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.
- MESSRS GHULAM AHMED TEXTILE MILLS LTD.KARACHI vs ZARDULLAH KHAN1985 PLC 1015 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
- Messrs GENERAL ENGINEERS Ltd. vs Messrs NATIONAL and GRINDLAYS BANK1985 CLC 2916 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-25Read full judgment →
- Messrs FIRDOUS TEXTILE MILLS vs EHSAN ELAHI1985 MLD 979 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-05Read full judgment →
- Messrs FATEH TIMBER MART vs Messrs GILANI TIMBER MART1985 SCMR 2024 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a tenant, sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that restored a trial court decree regarding the eviction from premises housing a Saw Mill. The core legal question was whether premises comprising land, structures, and an installed Saw Mill constitute a 'building' or 'rented land' under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of civil courts. The Supreme Court held that premises where machinery for an industry or factory is installed and let out along with the land do not fall within the definitions of 'building' or 'rented land' provided in the Ordinance. Consequently, such industrial concerns are excluded from the operation of the Ordinance, and the relationship between the parties is governed by the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The Court affirmed that the nature of the property as an industrial concern places it outside the statutory rent restriction framework, and thus, the civil court correctly exercised jurisdiction. Leave to appeal was refused as no substantial question of law requiring further examination was presented.
Questions settled- Does a running industrial concern, such as a Saw Mill, fall under the definition of 'building' or 'rented land' under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Are premises containing industrial machinery excluded from the operation of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Does the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 apply to a lease of an industrial concern?
- Messrs FAROOQ INTERNATIONAL vs The CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS and 4 others1985 CLC 1781 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the confiscation of imported cloth by Customs authorities, who alleged the goods were unsuitable for the licensed purpose of manufacturing neckties and were undervalued. The core legal questions concerned whether Customs authorities could rely on evidence, specifically an opinion from the Ministry of Commerce, obtained behind the importer's back, and whether the valuation and classification of the goods were lawful. The Court held that the impugned orders were passed without lawful authority and were of no legal effect. The ratio decidendi established that administrative proceedings are vitiated when they rely on evidence obtained behind a party's back without providing an opportunity for rebuttal, violating principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under Section 25 of the Customs Act 1969, the valuation of imported goods must be based on the actual price paid by the importer in the country of purchase, rather than local market prices. Additionally, findings of license contravention based on mere conjecture regarding the suitability of goods for a specific manufacturing purpose are legally insufficient.
Questions settled- Can Customs authorities rely on evidence obtained behind the back of an importer to justify the confiscation of goods?
- How should the normal price of imported goods be determined under Section 25 of the Customs Act 1969?
- Does the filing of a bill of entry for home-consumption preclude an importer from claiming the goods were intended for re-export under a bank guarantee?
- Is a finding of license contravention valid if based on conjecture regarding the suitability of imported material for a specific manufacturing purpose?
- Messrs FA KHRI TRADERS vs Mst. BATOOL FIDA HUSSAIN SHEIKH and 4 others1985 CLC 283 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs EXXON CHEMICAL PAKISTAN Ltd. vs GHULAM QADIR SIDDIQI1985 PLC 277 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
- Messrs EASTERN FEDERAL UNION INSURANCE CO. LTD., KARACHI and another1985 MLD 1109 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-29Read full judgment →
- Messrs EAST AND WEST CORPORATION vs S. M YOUN US and 2 others1985 CLC 241 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-25Read full judgment →
- MESSRS E. L. M. (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI vs Syed ANWAR ALI AND 4 OTHERS1985 PLC 978 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
- MESSRS DUTY FREE SHOPS LTD., KARACHI vs ALTAF HUSSAIN AWAN1985 PLC 1018 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-03-19Read full judgment →
- MESSRS DHANRAJMAL MANUMAL & SONS vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1985 PTD 433 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-07Read full judgment →
- Messrs DAWOOD LIMITED vs PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT & INVESTMENT1985 CLC 1223 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-21Read full judgment →
- Messrs DANDOT CEMENT COMPANY LTD. vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE1985 PLC 413 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged an order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which permitted a worker to file a grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, through an attorney. The core legal question was whether a worker is authorized to appoint an attorney to initiate grievance proceedings, given that Section 25-A specifies the worker, a Shop Steward, or a Collective Bargaining Agent as the authorized parties. The Lahore High Court held that the Labour Appellate Tribunal erred in its interpretation. The Court ruled that Section 25-A must be construed harmoniously as a whole, and the legislative intent clearly restricts representation to the worker personally, a Shop Steward, or a Collective Bargaining Agent, thereby excluding outside agents or attorneys. The Court emphasized that the Labour Court is a special jurisdiction designed to resolve disputes between employers and employees without the intermeddling of outside agents. Consequently, the Court set aside the Appellate Tribunal's order, affirming that the institution of proceedings through an attorney is impermissible under the statutory scheme of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
Questions settled- Can a worker file a grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, through an attorney?
- Does the omission of the word 'himself' in subsection (4) of Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, allow for representation by an attorney?
