settled- Is the appointment of a receiver considered a harsh remedy that requires extreme caution?
- Does the failure to cite a specific provision of law automatically invalidate an application for the appointment of a receiver?
- What is the primary criterion for a court to exercise its discretion in appointing a receiver under Order XL, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- RAIS KHAN And Another vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction and sentencing of two appellants under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for rape. The prosecution alleged that the appellants forcibly abducted the prosecutrix to their residence and committed rape under threat. The trial Magistrate convicted both accused, and the High Court reduced one sentence due to young age while maintaining the other. The core legal question was whether the uncorroborated testimony of a prosecutrix, marked by material contradictions and unsupported by independent evidence or significant resistance marks, could sustain a conviction. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution evidence was inconclusive and unsafe to support a conviction without independent corroboration. It noted material contradictions between the prosecutrix's statement and the FIR, unexplained delay in reporting, lack of expected injuries or marks of resistance, and failure of related witnesses to intervene or support her narrative. The appeal was allowed, and both appellants were acquitted.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for rape be safely based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix when there are material contradictions in her statements?
- Does the absence of marks of resistance or personal injuries on a prosecutrix create reasonable doubt regarding non-consensual sexual intercourse?
- What is the evidentiary effect of unexplained delay in lodging an FIR in a rape prosecution?
- Rai SHAHAMAD ALI vs S.H.O. and 7 others1985 MLD 755 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-02Read full judgment →
- RAHIMULLAH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 463 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-10-20Read full judgment →
- RAHIMUDDIN vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 3 others1985 CLC 2306 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-10Read full judgment →
- RAHIM DAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2060 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-26Read full judgment →
- RAHIM BAKHSH THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS AND OTHERS vs Mst. PATHANI THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 324 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a Regular Second Appeal arising out of a land suit regarding occupancy tenancy. The primary question on merits concerned whether the respondent side had abandoned their occupancy tenancy before 1952, while a preliminary objection regarding limitation was also raised. The Supreme Court observed that the appeal lacked force on merits in light of established precedents, and further held that the petition for leave to appeal was barred by limitation. The Court examined whether the time between the preparation and delivery of copies could be excluded as a matter of right under section 12 of the Limitation Act or considered under section 5 for condonation of delay. Holding that the appellant failed to satisfactorily explain each day of delay after the expiry of the limitation period, the Court dismissed the appeal as time-barred with costs.
Questions settled- Whether the time between the preparation and delivery of copies can be excluded as a matter of right under section 12 of the Limitation Act or dealt with under section 5 for condonation of delay?
- Can an appeal be dismissed as time-barred when each day after the expiry of the period of limitation is not satisfactorily explained?
- RAHIM BAK HSH and another vs CIVIL JUDGE, LODHRAN and 3 others1985 CLC 387 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the orders of a Civil Judge and an Additional District Judge, which refused the petitioners' request to produce additional evidence in a suit for specific performance. The core legal questions were whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow additional evidence after the petitioners had closed their case, and whether a writ petition is maintainable against an order passed in revisional jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court properly exercised its discretion to refuse evidence when the petitioners failed to produce documents in their possession due to negligence rather than inadvertence. The court affirmed that equity does not assist the indolent, and that discretionary orders of subordinate courts regarding the production of evidence cannot be interfered with unless arbitrary or fanciful. Furthermore, the court ruled that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to circumvent the finality of revisional orders under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as this would defeat the obvious intention of the legislature.
Questions settled- Can a party produce additional evidence after closing their case if the documents were already in their possession?
- Does the refusal of a trial court to allow additional evidence due to a party's negligence constitute a failure to exercise jurisdiction?
