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.
- Mst, SHAMIM AKHTAR AND ANOTHERs vs THE STATE1985 PLD Federal Shariat Court 397 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-03-18Read full judgment →
- Mst TAHIRA SULTANA BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD BOOTA and others1985 CLC 2389 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
- Mst . SIY A NI/defendant vs JAMALUDDIN and 2 others1985 CLC 2405 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs HAQ NAWAZPLD 1985 Rev. 140 [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1980-12-08Read full judgment →
- Mst . SETTAN vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER and others1985 MLD 1573 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →
- Mst . K H URSH ID BIB I vs The CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, SIND and 231985 CLC 395 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-20Read full judgment →
- Mst . H A FIZ AN vs MUHAMMAD YASIN and 2 others1985 CLC 1448 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves writ petitions challenging concurrent judgments of lower courts that dismissed a wife’s suit for divorce and decreed the husband’s suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The core legal questions concerned the procedural propriety of consolidating suits without allowing fresh evidence on recast issues and the failure of the trial court to frame a specific issue regarding Khula despite the wife's pleadings of hatred and dislike. The High Court held that the trial court failed in its mandatory duty to frame proper issues arising from the pleadings, specifically regarding Khula, and that consolidating suits without permitting parties to lead evidence afresh on recast issues caused prejudice. The court set aside the impugned judgments and remanded the case to the Family Court for a fresh decision. The key principle laid down is that a court is under a primary, non-delegable duty to frame correct issues based on the pleadings, and when issues are recast following consolidation, parties must be afforded a fresh opportunity to lead evidence to ensure a fair trial.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a Family Court to frame an issue on Khula despite pleadings of hatred and dislike constitute a failure to exercise jurisdiction?
- Is a court required to allow parties to lead evidence afresh when issues are recast following the consolidation of suits?
- Does the duty to frame proper issues arising from pleadings rest on the court even in the absence of assistance from counsel?
- Mrs.SHAMIM AKHLAQ vs Lt.(Rtd.) Haji WALAYAT KHAN and 2 others1985 CLC 1966 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-17Read full judgment →
- Mrs.SARWAT SIDDIQUE and others vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF1985 CLC 2831 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-27Read full judgment →
- Mrs.DILSHAD HUSSAIN vs PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT And INVESTMENT1985 SCMR 925 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from petitions for leave to appeal concerning the remuneration of a Liquidator appointed by the High Court for the winding-up and liquidation of a company. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was to determine the appropriate criteria and governing rules for fixing a Liquidator's remuneration. Specifically, the Court sought to clarify whether such remuneration should be structured as a fixed commission based on the sale of company assets, a fixed salary, or a combination of both, and to establish the underlying principles that should guide judicial orders in this regard. Upon hearing the parties, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address these issues comprehensively. While the Court rejected the prayer for an interim order, it directed that the appeals be prepared on the existing record for an early hearing and dispensed with the requirement for furnishing security. The Court emphasized the necessity of establishing clear, consistent principles for judicial oversight in the liquidation process, ensuring that remuneration is determined on a sound, equitable basis rather than arbitrary assessment.
Questions settled- What criteria should govern the High Court in fixing the remuneration of a Liquidator appointed for winding-up a company?
- Should a Liquidator's remuneration be based on a fixed commission on asset sales, a fixed salary, or a combination of both?
- What are the principles that should guide judicial orders regarding the remuneration of a court-appointed Liquidator?
- Mrs. ZOHRA ARSHAD And Others vs Major TEHMAS KHAN And Other1985 SCMR 827 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute over the transfer of a bungalow in the Lahore Cantonment under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. The respondent, having failed in previous litigation to challenge the transfer of the property to the appellants' predecessor, sought to reopen the matter by claiming that the area exceeding three times the plinth area of the bungalow was not legally transferred. The High Court had accepted this argument, slicing the property and ordering the transfer of the excess area to the respondent. The Supreme Court held that the Chief Settlement Commissioner's instructions, which mandated that cantonment properties be transferred as single units to avoid violating Cantonment Land Administration Rules, were a valid exercise of statutory discretion. The Court ruled that the excess area did not automatically revert to the state. Furthermore, the Court found the respondent’s claim barred by the principle of constructive res judicata, as he had failed to raise these arguments in his initial 1964 writ petition. The impugned High Court judgment was set aside.
Questions settled- Does the second proviso to Section 2(4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 mandate the automatic exclusion of land exceeding three times the plinth area of a house?
- Can the Chief Settlement Commissioner issue instructions to treat cantonment properties as single units despite the provisions regarding excess area in the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Does the failure to raise a specific legal plea in an earlier writ petition bar the party from raising it in subsequent proceedings under the principle of constructive res judicata?