- Is the representation of a party by an attorney permitted as a matter of right in proceedings before a Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Messrs DAILY HILAL E PAKISTAN vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL And Other1985 SCMR 918 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the order of the Sind High Court dismissing the petitioner-newspaper's constitutional petition, which had upheld the Labour Appellate Tribunal's decision granting reinstatement with back benefits to respondent No. 3, a former Officer on Special Duty whose services were terminated due to retrenchment. The core legal question was whether an employee working as an Officer on Special Duty and Manager in a newspaper establishment qualifies as a 'workman' or 'newspaper employee' entitled to invoke Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that under Section 17 of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, a newspaper employee is deemed to be a workman under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and thus entitled to seek redress for grievances under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The key principle laid down is that newspaper employees, by statutory fiction under Section 17 of the 1973 Act, enjoy the rights of workmen to challenge termination through labor forums.
Questions settled- Whether an Officer on Special Duty in a newspaper establishment qualifies as a newspaper employee under the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973?
- Does a newspaper employee have the right to invoke Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for the redress of individual grievances?
- Are the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, applicable to newspaper establishments under Section 17 of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973?
- Messrs DAILY AZAD, DACCA and others vs MUHAMMAD QAMARUDDIN and others1985 CLC 1561 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-07Read full judgment →
- Messrs CRESCENT GHEE MILLS, CHICHAWATNI vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE1985 PLC 225 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-08-12Read full judgment →
- MESSRS COX AND KINGS (AGENTS) LTD. vs THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, CENTRAL DIVISION, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1985 PLC 880 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs CHENAB TEXTILE MILLS Ltd. vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and 3 others1985 CLC 1186 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
- Messrs CARSTAIRS & CUMMING Ltd. through Mr. Mushtaq M. Memon, Advocate vs PAKISTAN through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence (Navy), Rawalpindi1985 CLC 2161 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs CAPRI CINEMA' vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND through its CHIEF1985 CLC 1766 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the authority competent to issue cinema licenses for premises situated within cantonment limits. The petitioners, owners of cinemas in the Karachi Cantonment area, challenged the Provincial Government's demand for licenses, asserting that the Cantonment Board holds this authority under the Cantonments (Urban Immovable Property Tax and Entertainments Duty) Order, 1979. The respondents contended that the subsequent Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979, designated the Provincial Government as the licensing authority, thereby superseding the Order. The Court held that both the Order and the Ordinance constitute valid legislative acts. Applying Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Court determined that the reference in the Order to the repealed Cinematograph Act, 1918, must be construed as a reference to the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Cantonment Board remains the competent authority to issue licenses for cinemas within its jurisdiction, rejecting the Provincial Government's claim to licensing authority. The principle established is that where a new enactment repeals a former one, references in existing instruments to the repealed law are construed as references to the re-enacted law, absent contrary intention.
Questions settled- Is the Cantonment Board or the Provincial Government the competent authority to issue cinema licenses for premises located within cantonment limits?
- Does the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979, repeal the authority of the Cantonment Board to issue cinema licenses granted under the Cantonments (Urban Immovable Property Tax and Entertainments Duty) Order, 1979?
- Does Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, apply to construe references to the repealed Cinematograph Act, 1918, as references to the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979?
- Are the Cantonments (Urban Immovable Property Tax and Entertainments Duty) Order, 1979, and the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979, considered legislative acts of equal standing?
- MESSRS BURHAN ENGINEERING CO. LTD. vs THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, COMPANIES CIRCLE II, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1985 PTD 465 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged notices issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 34(1-A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, to reopen assessments for the years 1971-72 to 1975-76. The petitioner contended that the notices were issued without jurisdiction as the respondents failed to disclose the material justifying the "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment. The core legal question was whether the Income-tax Officer must disclose the underlying material at the notice stage and whether the court could review the sufficiency of such material. The Court held that while the "reason to believe" is justiciable and the court may inspect the record to ensure the belief is based on reasonable grounds rather than mere suspicion or rumor, the Income-tax Officer is not required to disclose the material to the assessee at the initial notice stage. The assessee is only entitled to be confronted with the material once the department decides to proceed with re-assessment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as premature, as the department had committed to confronting the petitioner with the material during the investigation.
Questions settled- Is the 'reason to believe' requirement under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act 1922 justiciable by the High Court?
- Must an Income-tax Officer disclose the material forming the basis of a notice under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act 1922 to the assessee at the time of issuance?
- Can a court review the sufficiency of the material relied upon by an Income-tax Officer to form a 'reason to believe' for re-opening an assessment?
- At what stage of the proceedings must an Income-tax Officer confront an assessee with the material used to justify re-opening an assessment?
- Messrs BISVIL SPINNERS Ltd. and 2 others vs AHMAD AZIZ ZIA and another1985 CLC 1207 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from an ejectment proceeding initiated against a tenant for default in rent, personal requirement, and other grounds. The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition on merits and refused to strike off the tenant's defence for a slight delay in depositing the monthly rent. On appeal, the Additional District Judge maintained the dismissal on merits but reversed the finding on the rent deposit, striking off the defence and ordering ejectment due to the late deposit of rent for July 1980 during court summer vacations. The Lahore High Court examined whether a tenant's delay in depositing rent during the civil court summer vacation constitutes an actionable default under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Court held that "default" under section 13(6) imports an element of negligence or fault, and where courts are closed for summer vacation, the principles regarding computation of time apply, meaning a delay under a bona fide belief or during vacation closure is not necessarily a wilful default justifying the striking off of defence. The writ petition was allowed and the appellate ejectment order was set aside.
