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.
- NAZIR AHMAD and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2057 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-05Read full judgment →
- NAZIMUDDIN vs NOOR TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KOTRI1985 PLC 992 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-04-21Read full judgment →
- NAZIM vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1951 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
- NAZEER HUSSAIN BHATTI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 860 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
- NAZEER AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 MLD 773 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
- NAZEER AHMAD and 5 others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 882 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-28Read full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1985 MLD 888 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-15Read full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MULTAN AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 566 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-10-06Read full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs RAHWALI SUGAR MILLS1985 PLC 615 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-06-23Read full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI AND ANOTHER1985 PLC 579 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs COMMISSIONER, GUJRANWALA DIVISION GUJRANWALA1985 PLC (C.S.) 636 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-01-27Read full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD and others vs THE ST ATE1985 P Cr. L J 1746 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-01Read full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD @ NAZRA and others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1304 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-22Read full judgment →
- NAZAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1386 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
- NAZAR HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD Alias MUHAMMAD ALI And Other1985 SCMR 65 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal matter concerning the murder of Manzoor Hussain. The trial court convicted four respondents under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing one to death and three to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court acquitted two respondents, upheld the conviction of the first respondent but reduced his sentence to life imprisonment, and altered the conviction of the third respondent to Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the sentences of the first and third respondents. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's discretion regarding the first respondent, noting that the motive—suspected illicit relations involving the respondent's fiancée—constituted an extenuating circumstance. However, regarding the third respondent, the Court found a prima facie case that his participation warranted liability under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rather than the lesser charge applied by the High Court. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal specifically to examine the conviction of the third respondent while dismissing the petition regarding the others.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in imposing a lesser sentence for murder when extenuating circumstances exist?
- Does the participation of an accused in a joint criminal act warrant conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than a lesser offense?
- NAZAR ALI and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 560 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
- NAWAZISH ALI and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1712 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-26Read full judgment →
- NAWAZ KHAN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 801 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-10Read full judgment →
- Nawabzada MUHAMMAD SHAH KHAN vs CHAIRMAN, TRIBUNAL LAND DISPUTES And Other1985 SCMR 552 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition impugning an order of the High Court upholding the decision of the Chairman, Tribunal Land Disputes, Dir, Swat and Chitral at Mardan. The core legal question concerns whether the Tribunal's observation allowing respondents to claim additional land from the petitioner, without specifying boundaries, area, or Khasra numbers, was lawful and capable of execution. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly concluded that the petitioner was declared owner of a specific extent of land (52 Sattas), and any excess land allegedly in his forcible possession could legitimately be claimed by the respondents, rendering the observation unperverse. The petition was accordingly dismissed as being without substance, affirming the principle that ambiguous possessory claims of excess land do not invalidate general findings of entitlement where specific boundaries are yet to be ascertained.
Questions settled- Whether an observation by a land tribunal regarding unclaimed or excess land without specific boundaries and Khasra numbers is sustainable?
- Can execution proceedings be initiated based on general observations in a tribunal order regarding land possession?
- Whether a High Court order upholding a tribunal's finding on land ownership warrants interference under constitutional jurisdiction?
- NAWAB vs The STATE1985 P Cr. L J 753 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-23Read full judgment →
- Nawab MUHAMMAD YAMIN KHAN vs JUMO AND OTHERSPLD 1985 Rev. 126 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1971-10-12Read full judgment →
- Nawab MOIN NAWAZ JUNG and another vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT1985 CLC 2453 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-11Read full judgment →
- NIGHAT RIAZ vs MANZOOR HUSSAIN-1985 MLD 1533 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-14Read full judgment →
- NAWAB KHAN Represented By Legal Heir And Others vs ZARIF KHAN And Other1985 SCMR 1428 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter concerns a dispute over the possession of land purchased by the appellant from co-sharers of an undivided estate. The core legal questions were whether a vendee of a co-sharer is entitled to specific plots of land exceeding the vendor's share, whether the principle of feeding the estoppel under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 applies to subsequent acquisitions, and whether a vendee can claim compensation from other lands of the vendor absent an indemnity clause. The Supreme Court held that a vendee of a co-sharer steps into the shoes of the vendor, acquiring the vendor's share in the joint property. The Court found the partition proceedings flawed for excluding the vendee's interest and granted the appellant a decree for possession corresponding to the vendors' share in the specific land. However, the Court rejected the claim for compensation from other lands, affirming that in the absence of an express indemnity clause, a vendee cannot claim land beyond the vendor's share in the specific property transferred. The principle established is that a vendee of a co-sharer is entitled to the vendor's share in the joint property, subject to partition.