- Mrs. ULFAT RASHID vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, HEALTH1985 PLC (C.S.) 81 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-07-11Read full judgment →
- Mrs. SYLVIA D'SOUZA vs ABDUL GHAFOOR1985 CLC 2709 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-29Read full judgment →
- Mrs. SHAMSHER ALAM vs OMER SONS LABORATORIES, ISLAMABAD1985 PLC 82 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →
- Mrs. SAFIA IMRAN MALIK vs SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, SERVICES, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION & INFORMATION DEPARTMENT and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 51 (2) · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Mrs. REHMAT BAI and 9 others vs SHIREEN and 6 others1985 CLC 287 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-22Read full judgment →
- Mrs. REHANA SAEED And Another vs PAKISTAN Through Secretary, Ministry Of Education And Another1985 SCMR 51 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court was brought by civil servants working as Lecturers against the decision of the Service Tribunal, which had upheld the modification of their date of regularisation from 1st September 1972 to 17th July 1974. The core legal question was whether the Ministry of Education could validly regularise the appellants' ad hoc appointments from a date prior to the Establishment Division's notification excluding the posts from the purview of the Public Service Commission. The Supreme Court held that the Ministry of Education acted without jurisdiction and committed an obvious mistake by antedating the regularisation to a period when consultation with the Public Service Commission was mandatory. The Court laid down the principle that an erroneous executive order issued in excess of authority cannot attain finality or confer vested rights, and that regularisation of an ad hoc appointment cannot precede the date on which statutory hurdles, such as mandatory consultation with the Public Service Commission, are lawfully removed.
Questions settled- Can an executive ministry regularise an ad hoc appointment from a date prior to the exclusion of the post from the purview of the Public Service Commission?
- Does an erroneous departmental order regularising service from an unauthorized date attain finality and create vested rights?
- Whether the correction of an obvious administrative error regarding the date of regularisation can be legally objected to?
- Mrs. NAZIR BEGUM vs THE DIRECTOR-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, EDUCATIONAL1985 PLC (C.S.) 679 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-04-06Read full judgment →
- Mrs. NASIM QURESHI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION1985 PLC (C.S.) 240 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-02-26Read full judgment →
- Mrs. MARIAM and others vs MUHAMMAD AYUB1985 CLC 2531 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-02Read full judgment →
- Mrs. J.C. REHMAN vs Mrs. SULTAN AHMAD1985 CLC 2271 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This First Rent Appeal filed by the tenant arises out of an eviction order dated 19-3-1984 passed by the Rent Controller, Karachi, directing the appellant to vacate the ground floor of the premises. The respondent-landlady sought eviction on grounds of default in payment of water and conservancy charges and bona fide personal requirement for herself and her children. The appellate court evaluated whether agreed additional charges like water and conservancy constitute rent, and whether the landlady established genuine personal need despite having an upper floor vacant. The High Court affirmed the lower court's findings, holding that agreed utility and conservancy charges fall within the definition of rent, making failure to pay them an actionable default. Furthermore, the court held that the statement of a landlady on oath regarding personal requirement is to be accepted when consistent with her pleadings and unshaken in cross-examination. The court emphasized that choice of residential accommodation rests within the landlord's discretion, and section 15-A provides adequate safeguards against re-letting. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, allowing the tenant six months to vacate.
Questions settled- Do agreed water and conservancy charges payable by a tenant form part of the rent for determining default?
- Whether the uncontradicted statement on oath by a landlady regarding personal need is sufficient to establish bona fide requirement?
- Does a landlord possess the sole discretion to choose which portion or floor of a premises to occupy for personal use?
- Mrs. IQBAL IDREES MALIK vs REHMAT ALI SHAH And Other1985 SCMR 1682 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order passed by the Lahore High Court disposing of ongoing litigation in terms of a compromise endorsed by the petitioner. The core legal question is whether a compromise statement made by a party in court can be set aside on the alleged ground of duress and lack of legal representation. The Supreme Court held that the petition fails and must be dismissed, noting that the petitioner was an educated lady, accompanied by her brother, fully aware of the nature of the dispute, a beneficiary of the compromise, and had made the statement of her own accord without any sustainable proof of duress. The key principle laid down is that mere subsequent second thoughts by a party regarding a compromise duly and consciously endorsed in court do not constitute a valid ground for setting aside a judicial order based thereon.
Questions settled- Can a compromise statement made in court by an educated party be set aside on the ground of duress without substantiating proof?
- Does the absence of legal representation at the time of endorsing a compromise in court invalidate the compromise?
- Can subsequent second thoughts by a party constitute a sufficient ground for upsetting an order passed on a compromise?
- Mrs. GUL vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE and others1985 P Cr. L J 3004 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-04-27Read full judgment →
- Mrs. BADRUN NISA REHM AN vs K. C. MAMOO1985 SCMR 1010 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Sind, which set aside an eviction order previously obtained by the landlord against the tenant. The landlord had sought eviction on grounds of default in rent payment, unauthorized construction, and unauthorized subletting. While the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority upheld the eviction based on unauthorized construction and subletting, the High Court reversed this decision, accepting the tenant's plea of waiver due to the landlord's continued acceptance of rent after gaining knowledge of the alleged violations. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, identifying two primary legal questions for examination: first, whether the doctrine of waiver was legally established given the circumstances of the landlord's acceptance of rent; and second, whether the tenant was procedurally entitled to raise the plea of waiver for the first time before the High Court, having abandoned it during the proceedings before the Rent Controller and the first Appellate Court.
Questions settled- Can a tenant raise a plea of waiver for the first time in the High Court after abandoning it before the Rent Controller and the first Appellate Court?
- Does the acceptance of rent by a landlord after gaining knowledge of unauthorized construction and subletting constitute a waiver of the right to seek eviction?