Questions settled- Does a delay in depositing monthly rent during the civil court summer vacation constitute a wilful default under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Whether the term 'default' in rent restriction law imports an element of negligence or fault beyond mere non-compliance?
- Can an appellate court interfere with the discretion exercised by a Rent Controller refusing to strike off a tenant's defence when no arbitrary or perverse exercise of discretion is shown?
- MESSRS BENI PRASAD SIDH GOPAL vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KANPUR1985 PTD 703 · Allahabad High Court · 1983-05-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs AZAM INSTRUMENTS Ltd. vs ISLAMIA EDUCATION SOCIETY and 2 others1985 CLC 351 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
- Messrs AWAMI AUTOS Ltd. vs ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS1985 CLC 2714 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-12Read full judgment →
- Messrs AUTO HOUSE through its Proprietor and another vs Messrs UNITED1985 MLD 506 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MESSRS ASLO MARINES LTD.s vs M. T. MAGDA AND ANOTHER1985 PLD Karachi 745 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This admiralty suit concerns a claim for damages by Messrs Aslo Marines Ltd. against the vessel 'M. T. Magda' and its owners for the short-landing of oil cargo. The defendants filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking to stay the proceedings in favor of arbitration or foreign jurisdiction as per the charter party agreement. The High Court dismissed the application. The court held that the defendants had already taken 'steps in the proceedings' by filing a counter-affidavit that contested the merits of the claim and sought leave to file a written statement, thereby acquiescing to the court's jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court exercised its discretion to refuse a stay because the plaintiffs would be deprived of the security obtained through the arrest of the vessel, and the balance of convenience favored the local forum. The court affirmed that the burden of proof lies on the party seeking to alter the court's jurisdiction, and that foreign jurisdiction clauses are subject to the court's discretion, particularly when a stay would result in injustice or loss of security.
Questions settled- Does filing a counter-affidavit that contests the merits of a claim constitute a 'step in the proceedings' under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- Can a court refuse to stay proceedings in favor of arbitration if doing so would deprive the plaintiff of security obtained through the arrest of a vessel?
- Is the burden of proof on the party seeking to stay a suit in favor of a foreign jurisdiction clause?
- Does a foreign jurisdiction clause in a contract automatically oust the jurisdiction of the local court?
- Messrs ARAG INDUSTRIES Ltd. vs THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (WEST), KARACHI and another1985 PTD 190 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-23Read full judgment →
- Messrs ANCHOR LINES LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1985 PTD 183 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-01Read full judgment →
- Messrs AMBREEN GLASS BANGLES INDUSTRIES, HYDERABAD vs HABIB AHMED1985 PLC 440 · Labour Court · 1984-11-15Read full judgment →
- Messrs ALEXANDER G. TSAVLIRIS & SONS vs m.v. RICE TRADERS and others1985 CLC 1355 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-17Read full judgment →
- Messrs ALBA INDUSTRIES vs HAROON and others1985 CLC 2622 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-13Read full judgment →
- MESSRS AL-SHAHBAZ ENGINEERING SERVICES vs SHAH NAWAZ1985 PLC 556 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-01-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs AL IBLAGH LIMITED, LAHORE vs THE COPYRIGHT BOARD, KARACHI And Other1985 SCMR 758 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a dispute over copyright registration for a series of cassettes containing lectures and sermons of the late Maulana Syed Abul A'la Maudoodi, which applications were dismissed by the Registrar of Copyrights and subsequently on appeal by the Copyright Board, Karachi. The appellant challenged the Board's order through a writ petition before the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction on the ground that the respondents' offices and records were located in Karachi. An Intra-Court Appeal having also been dismissed, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether orders passed by federal authorities like the Copyright Board, having central offices in one province but exercising jurisdiction nationwide, can be challenged only in the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction those offices are located. The Supreme Court held that the Lahore High Court and the Sind High Court possess concurrent jurisdiction to entertain constitutional petitions against orders of pan-national federal authorities that affect parties within their respective territories. The appeal was allowed and the case remanded to the Lahore High Court for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Whether orders passed by a federal authority with a central office in one province can be challenged in a High Court outside that province?
- Does a High Court have territorial jurisdiction to issue a writ against a federal functionary performing functions within its province regardless of the location of the authority's headquarters?
- Do multiple High Courts possess concurrent jurisdiction to entertain constitutional petitions against nationwide federal bodies affecting parties in different provinces?