Questions settled- Does a vendee of a co-sharer in an undivided estate acquire the right to specific plots of land exceeding the vendor's share?
- Can a vendee claim compensation from other lands of the vendor if the specific land purchased is lost during partition, in the absence of an indemnity clause?
- Does the principle of feeding the estoppel under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 apply to a vendee when the vendor subsequently acquires an interest in the property?
- Is a partition of joint property valid if it excludes the interest of a vendee who purchased a share from a co-sharer?
- NAWAB KHAN AND ANOTHERs vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 211 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-08Read full judgment →
- Nawab Haji MUHAMMAD DAWOOD KHAN and others vs MUHAMMAD USMAN1985 CLC 2309 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision concerns a challenge to a decree passed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, which ordered the restoration of possession of agricultural land to the respondents after they were forcibly dispossessed by the applicants. The core legal questions were whether a suit under Section 9 is maintainable by a lessee whose lease has expired or is disputed, whether such a suit requires proof of juridical possession versus mere physical possession, and the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court held that Section 9 provides a summary remedy to protect possession against forcible dispossession without due process of law, regardless of the nature of the plaintiff's title or the expiration of a lease. The Court affirmed that the High Court's revisional power is limited to jurisdictional errors and cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The key principle laid down is that a person in settled possession, even a lessee holding over after lease expiry, cannot be evicted except through due process of law, and a summary suit for possession under Section 9 is the appropriate remedy for such unlawful dispossession.
Questions settled- Can a person in possession of land, even after the expiry of a lease, maintain a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 if dispossessed without due process of law?
- Does the High Court have the authority under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to interfere with findings of fact in a suit decided under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
- Is a landlord legally entitled to forcibly re-enter property upon the expiry of a lease without resorting to the due process of law?
- Does the consent obtained by deceit or misrepresentation constitute valid consent for the purposes of Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
- NAWAB DIN vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB, through Secretary to Government1985 PLC (C.S.) 96 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- NAWAB DIN vs ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (GENERAL), VEHARI AND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C.S.) 609 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- NAWAB alias NAWABI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2217 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
- NAWAB ALI vs AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER, THATTA1985 PLC 762 · Authority under Payment of Wages Act · 1985-04-07Read full judgment →
- Nawab ABDUR REHMAN SHERWANI AND 7 OTHERS- s vs MIR ABDUL GHIAS1985 PLD Quetta 121 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-05-08Read full judgment →
- NAVEED TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs ASSISTANT COLLECTOR (APPRAISING) CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACHI AND OTHERS1984 PLD Supreme Court 92 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the interpretation of a fiscal statutory instrument, specifically S.R.O. 702(1)/80, which denied customs duty exemptions for imported automatic cone-winders. The core legal question was whether the "explanation" within the notification, which disqualified these machines from exemption on the premise that they were substitutes for locally manufactured cone-winders, could be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction on the ground that such local manufacture did not exist. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the government's power to grant or revoke exemptions under Section 19 of the Customs Act 1969 is discretionary and wide in amplitude. The Court determined that the explanation constituted a policy decision and legislative motivation, which is not subject to judicial review or factual inquiry regarding the accuracy of the underlying premise. The key principle laid down is that where a statutory exemption is granted under wide discretionary powers, the disclosure of reasons or factual premises within the notification does not render the exercise of power justiciable, as courts cannot conduct factual inquiries into the policy motivations behind such legislative measures.
Questions settled- Is the government's power to grant or revoke customs duty exemptions under Section 19 of the Customs Act 1969 subject to judicial review regarding the factual accuracy of the reasons provided?