- Mrs. ANTHONY vs RIAZ AHMED MALIK1985 CLC 1309 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-01Read full judgment →
- MRs, HAMIDA MALIK vs MRs, RAFFAT JEHAN BEGUM1985 MLD 121 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-06Read full judgment →
- MRs, AFTAB KARI vs MUHAMMAD HIDAYAT ULLAH1985 MLD 445 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
- Moulvi ABDUL AZIZ KHAN vs Nawab SARFRAZ ALI KHAN1985 SCMR 1900 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These review petitions were filed against this Court's order dismissing earlier civil petitions, on the ground that the High Court had allegedly mistaken Mutation No. 1077 for the sale mutation when it was actually an inheritance mutation, while the true sale mutation was No. 1107. The core legal question was whether a factual mis-description regarding mutation numbers in the lower court's judgment warrants a review of this Court's order. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that no ground for review was made out because the point had neither been taken in the petitions for leave to appeal nor argued at the initial hearing, and in any event, the error in the High Court's order amounted to nothing more than a mere mis-description that had no bearing on the outcome. The key principle laid down is that minor factual mis-descriptions not raised at the appropriate stage do not constitute sufficient grounds for the review of a final order.
Questions settled- Whether a review petition is maintainable on a factual point not raised in the original petition for leave to appeal or during its hearing?
- Does a mere mis-description of a mutation number by the High Court constitute a sufficient ground for review of the Supreme Court's order?
- MOULA BAKHSH vs MESSRS PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY1985 PLC 966 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-02-03Read full judgment →
- MOTIA and 3 others vs GHULAM MEHDI and 6 others1985 CLC 2238 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
- MORIO GOTH WELFARE ASSOCIATION vs MUHAMMAD BACHAL and 6 others1985 CLC 1680 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These four Civil Revision Applications arise from a dispute concerning the ownership of land and an encroachment notice issued by the Mukhtiarkar. The core legal questions were whether the civil court possessed jurisdiction to entertain the suit despite the bar under the Sind Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1975, and whether the suit was maintainable without impleading the Government of Sind as a necessary party. The High Court held that the civil court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute involved public property, for which exclusive jurisdiction is vested in the Tribunal constituted under the Sind Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1975. Additionally, the Court ruled that the suit was not maintainable due to the failure to comply with the procedural requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the impleadment of the Government. The Court emphasized that when a statute explicitly bars civil court jurisdiction over specific matters, such as encroachment on public property, the court cannot entertain such proceedings. Consequently, the impugned judgments and decrees were set aside, and the suit was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit regarding a dispute over property defined as public property under the Sind Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1975?
- Is a suit against public officers in their official capacity maintainable without impleading the Provincial Government as a party?
- Can an appellate court exercise powers under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in favor of parties who did not file an appeal?
- Does the withdrawal of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by a government pleader constitute collusion?
- MORAFCO INDUSTRIES Ltd., FAISALABAD through its Managing Director vs MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ1985 PLC 198 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MOOSA KARIM vs THE STATE1985 PLD Karachi 720 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Sindh High Court challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, passed by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Karachi. The appellant, a clerk in the Sind Small Industries and Handicrafts Development Corporation, was apprehended in a trap raid after demanding and receiving illegal gratification. As a preliminary objection, the appellant contended that the Special Judge lacked jurisdiction because the appellant was not a public servant at the time of the offence. The High Court examined the definition of 'public servant' under Section 2(b) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 and Section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that an employee of a provincial corporation is neither an employee of a corporation controlled by the Federal Government nor covered under Section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to try the appellant, rendering the conviction void ab initio. The appeal was allowed and the conviction was set aside.
Questions settled- Does an employee of a provincial corporation set up under a provincial statute qualify as a public servant under Section 2(b) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958?
- Does a clerk employed by a provincial statutory corporation fall under the definition of a public servant in Section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is a conviction by a Special Judge Anti-Corruption against a non-public servant void for lack of jurisdiction?
- Monoo Gul And Other. vs Pakistan And OtherPTCL 1985 (CL.) 245 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court concerning the seizure of goods by Customs authorities. The core legal question involves the interpretation of the phrase 'notice given' under Section 168(2) of the Customs Act, 1969. Specifically, the Court must determine whether the statutory requirement to 'give notice' within two months of seizure is satisfied by the mere issuance of a show cause notice by the authorities, or whether it mandates the actual service of such notice upon the affected party. The petitioners contend that the legislative intent requires effective service to ensure the party is properly apprised of the allegations, while the State argues that 'giving notice' refers only to the act of issuance, asserting that requiring actual service would incentivize evasion. Recognizing this as a case of first impression requiring an authoritative interpretation of the statutory language, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to resolve the ambiguity regarding the procedural obligations of the Customs authorities under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1969.
Questions settled- Does the phrase 'notice given' in Section 168(2) of the Customs Act 1969 require the actual service of the notice on the accused or merely the issuance of the notice?
- Is the requirement to 'give notice' under the Customs Act 1969 satisfied by the dispatch of a notice regardless of whether it is successfully served on the addressee?