- Is a writ petition maintainable against an order passed by an Additional District Judge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- RAHIL JAVEED and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1614 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-26Read full judgment →
- RAHAT JAVED vs ABDUL BASHIR And Other1985 SCMR 473 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the transfer of an evacuee property known as Ishar Dass Building, McLeod Road, Lahore. The core legal question concerns the locus standi of the petitioner, claiming through his late father as a legatee under an alleged will executed by the original evacuee owner, to seek the transfer of the property and contest the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to establish the locus standi of his predecessor-in-interest, noting that the alleged will appeared to be a forged document and that the predecessor had long claimed merely as an attorney before belatedly setting up a will. The ratio decidendi is that a party cannot claim locus standi to seek the transfer of evacuee property based on a belated and unsubstantiated assertion of a will when earlier proceedings and conduct point to forgery and inconsistent claims. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a person claiming as a legatee under an alleged will have locus standi to seek the transfer of evacuee property when the authenticity of the will is seriously doubted?
- Can a belated plea of a will be accepted when the predecessor-in-interest previously litigated the matter solely as an attorney of the evacuee owners?
- RAFIUDDIN vs Mst. NOOR JEHAN1985 MLD 324 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
- RAFIQ MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM1985 MLD 551 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-06Read full judgment →
- RAFIQ alias FIKKA vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2498 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-05Read full judgment →
- RAFAQAT (RAFAQAT ALI) vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2369 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-27Read full judgment →
- RAEES KHAN vs MIR HAMZA AND 3 OTHERS1985 PLD Peshawar 125 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-16Read full judgment →
- R I A Z vs Mst. ZAINAB BIBI and another1985 CLC 1229 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
- QUTAB-UD-DIN vs GULZAR ALI and others1985 MLD 141 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
- QURBAN and 2 others vs JAM FAZAL KARIM through his Legal Heirs1985 CLC 1498 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
- QURBAN ALI vs THE STATE And Another1985 SCMR 1667 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sindh High Court, which had set aside a trial court's order joining a respondent, Mst. Mehrun-Nisa, as a co-accused in a murder case. The complainant had initially lodged an F.I.R. without naming the respondent, who was subsequently placed in column 2 of the police challan. Although the trial court initially joined her as an accused based on witness testimony, the High Court quashed this order, finding that the F.I.R. and medical evidence contradicted the subsequent allegations against her, suggesting they were a concoction and an afterthought. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly exercised its revisional jurisdiction in setting aside the trial court's order. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's interference was justified because the trial court had failed to consider the F.I.R. and medical evidence, which rendered the allegations against the respondent unreliable. The principle laid down is that revisional courts may interfere with trial court orders when such orders ignore material evidence like the F.I.R. and medical reports, thereby failing to establish a prima facie case.
Questions settled- Can a High Court in its revisional jurisdiction set aside a trial court's order joining a person as a co-accused if the order ignores material evidence like the F.I.R. and medical reports?
- Is it legally permissible for a trial court to join an accused based on testimony that contradicts the initial F.I.R. and medical evidence?
- Does the failure of a trial court to consider the F.I.R. and medical certificate when adding a co-accused constitute a valid ground for High Court interference in revision?
- QUDRATULLAH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1387 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-08-14Read full judgment →
- QUDRATULLAH represented by Legal Heirs and others vs SETTLEMENT1985 CLC 2021 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
- QUALITY STEEL WORKS Ltd . vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN through the Secretary to the Government of Pakistan Ministry cif Commerce, Islamabad and 3 others1985 CLC 300 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-07Read full judgment →
- Qazi SALEEM BAKHTIAR vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB1985 PLC (C.S.) 807 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-01-06Read full judgment →
- Qazi MUHAMMAD DAUD And Another vs MUHAMMAD AYUB And Other1985 SCMR 1966 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning whether a recital in a sale-deed regarding the delivery of possession constitutes the starting point of limitation for a pre-emption suit. The core legal question is whether a mere formal recital of delivery of possession in a sale-deed is per se sufficient evidence to establish the factum of actual physical possession for computing limitation under Article 10 of the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court held that a formal recital of possession in a sale-deed is weak evidence and insufficient on its own to establish actual physical possession as against third-party pre-emptors, and thus the period of limitation must be computed from the date of registration of the deed when actual physical possession is not otherwise proved. The key principle laid down is that the law insists on visible physical possession as notice to pre-emptors, and a bare recital in a document without independent evidence cannot serve as the terminus a quo for limitation.