- Can an explanation in a statutory notification be challenged on the basis that its underlying factual premise is incorrect?
- Does the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court extend to conducting factual inquiries into the policy motivations behind a fiscal notification?
- Naveed Textile Mills Ltd. And Other vs Assistant Collector (Appraising) Custom House, Karachi & OtherPTCL 1985 (CL) 50 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the interpretation of S.R.O. 702(I)/80, a fiscal notification issued under the Customs Act, 1969. The petitioners, textile mills, challenged the notification's explanation, which denied customs duty exemptions to automatic cone-winders by classifying them as substitutes for locally manufactured goods. The core legal question was whether the court could review the factual accuracy of this classification or if the government's declaration constituted an unreviewable policy decision. The Supreme Court held that the government's power to grant or revoke exemptions under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969 is discretionary and broad. The Court ruled that the explanation in the notification represented a policy motivation rather than a jurisdictional fact; therefore, it was not subject to factual enquiry or judicial review. The Court affirmed that where the exercise of power does not require the satisfaction of jurisdictional facts, the underlying reasons or factual premises stated by the delegator cannot be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Is the government's power to grant or revoke customs duty exemptions under Section 19 of the Customs Act 1969 discretionary?
- Can a court in constitutional jurisdiction conduct a factual enquiry into the reasons or premises stated in a legislative notification?
- Does an explanation in a statutory instrument necessarily limit the scope of the provision it explains?
- Are factual assertions made within a government notification regarding the substitutability of goods subject to judicial challenge?
- NAUSHER and others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others1985 CLC 1918 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
- NAUSHER and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 633 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
- NAUSHAD vs HAM AKBAR AND 4 OTHERS1985 PLD Peshawar 41 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-12-01Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL TYRE AND RUBBER COMPANY vs Khalifa ABDUR RASHID1985 PLC 334 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-09-29Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL REFINERY Ltd. vs COLLECTOR OF SEA CUSTOMS and 2 others1985 CLC 291 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-06Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION vs PAKISTAN NATIONAL SHIPPING1985 CLC 360 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil suit was instituted by the plaintiff insurance company, holding a letter of subrogation, against the defendant carrier for the recovery of compensation for the non-delivery of two cases of defense stores out of a consignment shipped from France to Karachi. The core legal question was whether the suit, filed on 10th September 1983, was barred by limitation under Article 31 of the Limitation Act, and specifically when the period of limitation commences under the expression 'when the goods ought to be delivered'. The court held that the starting point of limitation under Article 31 is the date on which the consignee has notice that delivery cannot be given or that the carrier expresses its inability to deliver. The court found that the consignee had definitive notice of non-delivery upon the issuance of the short landing certificate by the Karachi Port Trust on 1st August 1982, and subsequent negotiations or partial claim acceptances by the carrier did not extend or revive the limitation period. Consequently, the suit instituted more than one year after 1st August 1982 was time-barred, and the plaint was rejected.
Questions settled- When does the period of limitation start to run under Article 31 of the Limitation Act for a suit against a carrier for non-delivery of goods?
- Does the subsequent partial acceptance of a claim by a carrier extend or revive the period of limitation under Article 31 of the Limitation Act?
- What constitutes notice to the consignee that the goods cannot be delivered for the purpose of computing limitation in a short-landing case?
- NATIONAL FERTILIZER MARKETING Ltd. vs MUNAWAR AHMAD SADIQ and others1985 PLC 315 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-06Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICE (PAKISTAN) LTD. vs ABDUL GHAFOOR1985 PLC 857 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL EMBROIDERY, FAISALABAD and another vs EMPLOYEES' OLD-AGE1985 PLC 467 · Board of Trustees Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION Ltd. vs UMAR DARAZ and another1985 PLC 150 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-26Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI and 3 others vs MUHAMMAD NASIM1985 PLC 63 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, FAISALABAD and another vs ABDUL QAYYUM1985 PLC 91 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs WADHU MAL through his Legal Heirs and 21985 CLC 1053 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from ejectment proceedings initiated by the respondent landlords against the appellant National Bank of Pakistan concerning a rented shop and residential first floor. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant committed a default in rent payments and whether the landlords established a bona fide personal requirement for the premises. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant did not commit default, as it had regularly tendered rent via pay orders which were repeatedly and deliberately refused by the landlords. Furthermore, the court held that the landlords failed to prove good faith and bona fide personal need, noting the vague pleadings and inconsistencies in evidence regarding their large joint family housing. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the Rent Controller's ejectment order, and laid down the principle that a tenant fulfilling the obligation to tender rent cannot be deemed a defaulter due to the landlord's refusal, and that a plea of personal need under special rent laws requires concrete proof of good faith rather than a mere desire.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant can be considered a defaulter when rent pay orders are regularly dispatched but consistently refused by the landlord?
- What constitutes sufficient proof of good faith and bona fide personal requirement by a landlord seeking ejectment?
- Does a landlord's refusal to accept tendered rent through pay orders create a valid ground for an ejectment application based on default?
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE1985 PLD Lahore 327 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF pAKISTAN vs TAJ MUHAMMAD1985 CLC 2932 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-24Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs SHAMSUR REHMAN and 3 others1985 MLD 231 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs RIAZ HUSSAIN1985 PLC 648 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-10Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs PERVAIZ AKHTAR1985 PLC 804 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-08-15Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs Mst. HAJRA BAI AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Karachi 431 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two high court appeals filed by National Bank of Pakistan arising from two connected suits regarding recovery of bank dues and return of property title deeds. The bank sought to enforce liabilities under bank guarantees, hypothecation agreements, a promissory note, and an equitable mortgage against the wife and mother of a debtor who had purchase truck chassis. The ladies contended that they were illiterate/pardanashin women, that their signatures were fraudulently obtained on blank papers without their knowledge or consent, and that they had refused to register the mortgage deed before the Registrar. The High Court affirmed the Single Judge's decision, holding that the burden lies heavily on a party taking advantage under a document executed by an illiterate or pardanashin woman to prove affirmatively that she fully understood its contents. Because the bank failed to show that the English documents were translated or explained to the ladies, who signed in Gujarati, the court dismissed the bank's claims against them and ordered the return of their title deeds.
Questions settled- What is the standard of proof required to establish that a document executed by an illiterate or pardanashin woman was signed with full knowledge and understanding?
- Does the protective rule governing contracts by pardanashin ladies apply equally to illiterate women who do not strictly observe parda?
- Can a party adduce evidence on factual points that were not set up or raised in the pleadings?
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs Mrs. ABIDA MUSTAJAB HASAN and another1985 CLC 1074 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-20Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs MESSRS CH. ILAM DIN & CO. AND OTHERSDefendants1985 PLD Lahore 117 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The National Bank of Pakistan instituted a recovery suit against the defendants for Rs. 12,53,493.82 based on loan facilities, demand promissory notes, and pledge/mortgage securities. The defendants sought leave to appear and defend the suit, raising contentions regarding incorrect statements of accounts, alleged misappropriation of pledged goods by the bank, unauthorized penal interest, insurance charges, and staff salaries, and argued that unconditional leave should be granted because the loan was secured by a mortgage. The Lahore High Court held that the defendants failed to disclose a plausible defense, as the loan amounts and execution of documents were undisputed, balances were repeatedly confirmed in writing, repayment schedules were submitted, and no prior complaints or legal proceedings regarding misappropriation had ever been initiated. The court further held that the mere existence of a mortgage does not automatically entitle a defendant to unconditional leave to defend under the applicable recovery laws. Consequently, the application for leave to defend was rejected, and the suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff, excluding the unagreed penal interest.
Questions settled- Whether the mere existence of a mortgage as security for a loan entitles a defendant to unconditional leave to defend a recovery suit?
- Can a bank claim penal interest in the absence of an express agreement between the parties?
- Does a certified statement of accounts under the Bankers Books Evidence Act carry a rebuttable presumption of correctness?
- Whether an application for leave to defend can be sustained on bare assertions disputing the correctness of statements of accounts when loan documents and balance confirmations are undisputed?
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs ELLAHI BUX AND 4 OTHERS1985 PLC 925 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-04-10Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN And Others NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN And Others vs MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH KHAN SHAH RUKH1985 SCMR 1392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-05Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHERs vs MUHAMMAD ASIF AHMED1985 PLD Quetta 100 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 challenged orders passed by the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding the dismissal of a bank employee (clerk/assistant) for alleged financial shortage without holding a proper domestic enquiry. The core legal questions involved whether a bank employee invoking guaranteed service rules qualifies as a workman under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to maintain a grievance petition under section 25-A, whether the Labour Court's decision on limitation can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction, and whether back benefits can be withheld pending the outcome of a criminal trial. The court held that a bank clerk performing clerical duties qualifies as a workman entitled to enforce statutory/rule-based rights under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, that limitation findings by lower tribunals generally should not be interfered with, and that an illegally dismissed employee is automatically entitled to back benefits unless gainfully employed elsewhere, as withholding them based on a pending criminal trial violates the presumption of innocence. The petition was dismissed and the original order of reinstatement with back benefits was restored.
Questions settled- Whether a bank employee performing clerical duties qualifies as a workman to maintain a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Can the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction interfere with a finding on limitation rendered by a Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal?
- Whether an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to back benefits as a natural corollary of reinstatement in the absence of proof of gainful employment elsewhere?
- Is it lawful to withhold back benefits of a reinstated employee merely on the ground that a criminal case is pending against him before a Special Court?
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER vs AMIR ALI1985 PLC 622 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-05-29Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER vs ABDUL LATIF1985 PLC 618 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-31Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND 3 OTHERS vs Mian MUHAMMAD AFZAL AND ANOTHER1985 PLC 587 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- NATIONAL & GRINDLAYS BANK LTD. vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1985 PTD 299 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-29Read full judgment →
- National & Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central)PT'CL 1985 (CL) 115 · Sindh and Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- NATHU KHAN vs THE STATE-1985 MLD 641 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-07Read full judgment →
- NATHEY KHAN vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOH-I-NOOR OIL MILLS Ltd., KALASHAH KAKU, SHEIKHUPURA and another1985 PLC 192 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- NATHE KHAN vs PERSONNEL MANAGER, KOHI-i-NOOR OIL MILLS KALA SHAH1985 MLD 990 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-18Read full judgment →
- NASRULLAH KHAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 683 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-10-27Read full judgment →
- NASRULLAH KHAN vs Messrs JHONSON AND PHILIPS (PAK.) Ltd., Manghopir1985 PLC 271 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-18Read full judgment →
- NASRULLAH And Another vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1715 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave of the Supreme Court examines the convictions of two brothers—one under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and the other under section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing grievous hurt—arising from a sudden dispute over a boundary wall. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence, specifically regarding the credibility of eyewitnesses who suppressed the injuries sustained by the accused, and the plausibility of the appellant's counter-version of private defense. The Supreme Court held that the suppression of injuries on the accused by all eyewitnesses, coupled with the corroboration of the counter-version through the recovery of weapons from the complainant side, rendered the prosecution's narrative of a one-sided attack highly doubtful and lent credence to the defense plea. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting both appellants. The key principle laid down is that the concealment of injuries sustained by an accused person during the occurrence casts serious doubt on the truthfulness of eyewitnesses and warrants the acceptance of a plausible counter-version of self-defense.
Questions settled- What is the legal effect of the prosecution witnesses suppressing the injuries sustained by the accused during the same occurrence?
- Does the recovery of weapons from the complainant side in connection with a counter-version lend credence to the defense plea?
- Whether the failure of eyewitnesses to explain injuries on the person of the accused renders the prosecution case doubtful?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the origin of the fight is disputed and the prosecution conceals material aspects of the incident?
- NASREEN AKHTAR vs MUNIR AHMAD1985 MLD 1006 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-18Read full judgment →
- NASRA alias NASARAULLAH OF AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2487 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →
- NASIRUDDIN vs THE SELECTION BOARD OP ADMISSION FOR MEDICAL COLLEGE1985 CLC 2441 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-06Read full judgment →
- NASIRUDDIN KHAN vs RAFIQUDDIN And Other1985 SCMR 1080 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition challenged a Supreme Court judgment that had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding the transfer of residential property in Lahore. The petitioner, a non-claimant, had sought the transfer of property in his possession, while the respondents, who were claimant displaced persons, were granted the transfer by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The core legal questions were whether the Supreme Court erred in its previous judgment by proceeding without certain records and whether the Settlement authorities had correctly identified the property in dispute. The Court held that the review petition lacked merit, noting that the petitioner had failed to object to the record status during the original appeal and that the identity of the property had been resolved by the Settlement authorities through spot inspection. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the respondents, as claimants, were rightly preferred over the non-claimant petitioner, and that the petitioner was barred by laches due to his significant delay in challenging the transfer order. The principle laid down is that a party cannot seek review based on procedural grievances regarding the record that were not raised during the original hearing, and that long, unexplained delays in litigation (laches) preclude relief.
Questions settled- Can a party seek review of a judgment based on procedural objections regarding the record that were not raised during the original appeal hearing?
- Does a significant and unexplained delay in challenging a property transfer order constitute laches sufficient to deny relief?
- Are claimant displaced persons entitled to preference over non-claimant occupants in the transfer of settlement property?
- NASIR BEG vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 524 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-05Read full judgment →
- NASIR ALI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1220 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-09Read full judgment →
- NASIR ALI RAZA vs Syed ZAFFAR ALI SHAH AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the petitioner's second appeal in an ejectment matter. The dispute concerns commercial property originally tenanted by the petitioner's predecessor, Hazrat Gul, who withheld rent following a notice from the Evacuee Trust Board designating the property as evacuee trust property. After litigation, the Custodian of Evacuee Property ultimately declared the property to be the private property of the respondents-landlords. Subsequently, the landlords filed an ejectment application for default in rent. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment, and both the District Judge and the High Court dismissed the tenant's appeals. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the ejectment order violated the second proviso to section 13(2)(i) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction (North-West Frontier Province Amendment) Ordinance, 1972, as he admitted liability on the first date of hearing, and argued that he was not a willful defaulter given the cloud on the respondents' title. The Supreme Court found the arguments raised worthy of consideration and granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an ejectment application must be rejected under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction (North-West Frontier Province Amendment) Ordinance, 1972, when the tenant admits liability to pay rent on the first date of hearing and has not previously defaulted?
- Can a tenant be considered a willful defaulter of rent when payment was withheld due to rival claims and notices from the Custodian Department regarding the property's title?
- NASIR AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 MLD 59 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-10Read full judgment →
- NASIR AHMAD vs REHMAT ALI and others1985 P Cr. L J 218 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
- NASIR AHMAD SHAIKH vs SECRETARY-GENERAL, ISLAMIC SECRETARIAT, Saudi1985 CLC 2072 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-13Read full judgment →
- NASIR ABBAS MALIK vs ADAM1985 CLC 1294 · Sindh High Court · 1984-07-24Read full judgment →
- NASIMUL JAMIL KHATIB vs SAIFU DDIN1985 CLC 1939 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-14Read full judgment →
- NASIM vs MRs, AZIZ MOHSINA1985 MLD 1078 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-27Read full judgment →
- NASIM JAVED vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1985 PLD Peshawar 91 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This first appeal addresses the applicability of rules 2 and 3 of Order XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a party defaults in appearance and fails to produce evidence on an adjourned date. The respondent bank filed a recovery suit against the appellant's firm under Order XXXVII, rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. After adjournments for the appellant to produce evidence, the appellant and his counsel failed to appear and produce evidence on the fixed date, whereupon the trial court closed the appellant's evidence under Order XVII, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and decreed the suit on merits based on the available record. The trial court subsequently dismissed the appellant's application to set aside the decree as an ex parte decree. The Peshawar High Court held that where sufficient material is already available on record, Order XVII, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applies even if there is a default of appearance by the defaulting party. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether Order XVII rule 2 or Order XVII rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applies when a party fails to appear and produce evidence on an adjourned date?
- Can a trial court proceed under Order XVII rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to decide a suit on merits when the party is absent but sufficient material is available on the record?
- Whether an application for setting aside a decree passed under Order XVII rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 as an ex parte decree is maintainable?
- NASIM HUSSAIN And Another vs ILAM DIN And Other1985 SCMR 610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court setting aside an order of the Board of Revenue and ruling in favor of erstwhile occupancy tenants. The core legal question concerns whether occupancy tenants extinguished under the Punjab Tenancy Amendment Act, 1952, became owners proportionate to their share of the produce without a strict time limitation, and whether constitutional courts could determine shares or prejudice subsequent civil claims regarding property transfers. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly concluded that operation of law made the tenants owners without limitation, but clarified that observations regarding the protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 should not prejudice pending or future civil court adjudications. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused with this clarification.
Questions settled- Whether occupancy tenants under the Punjab Tenancy Amendment Act, 1952 become owners proportionate to their share of the produce without a time limitation?
- Can observations made by a High Court in constitutional jurisdiction regarding property transfer protection prejudice independent civil court proceedings?
- NASIM AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2700 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-05Read full judgment →
- NASIB KHAN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1329 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-17Read full judgment →
- NASEER MUHAMMAD vs The STATE1985 SCMR 60 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction and death sentence for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence, specifically the reliance on a dying declaration and the testimony of an interested witness without corroboration, the impact of the prosecution's failure to produce a specific witness mentioned in the dying declaration, and the weight of the petitioner's abscondence and alleged lack of motive. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the conviction was sound. The Court affirmed that the prosecution is not required to produce every potential witness if the evidence presented is sufficient, and that the non-production of one witness does not invalidate a dying declaration attested by another. Furthermore, the Court established that where credible ocular evidence exists, the absence of a proven motive is immaterial to the conviction. The Court also reiterated that it is not its function to re-evaluate evidence merely to reach a different conclusion when lower courts have properly considered the facts.
Questions settled- Is the prosecution legally bound to produce every witness mentioned in a dying declaration to prove the guilt of the accused?
- Does the absence of a proven motive for a crime render a conviction based on credible ocular evidence and abscondence unsustainable?
- Can the Supreme Court re-evaluate evidence to reach a different conclusion when the lower courts have already considered and rejected the arguments?
- NASEER MEHDI and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 417 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-12Read full judgment →
- NASEER KHAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2530 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-17Read full judgment →
- NASEER BAIG vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2513 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-24Read full judgment →
- NASEER AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2089 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
- NASEER AHMAD vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others1985 MLD 1277 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-16Read full judgment →
- NASEEM AHMED vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 591 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
- NASEEB UD DIN vs RENT CONTROLLER And Other1985 SCMR 1258 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging a judgment of the Lahore High Court that allowed a landlord's writ petition in a rent restriction case and remanded the matter to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision. The core legal question concerned whether a change in the landlord's transfer documents for evacuee property necessitated the issuance of a fresh notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's view—that the change in documents did not affect the respondent's position as landlord and that the earlier notice enured for his benefit—was unexceptionable. However, taking note of subsequent developments regarding a Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order affecting the transfer status of the property, the Court dismissed the petition while observing that the parties could raise pleas regarding subsequent changes before the Rent Controller where the proceedings remained pending. The key principle laid down is that a change in transfer documents does not necessarily vitiate a prior Section 30 notice, and subsequent factual changes affecting property title may be urged before the original forum upon remand.
Questions settled- Does a change in a landlord's transfer documents of evacuee property necessitate a fresh notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Can subsequent administrative orders affecting property transfer status be raised before the Rent Controller upon remand?
- NASARULLAH and 5 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2765 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-20Read full judgment →
- NASAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2045 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
- NASAR A HMA D vs PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,LAHORE and another1985 CLC 1538 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
- NAROOMAL JETOMAL vs SPECIAL COURT (BANKING) SIND and 3 others1985 MLD 1189 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-04Read full judgment →
- NAROMAL vs Haji ABDUL SATTAR1985 MLD 218 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-11Read full judgment →
- NARAINDAS vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JABALPUR AND OTHERS1985 PTD 616 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1983-04-19Read full judgment →
- NAQVI & Co. vs Haji ABDUL AZIZ1985 CLC 1032 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-28Read full judgment →