- MOLINS OF INDIA LTD., CALCUTTA vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX WEST1985 PTD 630 · Calcutta High Court · 1982-10-15Read full judgment →
- MOIN NAWAZ JANG AND ANOTHERs vs RIAZ AHMED THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS1985 PLD Karachi 530 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MOHYUD DIN vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS1985 PLC 941 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-08Read full judgment →
- MOHIBULLAH and another vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary1985 CLC 580 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-14Read full judgment →
- MOHIB ALI vs The STATE1985 SCMR 2055 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which had maintained the appellant's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but reduced his death sentence to life imprisonment. The appellant admitted to killing the deceased with a shotgun but raised the defense of grave and sudden provocation, claiming he found the deceased in a compromising and naked position with his wife inside his house. The prosecution contended that the appellant followed the deceased from a shop and shot him. The Supreme Court examined whether the offense fell under Section 304 instead of Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court observed that the deceased's body was found fully clothed fifty yards away from the appellant's house near his tied mare, and there was no independent corroborative evidence to substantiate the plea of moral laxity. The Court held that a mere unsubstantiated allegation of moral laxity does not constitute grave and sudden provocation, and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a mere unsubstantiated allegation of moral laxity or Siahkari can legally constitute grave and sudden provocation to reduce a murder charge from Section 302 to Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the physical location and state of the deceased's body, if inconsistent with the accused's narrative of catching the deceased in flagrante delicto, negate the plea of grave and sudden provocation?
- MOHAMMAD NAWAZ SHAH vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD and 21985 PLC (C.S.) 148 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-10-30Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN vs WAPDA (ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT), LAHORE1985 PLC 58 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MOHABAT KHAN vs ATTA MUHAMMAD and others1985 P Cr. L J 360 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-28Read full judgment →
- MOGHUL TOBACCO COMPANY Ltd. vs ABU BAKAR1985 PLC 376 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
- MOEZ KHALID vs MECHANISED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN LTD. , .1985 PLC 542 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-01-07Read full judgment →
- MOEENUDDIN And Others vs SIBGHATULLAH And Other1985 SCMR 1103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit concerning the pre-emption of a land sale. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, Sibghatullah, after the defendants' evidence was closed under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The defendants unsuccessfully appealed through the first and second appellate courts. The core legal questions were whether the trial court acted arbitrarily in closing the defendants' evidence and whether the suit was collusive, specifically regarding its financing by a third party. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's decision to close evidence was justified due to the defendants' dilatory conduct. Furthermore, the Court found that the High Court had adequately addressed the issue of collusion, noting that the plaintiff testified the suit was for his own benefit and that the alleged financier denied any involvement. The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings of fact regarding the plaintiff's superior right of pre-emption, finding no legal infirmity in the lower courts' decisions, and consequently refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a trial court close a party's evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to persistent delays?
- Is a finding of fact regarding a superior right of pre-emption subject to interference by the Supreme Court if no legal infirmity exists?
- Can an appellate court remedy an omission in the trial court's judgment regarding the determination of a specific issue?
- MOEEN-UD- DIN vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CANAL EASTERN BAR DIVISION, PAKPATTAN, DISTRICT SAHIWAL AND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C.S.) 913 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MODERN TRADERS vs PROVINCE OF SIND, through Secretary Works and Communication Sind Sectt. Building, Karachi and 2 others1985 MLD 402 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-16Read full judgment →
- Mistri MIRAJ DIN And Another vs MUHAMMAD YAMIN And Other1985 SCMR 637 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, claiming to be licensees of the original tenant Fazal Ahmad, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenging an ejectment order passed against the tenant. The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine holding that the petitioners, having no independent right and claiming only as workers of the tenant, were not aggrieved parties. In the petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the second ejectment petition was barred by the principles of res judicata under section 14 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, and sought to assert an independent right. The Supreme Court held that the second ejectment petition was not barred as the questions for determination differed from the first petition, that the plea of an independent right could not be entertained at that stage, and that licensees cannot subsequently change their admitted position. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a licensee of a tenant can challenge an ejectment order against the tenant as an aggrieved party?
- Does a second ejectment petition become barred by res judicata under section 14 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance when the questions for determination differ?
- Can a party change its admitted position as a licensee of the tenant to claim an independent right at the appellate stage?
- Mistri BARKAT MASIH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 346 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-22Read full judgment →
- Mist. TAHIRA KHATOON And Others vs Ch. SULTAN MUHAMMAD KHAN, SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER And Other1985 SCMR 1565 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a property dispute under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to decide a second revision petition on 31 May 1962, following the omission of Section 20(2) of the Act by Ordinance II of 1962. The Supreme Court held that the Chief Settlement Commissioner lacked jurisdiction because the statutory savings clause in Ordinance XIII of 1962 required that the record of the case must have been called for prior to 13 January 1962. Upon reviewing the official record, the Court found no evidence that the record had been summoned by the requisite date. Consequently, the Court set aside the Chief Settlement Commissioner’s order, declaring it to have been passed without lawful authority, and upheld the original auction sale of the property. The key principle established is that where a statute provides a savings clause for pending proceedings contingent upon a specific procedural act (calling for the record), the absence of such a positive order on the record vitiates the subsequent exercise of jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Did the Chief Settlement Commissioner have the jurisdiction to decide a second revision petition after the omission of Section 20(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Does the presumption of regularity regarding official acts apply when the record fails to show that the statutory requirements for jurisdiction were met?
- What is the effect of the savings clause in Ordinance XIII of 1962 on pending second revision petitions under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Miss SHAGUFTA RANAA vs SECRETARY-GENERAL, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, AVIATION DIVISION, RAWALPINDI1985 PLC (C.S.) 769 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-09-30Read full judgment →
- Miss ROSIE DENNIS vs SHAUKAT ALI1985 SCMR 1988 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a landlord's application for the eviction of a tenant from residential premises in Quetta. The landlord, a 70-year-old school headmistress residing in school-provided accommodation, sought eviction on grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide requirement due to her impending retirement. The Rent Controller and the High Court dismissed the application, reasoning that the landlord's intent was mala fide because she had previously sold another property and failed to provide specific retirement details. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine if these conclusions were based on conjecture and if the prior sale of property barred her claim. The Court held that the landlord, owning no other property in Quetta, was entitled to reside in her own house upon retirement. It found the lower courts' conclusions regarding mala fide intent to be based on surmises rather than evidence. Furthermore, the Court clarified that an eviction application remains maintainable even if a landlord could have pursued specific retirement-related provisions, provided other valid grounds like rent default exist. The appeal was allowed, and eviction was ordered.
Questions settled- Does the prior sale of a residential property by a landlord automatically negate a claim of bona fide personal requirement for another property?
- Can an eviction application be maintained under the general provisions of a rent ordinance if the landlord also qualifies for a specific retirement-based eviction provision?
- Are findings of mala fide intent in eviction proceedings valid when based on surmises rather than concrete evidence?
- Miss RAKHSHANDA ASLAM vs NOMINATION BOARD of AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR and 2 others1985 CLC 1142 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-12-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs NISAR AHMAD1985 CLC 1974 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Second Appeal arises from a suit for possession through pre-emption filed by the respondent against the sale of land by his father. The core legal question was whether the respondent had waived his right of pre-emption by participating in or having knowledge of the sale negotiations. The trial and first appellate courts had ruled in favor of the respondent, finding insufficient evidence of waiver. However, the High Court reversed these findings. The Court held that the appellants successfully established the plea of waiver, noting that the respondent’s failure to cross-examine the vendee’s testimony regarding his participation in the bargain rendered that evidence conclusive. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that a pre-emptor who is a close relative and cohabitant of the vendor, and who is present during sale negotiations, cannot subsequently assert a right of pre-emption. The Court laid down the principle that courts must scrutinize such suits for potential mala fides, as pre-emption is a piratory right and should not be used to create hurdles for vendees after a transaction is finalized.
Questions settled- Does a pre-emptor's presence during sale negotiations constitute a waiver of the right of pre-emption?
- Must a court accept a portion of a witness's testimony that remains unchallenged during cross-examination?
- Can a pre-emption suit filed by a close relative of the vendor be dismissed on the grounds of mala fides if the pre-emptor had knowledge of the transaction?
- Miss RAKHSHANDA ASLAM vs NOMINATION BOARD OF AZAD JAMMU &1985 PLD Azad J & K 41 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-05-06Read full judgment →
- Miss RAHILA MUMTAZ vs COMMISSIONER And Another1985 SCMR 1286 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought a Permanent Residence Certificate for Kotri, District Dadu, which was denied by the District Magistrate and the Commissioner on the grounds that she was born and educated in Karachi and lacked a permanent abode in Kotri. The Sind High Court dismissed her constitutional petition, affirming that the findings of fact regarding her residence were conclusive and not subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld this decision. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to a Permanent Residence Certificate based on her father's domicile and whether the High Court correctly declined to interfere with the departmental findings of fact. The Supreme Court held that the departmental authorities had sufficient material to conclude the petitioner was not a permanent resident of Kotri. The Court affirmed that a parent's domicile certificate cannot be the sole basis for granting a Permanent Residence Certificate, as the relevant rules require an independent inquiry into the applicant's actual residence. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as the findings of fact were supported by evidence and beyond the scope of constitutional review.
Questions settled- Can a Permanent Residence Certificate be granted solely on the basis of a parent's domicile certificate?
- Is a finding of fact by departmental authorities regarding an applicant's residence subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does the possession of a domicile certificate automatically entitle an applicant to a Permanent Residence Certificate?
- Miss NAUSHABA JABEEN vs THE ADMINISTRATOR, ABANDONED PROPERTIES1985 CLC 2137 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-05Read full judgment →
- Miss NASRIN AKHTAR vs DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, VEHARI AND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C.S.) 614 · Punjab Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- Miss KASHFA vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, HYDERABAD and others1985 CLC 2549 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-05Read full judgment →
- Miss FARKHUNDA AKHTAR vs THE PROPRIETOR, UMER SONS LABORATORIES,1985 PLC 86 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →
- MISS FARKANA MALIK vs SECRETARY, HEALTH GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 201 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-12-01Read full judgment →
- Miss DURRESHEHWAR vs Dr. SIRAJ-UL-HAQ and 11 others1985 CLC 2401 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-07Read full judgment →
- MISS DAISY ALLAH RAKHA vs PUNJAB GOVERNMENT THROUGH SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT1985 PLC (C.S.) 792 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
- Mirza SAFDAR, JANG vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1054 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-20Read full judgment →
- Mirza NASEER BAIG vs AZAM KHAN1985 MLD 1073 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-11Read full judgment →
- Mirza MUSTAFA BEG vs Mst. KHATOON HADI1985 SCMR 2033 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court which upheld the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from a commercial shop ordered by the Rent Controller. The respondent-landlord sought eviction on the ground that the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the building by demolishing the common intervening wall between two adjoining rented shops to convert them into a single unit. The Rent Controller and the High Court both ordered eviction, rejecting the tenant's defense of prior consent. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan considered whether there was any legal basis or evidence on record to support the conclusion that the demolition of the wall materially impaired the utility or value of the building. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the record lacked evidence to substantiate the finding of impairment, and granted interim stay against eviction subject to regular rent deposits.
Questions settled- Whether the demolition of a common intervening wall between two rented shops constitutes material impairment of the value and utility of the building under rent laws?
- Is a finding of material impairment of a building's value and utility required to be supported by evidence on the record?
- Can leave to appeal be granted when the lower courts draw conclusions regarding property damage without supporting evidence?
- Mirza MUNIR HUSSAIN vs ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (G) and others1985 CLC 1857 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
- Mirza MUHAMMAD MUNAWAR And Others vs MUHAMMAD YAQOOB And Other1985 SCMR 212 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerned petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order dismissing second appeals in an ejectment execution proceeding. The core legal questions revolved around the applicability of Section 15(7) and (8) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance to execution matters, the commencement of the limitation period for executing a conditional ejectment decree, and the binding nature of a compromise decree where a condition was initially met but subsequently overturned by higher courts. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the High Court correctly found the execution application was not time-barred. The limitation period for the conditional decree, which depended on the outcome of a revision before the Settlement Commissioner, commenced from the date the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal (3-12-1974), thereby finalizing the decision against the tenants. The Court affirmed that the compromise decree remained binding, as the Settlement Authority's initial favorable decision merged into the subsequent orders of the High Court and Supreme Court, ultimately rendering the condition unfulfilled. Section 15 of the Limitation Act was also deemed applicable.
Questions settled- When does the limitation period commence for the execution of a conditional ejectment decree?
- Are the provisions of Section 15(7) and (8) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance applicable to execution proceedings?
- Does an initial favorable decision by a lower authority bind parties to a compromise decree if that decision is subsequently overturned by higher courts?
- Can a compromise decree be executed if the condition upon which it was based is ultimately not met after appeals to higher courts?
- MIRZA KHAN vs HOORO AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Quetta 268 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-09-06Read full judgment →
- MIRZA KHAN vs GHULAM SHABBIR And Another1985 SCMR 136 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-10-26Read full judgment →
- Mirza JAWAD HUSSAIN vs GHULAM HYDERPLD 1985 Rev. 118 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1971-08-04Read full judgment →
- Mirza JAWAD BAIG vs PAKISTAN STATE OIL CO.LTD.1985 MLD 536 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-24Read full judgment →
- Mirza INAYAT BAIG vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER and another1985 MLD 1622(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-15Read full judgment →
- Mirza GHIAS-UD-DIN BAIG vs MEMBER (POWER), WAPDA AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 597 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
- Mirza AKBAR ALI vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1985 SCMR 190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil revision petition challenging the execution of a money decree passed on September 24, 1969. The petitioner, a judgment-debtor, objected to the fourth execution application filed on June 25, 1981, contending that it was time-barred under the repealed Article 182 of the Limitation Act 1908 because it was not filed within three years of the dismissal of the previous execution application, despite being within the twelve-year limit prescribed by Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the repeal of Article 182 of the Limitation Act 1908 by the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 preserved a vested right in the judgment-debtor to insist on the three-year limitation period for subsequent execution applications. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that limitation law is primarily procedural and the repeal of Article 182 removed the three-year clog on execution applications. The Court ruled that a judgment-debtor has no vested right in such a procedural restriction, and since the application was within twelve years of the decree, it was valid under Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Does the repeal of Article 182 of the Limitation Act 1908 by the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 preserve a vested right in a judgment-debtor to object to execution applications filed beyond three years of a prior dismissal?
- Is the limitation period prescribed for successive execution applications under the repealed Article 182 of the Limitation Act 1908 considered a procedural law or a substantive vested right?
- Can an execution application be maintained within twelve years of a decree under Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if it is filed more than three years after the dismissal of a previous execution application, following the repeal of Article 182 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Mirza ABDUL WAHAB vs Dr. MUHAMMAD AFZAL MIRZA and 2 others1985 MLD 1205 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-03Read full judgment →
- Mirza ABDUL RAZZAQ vs BARKAT ALI And Other1985 SCMR 1235 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arose from an order of the Lahore High Court rejecting a reference from the Sessions Judge against a Magistrate's order in proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appellant had obtained possession through execution of an ejectment order but was forcibly dispossessed by the respondents within two months prior to initiating proceedings. The Magistrate found that the appellant was wrongfully dispossessed and deemed to be in possession under the first proviso to Section 145(4), but instead of restoring possession, referred the parties to a competent court regarding title, which the High Court maintained due to title disputes. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that under Section 145, a Magistrate is strictly precluded from inquiring into title and must confine proceedings to actual possession or wrongful dispossession. Where wrongful dispossession within two months is established, the word 'may' in Section 145(6) is coupled with a duty and has a compulsive effect, requiring the Magistrate to order restoration of possession rather than referring parties to civil courts.
Questions settled- Can a Magistrate in proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 examine questions of proprietary or possessory title?
- Whether the word 'may' in Section 145(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 imposes a mandatory duty on the Magistrate to order restoration of possession once wrongful dispossession under the proviso to subsection (4) is established?
- Under what circumstances can a Magistrate refer parties to a competent civil court under Section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Mirza ABDUL Azizthrough His Legal Heirs vs Shahzadi TAJ BAKHT And Other1985 SCMR 562 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 2-7-1979, which dismissed a constitutional petition concerning a land settlement dispute between displaced persons holding unsatisfied produce index units. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner was entitled to land allotted against the respondents' units and whether the Settlement Commissioner was justified in dismissing the petitioner's appeal as time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit, upholding the High Court's findings that the appeal was competently dismissed as time-barred due to knowledge of the allotment order and that both parties stood in an equal capacity as sitting allottees on merits. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact regarding limitation and the equal standing of sitting allottees, supported by cogent reasons and unrefuted by documentary evidence, will not be interfered with in constitutional or appellate jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal treated as time-barred by a Settlement Commissioner can be interfered with when the appellant had knowledge of the impugned allotment order?
- Whether sitting allottees holding unsatisfied produce index units stand in an equal capacity on merits regarding disputed land allotments?
- MIRAN alias MIR MUHAMMAD vs GHULAM HUSSAIN1985 PLD Karachi 674 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These connected civil revision petitions arose from a dispute regarding agricultural land over which the applicant had entered into agreements of purchase with the respondents. The respondents subsequently filed rent ejectment proceedings against the applicant, which were dismissed, leading to protracted litigation culminating in a second appeal decided by the High Court. Thereafter, the applicant filed suits for specific performance of the contracts of sale, which the trial court decreed. The first appellate court, however, allowed the respondents' appeals and dismissed the suits as time-barred under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, treating the filing of the earlier rent application as notice of refusal to perform. On revision, the Sindh High Court examined whether the provisions of Article 113 had been correctly interpreted and whether filing a rent application constituted an unequivocal refusal to perform a contract of sale. The High Court held that limitation is a regulatory statute that cannot extinguish vested rights without strict compliance, and the mere filing of a rent application without mentioning the agreement of sale did not amount to a deliberate, intentional, and unambiguous refusal to perform the contract. Furthermore, the first appellate court committed a serious illegality by reversing findings on other issues without giving reasons, in violation of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate judgment and restored the judgment and decree of the trial court.
Questions settled- Does the filing of a rent ejectment application amount to a refusal to perform an agreement of sale for the purpose of starting the limitation period under Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- What constitutes a valid and sufficient notice of refusal under the second part of Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908 for a suit for specific performance?
- Can an appellate court reverse findings on merits without assigning reasons while disposing of an appeal on a preliminary point of limitation under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- How should the starting point of limitation be determined under Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908 when no specific date for performance is fixed in the contract?
- MIR ZAHID and others vs BADARUL HUDA and others1985 MLD 383 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-02Read full judgment →
- Mir Qadir Bux & Bros & Other vs Pakistan Through Secretary To Government, Ministry Offinance, Islamabad And OtherPTCL 1985 (CL.) 224 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-02Read full judgment →
- Mir MUKHTAR ALI vs MUHAMMAD AMJAD and 3 others1985 CLC 641 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-16Read full judgment →
- MIR MUHAMMAD ALI vs ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS1985 PLD Quetta 222 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-06-17Read full judgment →
- Mir GHULAM HYDER KHAN vs ABDUL QAYUM1985 CLC 2741 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-29Read full judgment →
- MIR DAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 881 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-12-10Read full judgment →
- Mir ALI AHMED KHAN AND ANOTHERs vs Mir AIJAZ ALI KHAN AND ANOTHERsPLD 1985 Rev. 98(2) [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1971-11-29Read full judgment →
- Mir ALI AHMED KHAN AND ANOTHER vs Mir AIJAZ ALI KHAN TALPUR AND ANOTHERPLD 1985 Rev. 86 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1971-07-27Read full judgment →
- MIR ALAM KHAN vs SHER ALAM and 7 others1985 CLC 1112 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-01-06Read full judgment →
- MIR AHMAD vs ATAULLAH And Other1985 SCMR 1851 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises out of pre-emption suits involving similar questions of law and fact regarding the application of the doctrine of sinker to joint vendees. A learned Judge of the Lahore High Court had rejected the vendees' plea that the doctrine of sinker would not operate against them where co-owners and tenants jointly purchased land. The core legal question revolves around whether joint purchasers with differing individual pre-emptive qualifications, or those who are tenants over only a portion of the purchased survey numbers, lose their right to defend the sale through the application of the principle of sinker when joined with strangers or non-qualified co-purchasers in an indivisible transaction. The Supreme Court noted that previous precedents attract the doctrine of sinker in such indivisible purchases, though certain complexities and review petitions warranted a re-examination of the rule. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal in the connected petition and directed that the matters be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration by a larger bench of five judges.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of sinker apply when co-owners and a tenant join in an indivisible joint purchase of land?
- Can a vendee protect a sale pro tanto where they are a tenant on only a portion of the jointly purchased land?
- Whether joint vendees who lack pre-emption qualifications over certain survey numbers lose their right to defend the entire transaction.
- MIR AHMAD KHAN vs GUL AYUB KHAN AND 3 OTHERS1985 PLD Peshawar 3 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-07-03Read full judgment →
- Mir Afzal. vs The District Excise & Taxation Officer, Abbottabad And 2 OtherPTCL 1985 (CL.) 431 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
- MIR AFZAL vs THE DISTRICT EXCISE & TAXATION OFFICER, ABBOTTABAD AND 21985 PLD Peshawar 101 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
- MIR ABBAS vs AMANULLAH KHAN and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 173 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-04-17Read full judgment →
- Mian ZIAUDDIN vs PUNJAB LOCAL. GOVERNMENT And Other1985 SCMR 117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises out of an election dispute concerning the interpretation of election rules regarding voter identification. The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his election petition by the Election Tribunal and the subsequent failure of his writ petition before the High Court. The core legal question revolves around whether a Presiding Officer is strictly mandated to require the production of a national identity card by a voter before issuing a ballot-paper, in light of the amended provision of rule 34(1) of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979. The Supreme Court held that the point requires consideration and granted leave to appeal to examine the mandatory nature of the requirement under the amended rule.
Questions settled- Whether the Presiding Officer is strictly required to demand a national identity card from a voter before issuing a ballot-paper under rule 34(1) of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979?
- MIAN ZAIUDDIN vs PUNJAB LOCAL GOVERNMENT And Other1985 SCMR 365 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal examines whether the non-observance of the substituted sub-rule (1) of Rule 34 of the Punjab Local Councils Election Rules, 1979, requiring the production of a National Identity Card before issuing a ballot paper, vitiates an election as a whole. The appellant challenged the election of respondent No. 2, alleging that numerous voters were permitted to cast votes without producing identity cards. Both the Election Tribunal and the High Court dismissed the challenge, holding the requirement to be a mere irregularity rather than a mandatory condition that voids an election. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and held that when read alongside Section 19 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, the requirement is directory rather than mandatory because statutes regulating official conduct without declaring non-compliance to be null and void are generally construed as directory, and rules cannot overreach the parent statute. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether the requirement to produce a National Identity Card under Rule 34(1) of the Punjab Local Councils Election Rules, 1979 is mandatory or directory?
- Does the non-compliance with Rule 34(1) of the Punjab Local Councils Election Rules, 1979 vitiate an election as a whole?
- Can rules framed under an Ordinance prescribe a mandatory requirement that goes beyond or over-reaches the parent statute?
- MIAN WALI MUHMMAD vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE1985 PLC (C.S.) 858 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-05-14Read full judgment →
- Mian UMER HAYAT and others vs Begum KHADIJA HAKEEM and others1985 CLC 2551 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-21Read full judgment →
- Mian TAHIR JAHANGIR and others vs THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and others1985 CLC 1639 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-12Read full judgment →
- Mian SHAHBAZ AHMAD vs Haji MUHAMMAD TARIQ And Other1985 SCMR 227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court which allowed a constitutional petition, setting aside an election tribunal's decision and restoring respondent No.1 to an elected municipal office. The core legal questions involved whether respondent No.1 suffered from statutory disqualifications under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, specifically concerning membership of a political party's executive committee or involvement in subversive activities based on a past Summary Military Court conviction. The Supreme Court held that the election tribunal's findings were conjectural, that the refusal of the Governor to grant exemption did not independently create a disqualification without proof of the underlying condition, and that a conviction occurring more than three years prior to the election required affirmative evidence of prejudicial activities against Pakistan. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether the refusal by the Governor to relieve a candidate from a disqualification creates a disqualification independently of whether the disqualification was actually incurred?
- What standard of proof is required to establish that a candidate is an office-bearer of a political party under Section 21(h) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- Does a conviction by a Summary Military Court older than three years prior to an election automatically operate as a disqualification without affirmative evidence of prejudicial activities?
- Can an election tribunal declare an election void based on conjectural findings and surmises regarding a candidate's background?
- MIAN MUNIR AHMAD vs The STATE1985 SCMR 257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-09-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These criminal appeals arose from a judgment of the Sind High Court dismissing applications under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the quashment of proceedings pending before a Labour Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash criminal proceedings before a Labour Court, despite the Labour Court not being subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of appeals or revisions. The Supreme Court held that section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies to proceedings before any court dealing with offences under laws other than the Pakistan Penal Code unless specifically excluded, as it falls under the expression 'otherwise dealt with' in section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court further held that powers under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and section 561-A are co-extensive. On the merits, the Court quashed the proceedings because the workers in question were contractor's employees, not direct employees of the factory.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash criminal proceedings pending before a Labour Court?
- Are the powers of a trial court under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 co-extensive with the inherent powers of the High Court under section 561-A?
- Whether a factory owner is required to issue attendance tickets under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 to workers employed by an independent contractor?