Questions settled- Whether a recital in a sale-deed as to the delivery of possession is per se sufficient to constitute the starting point of limitation in a pre-emption suit?
- Does a formal recital of possession in a sale-deed bind a third-party pre-emptor regarding the date of delivery of possession?
- From what date must the period of limitation be computed under Article 10 of the Limitation Act when actual physical possession is not independently proved aside from the sale-deed recital?
- Qazi MAIRAJUDDIN vs BADRUDDIN and another1985 MLD 531 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-04Read full judgment →
- Qazi MAIRAJ DIN vs DISTRICT JUDGE, SIALKOT and another1985 CLC 544 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-20Read full judgment →
- Qazi ABDUL SAMAD vs PRINCIPAL, KHYBER MEDICAL COLLEGE And Another1985 SCMR 1447 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an appeal concerning the cancellation of the petitioner's F.Sc. certificate and subsequent medical college admission due to concealment of material facts and use of forged documents regarding previous academic attempts. Initially, the Peshawar High Court struck down the cancellation orders for want of a pre-decisional hearing, allowing the Board to proceed afresh. After a proper show-cause notice was served and the appellant failed to adequately respond, the Board quashed his examination results and cancelled his certificates pursuant to its examination rules. The High Court dismissed the subsequent writ petition, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the cancellation of the certificate and admission was lawful, timely under the relevant limitation rules, and procedurally compliant. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the action taken by the Board was within the permissible limitation period given the earlier remand proceedings, and that the appellant's fraudulent conduct disentitled him to equitable relief. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education has the power to quash an examination result and cancel a certificate upon discovering the concealment of material facts?
- Does the limitation period for quashing an examination result under the relevant Board rules stop running during the pendency of litigation involving remand for a fresh hearing?
- Is a petitioner who conceals past academic failures and submits fabricated certificates entitled to discretionary relief in constitutional jurisdiction?
- QASIM KHAN vs NAWAB KHAN And Other1985 SCMR 926 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether a sale of land, where the vendees purchased the property for the construction of houses, was exempt from the right of pre-emption under the relevant statutory provisions. The petitioner sought to pre-empt a sale of equity of redemption regarding specific land shares. The trial court, the appellate court, and the High Court concurrently held that the sale was exempt from pre-emption because the vendees had purchased the land for the purpose of constructing houses, and the area involved was within the permissible limits. The Supreme Court upheld these concurrent findings, noting that the vendees had become co-sharers and the land was purchased for house construction. The petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that sales of land for the specific purpose of house construction, within statutory limits, are exempt from pre-emption claims.
Questions settled- Is a sale of land for the purpose of constructing houses exempt from the right of pre-emption?
- Can a vendee who becomes a co-sharer in land resist a pre-emption suit if the land was purchased for house construction?
- QAMARUZZAMAN vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 366 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
- QAMAR ABBAS alias GOSHY vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 3019 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-01Read full judgment →
- QAISER MAHMOOD KHAN vs DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, SCHOOLS, D. G. KHAN1985 PLC (C.S.) 890 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- QAISAR ZAMANI vs RASHEEDA BEGUM and 2 others1985 CLC 596 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arose from an ejectment petition filed by a new landlord against a tenant, Mst. Qaisar Zamani, on grounds of default and personal need. The core legal question was whether the failure to serve a statutory notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, invalidated the eviction proceedings and whether the eviction petition itself could serve as such notice. The Court held that while the landlord-tenant relationship arises upon property transfer, the Section 13-A notice is a mandatory prerequisite for establishing default in rent payment. The Court ruled that an eviction petition cannot substitute for the required notice. Furthermore, because there was no evidence that the tenant had received the notice or had knowledge of the transfer aliunde, the ejectment order was premature. The Court established that Section 13-A is a beneficial provision for the tenant, which may be waived if the tenant acknowledges the new landlord, but absent such waiver, strict compliance is required. The impugned ejectment orders were set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on merits.
Questions settled- Does the failure to serve a notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, preclude a landlord from seeking eviction on the ground of default?