- Messrs Abid & Sons Ltd.And Other vs Excise & Taxation Officer And 3 OtherPTCL 1985 (CL.) 363 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
- MESSRS ABID & SONS LTD. AND OTHERS vs EXCISE & TAXATION OFFICER ANT) 31985 PLD Karachi 546 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
- MESSRS ABDUL KAREEMIA AND BROTHERS V1JAYAWADA vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ANDHRA PRADESH II, HYDERABAD ,1985 PTD 571 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1982-12-14Read full judgment →
- Messrs ABDUL GHAFFAR I, DAVERA vs The CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE And Other1985 SCMR 912 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the recovery of short-levied customs duty on imported cutch block, which the customs authorities assessed at a higher value than declared. While the Deputy Collector of Customs imposed both duty and a personal penalty, the Director of Vigilance Wing subsequently upheld the duty but set aside the penalty, explicitly finding no evidence of mala fide intent or deliberate deflation of value by the petitioner. The petitioner’s revision to the Central Board of Revenue and subsequent constitutional petition to the High Court were unsuccessful. Upon petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court identified two critical legal questions. First, whether the department possessed a reliable basis to reject the petitioner's documentary evidence regarding the import price. Second, whether the appellate finding that the petitioner lacked mala fide intent effectively brought the case within the scope of Section 32(3) of the Customs Act 1969, thereby rendering the show-cause notice issued nearly one year after the event time-barred and illegal. The Court granted leave to appeal to further consider these issues.
Questions settled- Whether a show-cause notice for short levy of customs duty issued after four months is time-barred under Section 32(3) of the Customs Act 1969?
- Does a finding of lack of mala fide intent in undervaluation of goods preclude the application of extended limitation periods for customs duty recovery?
- What constitutes a reliable basis for customs authorities to reject a declared import value and substitute it with a higher valuation?
- MESSRS A SLAM SAEED & Co. vs MESSRS TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN1985 PLD Supreme Court 69 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave was filed in the Supreme Court of Pakistan against a judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Sind and Baluchistan arising out of arbitration proceedings concerning a contract for the purchase and export of rice. The core legal questions were whether an arbitrator could award damages for breach of contract based on resale price differences beyond the explicit provisions of a default clause in the agreement, and whether inviting public tenders satisfied the mandatory notice requirement under Section 54 of the Sale of Goods Act 1930. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and varied the decree, restricting the respondent's recovery solely to the forfeiture of Call Deposit Receipts specified in the contract's default clause. The Court laid down that under Section 74 of the Contract Act 1872, where a contract expressly stipulates the compensation or penalty for breach, an arbitrator cannot import terms to grant damages outside that clause. Furthermore, individual notice under Section 54 of the Sale of Goods Act 1930 is mandatory prior to resale, and general public notices or tenders do not cure non-compliance.
Questions settled- Does general public notice or invitation of tenders satisfy the notice requirement under Section 54 of the Sale of Goods Act 1930?
- Can an arbitrator award damages for breach of contract beyond or outside the specific terms of an express default clause?
- Whether stipulations not expressed in a written contract can be implied by a court or arbitrator where an express clause governs default?
- Messrs A AND B FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD. And Others vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX_SALES TAX1985 SCMR 1959 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from three petitions for leave to appeal filed by a private limited company manufacturing biscuits, which consumed vegetable ghee in its manufacturing process. For the assessment years 1968-1969, 1969-1970, and 1970-1971, the petitioner claimed a refund of sales tax on the vegetable ghee consumed, arguing that the tax was merged with excise duty under a capacity duty scheme and subsequently exempted by a notification dated 16-06-1967. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the claim on the ground that since the levy of sales tax on vegetable ghee was abolished and not paid, no refund could be claimed. Although the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the petitioner's appeals, the High Court answered the reference in the negative, holding that no refund was due where no sales tax had actually been suffered. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to render an authoritative decision, noting that whether a taxpayer is entitled to a refund of sales tax on raw materials after the levy is exempted under a consolidated capacity duty scheme is an important question of law.
Questions settled- Whether a manufacturer is entitled to a refund of sales tax on raw materials consumed in production when the tax on such raw materials was merged into capacity duty and subsequently exempted?
- Can a refund of sales tax be claimed under the Sales Tax Act 1951 for an item that has suffered no actual sales tax due to an exemption notification?
- Messers MUHAMMAD HANIF MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs COMMISSIONER OF SALES1985 PTD 204 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Members Raja NAVED AHMED vs MEMBER-I, BOARD OF REVENUE, BALUCHISTAN and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 374 · Balochistan Service Tribunal · 1984-06-09Read full judgment →
- MEHTABUR REHMAN vs The CONTROLLER. No.XVI, KARACHI and 3 others1985 CLC 536 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-03Read full judgment →
- MEHTABUR REHMAN vs Mst. SARWAR BEGUM1985 MLD 1272 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
- MEHRAJ DIN vs Ch. NIAZ AHMAD and others1985 MLD 193 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-31Read full judgment →
- MEHRAJ DIN and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2219 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-22Read full judgment →
- MEHRAB SHAH Through His Legal Heirs vs SHAH ZAMAN And Other1985 SCMR 497 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents seeking declaration and possession of disputed land. The defendant had claimed title by adverse possession in his written statement, but at trial abandoned that plea and claimed inheritance, though he failed to produce any documentary evidence such as a mutation of inheritance. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the entries showing ownership in the column of cultivation in the revenue records take precedence over entries in the column of Lagan (rent). This decision was affirmed by both the District Court and the High Court on second appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the lower courts correctly applied the law. The Court affirmed that entries in the column of cultivation prevail over entries in the column of Lagan unless otherwise corroborated by strong evidence, and that oral evidence unsupported by documentary proof cannot displace explicit revenue entries.
Questions settled- Do entries in the column of cultivation in revenue records take precedence over entries in the column of Lagan?
- Can a defendant establish a claim of ownership through inheritance without producing documentary evidence such as an inheritance mutation?
- Is oral evidence alone sufficient to displace recorded entries of ownership in revenue records?
- Mehr MUHAMMAD SARWAR AND OTHERS vs THE STATE AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 240 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suo motu review arose from an error in a previous Supreme Court order which incorrectly held that Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had been repealed by the Federal Laws (Revision and Declaration) Ordinance 1981. The Supreme Court corrected this error, clarifying that the saving provisions in Section 7 of the 1981 Ordinance preserved Section 249-A, which remains on the statute book. On the merits of the underlying appeal, the petitioners challenged the High Court's dismissal of their quashment application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which sought to quash proceedings under Section 145 of the Code initiated during the currency of a civil court's interim injunction regulating possession. The Supreme Court held that where a civil court is seized of the dispute and has regulated possession via an injunction, a Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to proceed under Section 145. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and remanded the case to the High Court for fresh adjudication.
Questions settled- Does Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 remain on the statute book despite the repealing provisions of the Federal Laws (Revision and Declaration) Ordinance 1981?
- Does a Magistrate have jurisdiction to proceed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a civil court has already issued an interim injunction regulating possession of the same property?
- What is the effect of a saving provision in a repealing statute on provisions omitted from consideration in the main repealing schedule?
- MEHR KHAN and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1920 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-22Read full judgment →
- MEHR DIN (Represented By His Legal Heirs) vs Dr. BASHIR AHMAD KHAN And 2 Other1985 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-07-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a review petition arising from a civil appeal concerning a pre-emption suit over a plot of land situated in Sialkot. The core legal question revolved around whether the disputed property was agricultural land or urban immovable property at the time of the sale, thereby determining its pre-emptibility, and whether a presumption of continuing agricultural use could be drawn from previous Jamabandi entries. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts correctly established that the land had ceased to be agricultural land and was occupied as a building site prior to the sale, rendering it urban immovable property not subject to pre-emption. The Court laid down that periodical Jamabandi entries reflect the state of affairs up to their preparation date, and no legal presumption can be raised under the law to extend that classification forward to the date of sale without supporting contemporaneous records such as the register Girdawari.
Questions settled- Whether land ceased to be agricultural and converted into urban immovable property is subject to right of pre-emption?
- Can a presumption of continuing agricultural land use be raised from past Jamabandi entries without contemporaneous Khasra Girdawari records?
- Does a defect in the wording of an additional issue vitiate trial proceedings where parties were fully cognizant of the real controversy and led evidence thereon?
- MEHNDI and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2676 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-30Read full judgment →
- MEHMOOD HUSSAIN alias PERVAIZ vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 273 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-25Read full judgment →
- MEHER ELAHI vs MUHAMMAD QAMARUDDIN1985 CLC 2094 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
- MEHDI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1186 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-22Read full judgment →
- MEHDI ASGHAR vs DIRECTOR WORKS, PUNJAB PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING1985 PLC (C.S.) 163 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-07-09Read full judgment →
- MEHBOOB SHAH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2688 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-26Read full judgment →
- MEHBOOB ELAHI (Decased) Through His L.Rs. vs SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER And Other1985 SCMR 2038 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a property dispute over House No. C.241/9, Sukkur, originally allotted to Asloob Elahi in 1949. Following his death, conflicting claims arose between his son from his first marriage, Mehboob Elahi, and his widow, Mst. Iqbal Begum. Mehboob Elahi sought transfer of the property based on his own allotment, while denying the original allotment of his father and characterizing the widow as a mere licensee. The Settlement authorities, after reviewing the evidence, found that the property had been subject to a family arrangement where the sons from the first marriage received commercial premises, while the widow and her children occupied the disputed house. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly upheld the findings of fact regarding possession and entitlement made by the Settlement authorities. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the findings of fact regarding actual possession and the existence of a family arrangement were supported by evidence and not liable to interference in constitutional jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court held that a party cannot repudiate their earlier factual stand to advance a new case on appeal.
Questions settled- Can a party in a property dispute repudiate their earlier factual stand before the Settlement authorities to advance a new case on appeal?
- Are findings of fact regarding possession and family arrangements made by Settlement authorities liable to interference in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does the suppression of material facts in a C.H. Form regarding the original allotment of a property affect the validity of a subsequent transfer claim?
- MEHAR SHAH and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1000 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-19Read full judgment →
- ME H RB A N vs HAMID KHAN1985 CLC 1780 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Sargodha, dated 25-10-1980, which affirmed the trial court's finding that the petitioner was not a tenant of the disputed land in a pre-emption matter. The core legal question is whether the first appellate court discharged its legal duty in re-assessing evidence and providing independent reasons under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Lahore High Court held that the lower appellate court adopted a perfunctory approach by failing to examine, weigh, or discuss the evidence or the trial court's reasons, merely affirming the findings summarily. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the District Judge, Sargodha, for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The key principle laid down is that the first appellate court must independently re-assess the evidence, examine the trial court's findings, and give reasoned conclusions rather than disposing of the appeal perfunctorily.
Questions settled- Does the first appellate court have a duty to re-assess the evidence and give independent reasons when upholding a trial court's findings?
- Can an appellate judgment that merely affirms the trial court without discussing the evidence or reasons be sustained?
- What is the proper course of action when the first appellate court fails to follow the method of writing a judgment prescribed under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- MAZHAR-UL-HAQ ALVI vs NATIONAL BOOK FOUNDATION1985 PLC 139 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-29Read full judgment →
- MAZHAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 750(1) · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-03Read full judgment →
- MAZHAR HUSSAIN vs ANIS FATIMA and others1985 P Cr. L J 2545 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-23Read full judgment →
- MAZHAR HAKEEM vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.1985 PLC 612 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-02Read full judgment →
- MAZHAR ALI vs MUHAMMAD AQIL1985 MLD 571 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-20Read full judgment →
- MAZAHAR HUSSAIN vs PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD., JHELUM1985 PLC 783 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-30Read full judgment →
- MAYFAIR CONSULTANCY SERVICES OVERSEAS EMPLOY- MENT PROMOTERS vs THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Karachi 145 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MAWAZ KHAN And Others vs The STATE1985 SCMR 629 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the High Court affirming the conviction of the appellants under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in death sentences and long-term imprisonments. The core legal question was whether the incident constituted a premeditated attack by the accused or a sudden fight between two armed groups where injuries were sustained mutually, thus attracting individual criminal responsibility rather than common intention. The Supreme Court held that the failure of the prosecution to explain injuries on the deceased and the injuries sustained by the accused themselves established that the occurrence was a sudden fight rather than a premeditated assault. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions under sections 302/34 and 307/34, altering them to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under sections 304 Part I and 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The key legal principle laid down is that in a sudden fight where both groups are armed and exchange fire, the question of common intention or common object is excluded, and criminal responsibility becomes strictly individual based on specific acts.
Questions settled- Does a mutual exchange of fire and unexplained injuries on both parties convert a premeditated attack into a sudden fight?
- Can common intention be imputed to accused persons in a case of a sudden fight involving armed groups?
- What is the effect of unexplainable injuries on the prosecution witnesses and accused persons in determining the nature of an affray?
- MAWAS KHAN vs SUBEDAR MEHER DILL1985 PLD Supreme Court 215 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal examined the interpretation and application of section 29 of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act in the context of competing pre-emption suits and the stay of proceedings. The appellant had purchased land through two separate sale transactions, both of which became the subject of pre-emption suits. The trial and appellate courts, as well as the High Court, stayed the proceedings or disallowed defences in accordance with section 29, which mandates that where a claim or plea of pre-emption is derived from ownership of property whose title is liable to be defeated by another pre-emption claim, the court shall not decide the claim or plea until the connected pre-emption suit has been finally decided. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that section 29 operates as an express departure from section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to prevent litigants from defeating pre-emption laws through split transactions or interdependent acquisitions. The Court established that neither a pre-emptor nor a vendee-defendant can rely upon a right derived from a transaction that remains vulnerable to superior pre-emption claims until that underlying title has become fully indefeasible.
Questions settled- Does section 29 of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act prohibit a court from deciding a pre-emption claim or defense when the underlying title is subject to a pending pre-emption suit?
- Whether section 29 of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act constitutes an express departure from the general principles of stay of suits under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a vendee-defendant successfully set up a defence based on an acquired status or property transaction that remains liable to be defeated by a right of pre-emption?
- Maulvi MEHRAJ DIN vs SHAH MUHAMMAD and others1985 MLD 364 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-22Read full judgment →
- MAULVI ABDUL HAMEED vs THE STATE1985 MLD 836 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-18Read full judgment →
- Maulvi ABDUL AZIZ KHAN vs Nawabzada SARFRAZ ALI And Other1985 SCMR 98 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against the dismissal of civil revisions by the Lahore High Court, which upheld concurrent findings declaring an agreement to sell land and a subsequent mutation of sale as illegal and fraudulent. The core legal questions involved whether an agreement to sell units (entitlements) made when no allotment existed was valid, whether a revoked power-of-attorney could support a mutation, and whether the doctrine of feeding the estoppel applied. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the lower courts' findings that the agreement was void ab initio because it concerned non-saleable entitlements rather than existing property, and violated the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. Furthermore, the Court held that the power-of-attorney was invalid due to prior revocation, and the payment of consideration was not established. The Court refused to entertain the plea of feeding the estoppel, noting that it involved questions of fact not raised or framed as issues before the trial courts, and thus could not be invoked at the appellate stage.
Questions settled- Can an agreement to sell land be enforced if the transferor held no subsisting allotment at the time of the agreement?
- Does the doctrine of feeding the estoppel apply if the issue was not raised or framed before the trial courts?
- Is an agreement to sell units of land under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme void ab initio if the units are not considered saleable property?
- Can a mutation of sale be sustained if the power-of-attorney used to execute it was previously revoked?
- Maulana KAUSAR NIAZI And Another vs MAHMOOD AZAM FAROOQI And 6 Other1985 SCMR 1445 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three contempt of court applications filed against various public officials and media representatives, alleging that the publication of certain material was intended to influence the course of justice in a pending case before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the respondents, by broadcasting or telecasting specific content, committed contempt of court, and whether their subsequent apologies were sufficient to purge the contempt. The Court noted that the respondents had initially submitted a conditional apology but subsequently withdrew all defenses and tendered an unqualified and unconditional apology, both in writing and orally before the Court. Expressing satisfaction with the respondents' genuine contrition, the Court accepted the apologies and discharged the contempt notices. However, the Court emphasized the growing, concerning tendency to influence judicial proceedings through public utterances or powerful media instruments. It laid down the principle that public functionaries and all concerned must refrain from any actions that might hinder the smooth administration of justice, stressing that courts must be allowed to perform their functions freely to ensure the rule of law.
Questions settled- Can an unconditional and unqualified apology purge contempt of court proceedings?
- Does the publication of material intended to influence pending judicial proceedings constitute contempt of court?
- What is the duty of public functionaries regarding the administration of justice and judicial proceedings?
- Maulana ABDUL WAHID And Others vs Haji RASOOL BAKHSH1985 SCMR 2002 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute over the alleged sale of land, where the respondent filed a pre-emption suit under the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance 1962 (referred to as Ordinance I of 1968 in the judgment). The core legal question was whether a pre-emption suit is maintainable and requires a reference to a Tribunal when the alleged sale is categorically denied by both the purported vendor and vendee, and no documentary evidence of the sale exists. The Supreme Court held that the existence of a sale is the fundamental prerequisite for a cause of action in pre-emption matters. Since the parties unequivocally denied that any sale occurred and no evidence supported the respondent's claim, no "civil dispute" existed to warrant a reference to a Tribunal. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order, restoring the decisions of the Deputy Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. The key principle laid down is that in pre-emption cases, the fact of sale must be established as a condition precedent to the existence of a justiciable dispute; absent such proof, the suit lacks a cause of action.
Questions settled- Does a pre-emption suit maintainable when the alleged sale is denied by both the vendor and the vendee?
- Is a reference to a Tribunal under Ordinance I of 1968 required when no evidence of a sale exists?
- What is the fundamental prerequisite for a cause of action in a pre-emption suit?
- MAULA BUX vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1665 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
- MAULA BAKHSH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2968 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-10Read full judgment →
- MATLOOB HUSSAIN- vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 656 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-20Read full judgment →
- MATI UR REHMAN And Another vs THE STATE And Other1985 SCMR 489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from criminal petitions filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioner for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code, while reducing the sentence of death to life imprisonment due to an unestablished motive. The core legal question involved the re-appreciation of ocular testimony, identification of the accused, and the propriety of the lesser sentence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the eyewitness testimony was reliable, the identity of the accused was established beyond doubt, and the High Court rightly reduced the sentence to life imprisonment given the shrouded motive. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact based on satisfactory appreciation of broad-daylight ocular evidence will not be interfered with, and that an unestablished motive constitutes a mitigating circumstance justifying the substitution of the death penalty with life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will re-appraise evidence already satisfactorily evaluated by the courts below?
- Is an unestablished motive a valid mitigating circumstance for reducing a sentence of death to life imprisonment?
- Whether concurrent findings regarding the identity of the culprit in a broad-daylight occurrence are open to interference?
- MATEEN UL-HASSAN KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE SECRETARY, FINANCE1985 PLC (C.S.) 681 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-30Read full judgment →
- MATARO vs KHETSINGH AND ANOTHERPLD 1985 Rev. 74 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1971-06-09Read full judgment →
- Mat. KHURSHID BIBI vs ALLAH DITTA1985 SCMR 1097 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing an appeal against an order of the Additional District Judge, which had reversed the trial court's dismissal of a pre-emption suit and remanded the matter. The core legal question concerns whether the plaintiff in a pre-emption suit regarding urban immovable property must prove the existence of the custom of pre-emption in the specific locality or sub-division at the time of the commencement of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1930, and whether any presumption exists in favour of such custom. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the lack of evidence of the existence of the sub-division and the custom at the relevant time, supported by prior case law, require detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and continued the interim stay until the final disposal of the appeal, establishing that the existence of the custom of pre-emption must be proved as a matter of fact in each case without any presumption.
Questions settled- Whether the right of pre-emption in respect of urban immovable property requires proof of the custom of pre-emption at the time of the commencement of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1930?
- Is there any legal presumption in favour of or against the existence of the right of pre-emption in a given locality?
- Whether proof of the custom of pre-emption in a sub-division of a town must be established by evidence in each case?
- Mat. FATIMA BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN GHORI and another1985 MLD 430 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-25Read full judgment →
- Mat. ALLAH RAKHI vs S.H.O., POLICE STATION, GULBERG, LAHORE1985 MLD 46 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-11Read full judgment →
- MASTI KHAN And Another vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1363 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition arose from the conviction of petitioners Masti Khan and Mumtaz under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mumtaz deceased. The trial court had convicted the petitioners while acquitting two co-accused, and the High Court subsequently dismissed their appeal. The prosecution's case rested on ocular testimony, recovery of weapons (including a gun matching an empty cartridge from the spot and a human blood-stained hatchet), motive stemming from a pre-emption suit, and medical evidence. The petitioners challenged their convictions on the grounds that the First Information Report (FIR) was recorded at a bus stand rather than the police station, which they argued was a suspicious circumstance, and that the eye-witness testimony and recoveries were unreliable. The Supreme Court held that the recording of the FIR at the bus stand was not a material circumstance in this case and repelled the contention. Finding the convictions to be justified based on the evidence, the Supreme Court dismissed both petitions.
Questions settled- Does the recording of a First Information Report at a bus stand instead of the police station automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
- Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained if some co-accused are acquitted on the benefit of doubt?
- Master MUKARRAM KHAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 20 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-27Read full judgment →
- MAST ALAM KHAN vs THE STATEPLD 1985 Rev. 45 [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1983-05-07Read full judgment →
- MASOOD AHMAD BHUTTO vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND THROUGH CHIEF1985 PLC (C.S.) 879 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-06-12Read full judgment →
- MASOOD AHMAD Alias MAQSOOD AHMAD vs The STATE1985 SCMR 563 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the refusal of bail to the petitioner, who faces charges under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for demanding illegal gratification. The prosecution alleges the petitioner, an employee of the Lahore Development Authority, demanded a bribe to extend a construction deadline, leading to a trap operation where he was apprehended with marked currency. Following his initial arrest, the petitioner allegedly resisted and escaped with the assistance of others, resulting in additional charges under Sections 224, 225, 186, 332, 353, and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail after the High Court previously directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within three months, granting liberty to reapply if the deadline was missed. The Supreme Court examined the circumstances and the High Court's prior order. Finding that the lower courts exercised their discretion legally and properly, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that no sufficient grounds existed to interfere with the refusal of bail.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with the discretion of lower courts in bail matters when the discretion has been exercised legally and properly?
- Can a petitioner be granted bail when they have allegedly resisted arrest and escaped custody during a trap operation?
- MASIHUDDIN Through Legal Heirs vs A.M. MARGHOOB And Other1985 SCMR 2078 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a protracted dispute over the tenancy and eviction proceedings regarding a shop in Liaquatabad, Karachi. The original landlord, Masihuddin, initiated eviction proceedings against a tenant identified in the rent agreement as A.M. Marghoob. Subsequently, A.M. Siddiqui, the father of the named tenant, claimed the tenant was a minor and that he himself was the actual allottee of the property, leading to conflicting litigation, including an ex parte decree for rent and multiple rounds of ejectment proceedings. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the tenant, having had his initial objections overruled in earlier proceedings, could re-agitate similar pleas during the execution stage of the eviction order. Upon review, the Supreme Court observed that the interests of justice necessitated a comprehensive re-examination of both factual and legal contentions. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and the lower appellate court, remanding the matter to the Rent Controller to hear and decide the objections to the execution application afresh in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Can a party raise objections in execution proceedings that were already overruled in earlier stages of the litigation?
- Is it permissible for a court to remand a matter to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision when both parties consent to re-litigating factual and legal pleas in the interest of justice?
- MASHKOOR AHMAD KHAN vs Malik MARAJ DIN and others1985 CLC 2858 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
- MARKER EMPLOYEES UNION and 6 others vs GHULAM QADIR and another1985 PLC 1082 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-05-14Read full judgment →
- MARBLE INDUSTRIES LTD. vs SULEMAN' SHAH AND ANOTHER1985 PLC 537 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
- MAQSOODA BEGUM vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and another1985 CLC 2574 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-26Read full judgment →
- MAQSOODA BEGUM vs MRs, HOMAI JAL VANIA and 5 other1985 MLD 427 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-23Read full judgment →
- MAQSOOD-UL-HASSAN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1393 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
- MAQSOOD ALAM vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FORESTRY1985 PLC (C.S.) 503 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-01-12Read full judgment →
- MAQSOOD AHMAD KHAWAJA and another vs ASMAT BEGUM1985 CLC 1945 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
- MAQSOOD AHMAD alias PEHLWAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 357 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-22Read full judgment →
- MAQBUL AHMAD TAMIMI. vs ZIARAT SHAFI1985 P Cr. L J 2881 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL HASSAN vs MASOOD BUTT and others1985 P Cr. L J 2876 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-21Read full judgment →