- Can an eviction petition filed by a new landlord be treated as a valid substitute for the notice required under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Is the service of a notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, a prerequisite for the creation of a landlord-tenant relationship?
- Can a tenant waive the requirement of a notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- QAIM DIN vs Mst. WAZEER BEGUM and others1985 MLD 368 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-01Read full judgment →
- QAIM DIN and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2822 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
- QADIR BAKHSH BHATTI vs CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, MULTAN ZONE and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 484 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-02-18Read full judgment →
- QADIR BAKHSH and another vs CHAIRMAN, GOVERNOR'S INSPECTION TEAM, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 others1985 MLD 1138 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
- QADIR AND ANOTHERs vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 454 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-30Read full judgment →
- QADEERUZ ZAMAN vs MRs BASHEERI HUZOOR SOOFI1985 MLD 278 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-05Read full judgment →
- QADEER MOHAMMAD M QURESHI vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND1985 PLC (C.S.) 400 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1984-09-23Read full judgment →
- QADAR BAKHSH vs INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS, PUNJAB And Other1985 SCMR 570 (2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed his service appeal against dismissal from service as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the time spent pursuing an incompetent review application should have been condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal duly considered the application under section 5 and dismissed it on merits, finding no justification for filing the incompetent review application, and properly exercised its discretion in refusing to condone the delay. The court laid down the principle that the discretionary refusal to condone delay by a tribunal upon proper consideration of merits does not warrant interference or leave to appeal when no point of law of general importance is involved, thereby affirming the dismissal of the time-barred appeal.
Questions settled- Should the time spent pursuing an incompetent review application be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act?
- Does the refusal by a service tribunal to condone delay raise a point of law of general importance warranting leave to appeal?
- QA DIR BAKHSH vs Mst.MUMTAZ BATOOL BILUCH1985 MLD 1279 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-11Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD AL-1985 PLC 240 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, GULBERG, LAHORE vs ABDUL1985 PLC 33 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, GARDEN TOWN DEPOT, LAHORE vs MUKHTAR AHMAD1985 PLC 132 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs TAHIR RASHID1985 PLC 1039 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-06-22Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs RIAZ AHMAD1985 PLC 796 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-02-22Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE1985 PLC 952 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-13Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs NIAZ AHMAD1985 PLC 151 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-27Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD YAQOOB1985 PLC 141 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-26Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ1985 PLC 533 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-02-15Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD HANIF1985 PLC 781 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-02-22Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD ARIF1985 PLC 751 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-23Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD ALI1985 PLC 780 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-02-22Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION through District Manager, Islamabad vs ABDUL LATIF1985 PLC 32 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION Ltd. vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ1985 SCMR 1937 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Punjab Urban Transport Corporation Limited sought leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed its constitutional writ petition arising from disciplinary action taken against Muhammad Rafiq, the respondent. The respondent, a conductor, was found guilty of misconduct for pocketing fare amounts without issuing tickets. The Labour Court had interpreted the inquiry report as an exoneration and ordered reinstatement with full back benefits, a view upheld by the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether the facts found in the inquiry report constitute punishable misconduct and whether the lower tribunals misread the evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions regarding the interpretation of the inquiry report and the nature of the misconduct.
Questions settled- Whether facts found in an inquiry report constitute misconduct punishable with the penalty imposed?
- Whether the lower judicial forum committed a misreading of evidence regarding the findings of the inquiry report?
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE1985 PLC 849 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION KOT LAKHPAT DEPOT, LAHORE vs ASIF ALI1985 PLC 189 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION GARDEN TOWN DEPOT, LAHORE vs RAEES AHMAD1985 PLC 133 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-17Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION and another vs Sh. ISHFAQ1985 PLC 68 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRASNPORT BOARD, FAISALABAD vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ1985 PLC 69 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD AMIN1985 PLC 817 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LAHORE and another vs RASHID AKHTAR1985 PLC 217 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, FAISALABAD vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN1985 PLC 239 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-06-19Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, FAISALABAD vs MUHAMMAD JAMEEL1985 PLC 255 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-08-11Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs REHMAT ULLAH1985 PLC 114 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →