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.
- MAQBOOL AHMED and 3 others vs MILLAT TRACTORS Ltd. LAHORE1985 PLC 229 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-08-14Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 984 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-26Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM And Another1985 SCMR 1528 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an order by a learned single Judge of the Sind High Court, which granted post-arrest bail to the respondent, Muhammad Akram, in a case involving a murderous assault under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The respondent had initially been granted bail by an Additional Sessions Judge, but that bail was subsequently cancelled due to allegations that the injuries were inflicted on a vital part of the body and that the accused had threatened witnesses. The High Court, upon revision, set aside the cancellation order, reasoning that the identity of the victim and the intent behind the assault required further inquiry, and finding insufficient evidence regarding the alleged threats to witnesses. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine if the High Court's interference with the cancellation order was justified. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had not violated any principles governing the grant of bail, finding no valid justification to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is the High Court justified in setting aside an order of an Additional Sessions Judge cancelling bail when the evidence regarding the accused's intent and alleged threats to witnesses is inconclusive?
- Does the alleged infliction of injuries on a vital part of the body automatically preclude the grant of bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with a High Court's order granting bail?
- MAQBOOL AHMAD KHAN vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 368 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-07-28Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL AHMAD GILL AND 6 OTHERS vs GENERAL MANAGER, ABBASI TEXTILE1985 PLC 580 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MANZOOR-UL-HASSAN vs PUNJAB PROVINCE through the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Communications and Works Department and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 131 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-11-27Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1229 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-31Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR MASUD TAMANNA vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB,L. G1985 PLC (C.S.) 958 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MANZOOR MASUD TAMANNA vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LOCAL1985 PLC (C.S.) 591 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-12-08Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2419 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-10Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND 17 OTHERsPLD 1985 Rev. 53 [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1982-11-13Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 2 others1985 CLC 498 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-20Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN SHAH vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Labour Department, Lahore and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 211 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN alias MANZOOR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 667 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR And Others vs The STATE1985 SCMR 2082 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which rejected the petitioners' request for post-arrest bail in a case involving offenses under sections 302, 307, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to bail on the rule of consistency when co-accused have been released on bail, notwithstanding specific incriminating roles attributed to the petitioners in the first information report. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of bail by the High Court was unassailable because specific parts and active participation in murders and murderous assault were assigned to the petitioners in the FIR, distinguishing them from co-accused found innocent by the police. The petition was dismissed with the observation that the petitioners may renew their bail application before the trial court after material evidence has been recorded.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be refused to accused persons to whom specific parts and active participation are assigned in the first information report?
- Does the release of co-accused found innocent by the police automatically entitle other co-accused to bail?
- Can an accused renew a bail request before the trial court after material evidence is recorded?
- MANZOOR and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 652 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR and 4 others vs Mst. SABIRA BEGUM and others1985 CLC 2101 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-11Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD vs XXIV CIVIL JUDGE, KARACHI And Other1985 SCMR 579 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging an ex parte maintenance decree passed by a Civil Judge in Karachi. The petitioner, a husband, argued that the Karachi court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the parties resided in Mandi Bahauddin, where related matrimonial litigation was pending. The core legal question was whether the Lahore High Court could exercise constitutional jurisdiction over a decree passed by a court outside its territorial limits, and whether such a petition was maintainable given the existence of alternative remedies. The Supreme Court held that the petition was correctly dismissed by the High Court. The ratio rests on the principle that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and generally not available where an adequate alternative remedy, such as an appeal before the District Judge, exists. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had already raised objections in the executing court, rendering the constitutional petition premature. Additionally, the Court emphasized the husband's legal obligation to maintain his wife and children, finding the maintenance amount reasonable.
Questions settled- Can a High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction over a judgment passed by a court located outside its territorial jurisdiction?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable when an adequate alternative remedy, such as an appeal, is available to the petitioner?
- Does the existence of pending objections in an executing court render a constitutional petition challenging the underlying decree premature?
- MANZOOR AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1367 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-03Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD vs Mst. HANIFAN BIBI1985 MLD 1255 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-20Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD vs Mst. ANWAR BIBI1985 CLC 2548 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-30Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD vs EJAZ AHMAD BHATTI And Other1985 SCMR 1797 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a civil servant, sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against a consolidated judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal disposing of four service appeals. The core legal question involved the validity of the transfer and subsequent regularization, pro forma promotion, and seniority of the contesting respondents from the ministerial establishment to the subordinate executive establishment of the Food Department following the enforcement of the 1962 recruitment rules. The Supreme Court held that prior to the 1962 rules, there was no separation of cadres or prohibition of transfers, and since the respondents had not been formally allocated to specific regional cadres upon encadrization, the Government acted within its plenary powers in permitting their transfers, granting relaxations, and conferring pro forma promotions and seniority. The Court further held that long-standing seniority enjoyed under legal orders could not be arbitrarily undone, and the case involved no question of law of public importance. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether the Government has the power to permit transfers and grant pro forma promotions and seniority where employees were not formally allocated to specific regional cadres upon the encadrization of service rules?
- Can long-standing seniority enjoyed by civil servants under legal orders passed by competent authorities be arbitrarily undone after several years?
- Does a service tribunal remand order that directs a fresh decision constitute a final determinative finding on the merits of seniority?
- MANZOOR AHMAD vs DIVISIONAL ENGINEER PHONES, LAHORE1985 PLC 37 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-12Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD KHAN vs THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1985 SCMR 1470 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging the Lahore High Court's judgment which declared the transfer of a house to the petitioner, a non-refugee, as without lawful authority and void, because the property was in possession of a Jammu and Kashmir refugee. The core legal question was whether the deletion of subsection (5) of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 impliedly repealed paragraph 19 of Settlement Scheme No. IV, thereby removing the bar on transferring such properties to non-refugees. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the deletion of subsection (5) did not detract from section 16B and the settlement schemes framed under it, and houses in possession of Jammu and Kashmir refugees remained excluded from the compensation pool. The key principle laid down is that properties in possession of Jammu and Kashmir refugees are protected from transfer to persons who are not refugees from the occupied territory, notwithstanding the deletion of section 30(5) of the Act.
Questions settled- Does the deletion of subsection (5) of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 repeal paragraph 19 of Settlement Scheme No. IV by implication?
- Are houses and shops in possession of Jammu and Kashmir refugees available for transfer to persons who are not refugees from the occupied territory?
- Does a petitioner lacking locus standi have the right to challenge weaknesses in the opposing party's case?
- MANZOOR AHMAD BHATTI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1558 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 855 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-21Read full judgment →
- MANSOOR ALI BANDLA LI vs MARINE FOOD INDUSTRIES Ltd. and others1985 CLC 1239 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two petitions, J.M. No. 41 of 1979 and J.M. No. 43 of 1979, filed by a minority shareholder against Marine Food Industries Limited and his four brothers. In J.M. No. 41 of 1979, the petitioner sought the winding-up of the company under the 'just and equitable' clause of Section 162 of the Companies Act 1913, alleging physical and legal exclusion from management, diversion of funds, and loss of confidence. In J.M. No. 43 of 1979, he sought rectification of the share register under Section 38 of the Companies Act 1913 pursuant to an alleged oral agreement for the transfer of shares.
The High Court held that where a private limited company is in reality a quasi-partnership between family members, the equitable principles governing partnership dissolution apply. Unlawful physical and legal exclusion of a founder-director from management justifies winding up under the 'just and equitable' clause, and subsequent events reflecting such exclusion may be considered. Finding the alleged oral agreement unproven, the Court dismissed J.M. No. 43 of 1979, but granted J.M. No. 41 of 1979, ordering the company to be wound up.
Questions settled- Can a private limited company formed by family members be treated as a quasi-partnership for the purpose of a winding-up petition under the 'just and equitable' clause?
- Does the physical and legal exclusion of a director from management constitute a sufficient ground to order the winding-up of a company?
- Can a court take into account events that occurred after the filing of a winding-up petition to determine if a petitioner was excluded from management?
- MANSHA and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1678 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
- MANSAB vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2516 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
- MANOO GUL And Others vs PAKISTAN And Other1985 SCMR 1829 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed their writ petition arising from the seizure of a truck and smuggled goods by the Custom Intelligence and Investigation Staff. The core legal question for determination was the interpretation of the phrase 'notice given' under section 168(2) of the Customs Act, 1969—specifically, whether 'giving notice' requires the actual service of the show-cause notice upon the person concerned or merely the issuance of the notice within the stipulated period. The Supreme Court noted that this was a case of first impression requiring an authoritative pronouncement and granted leave to appeal to consider whether 'give notice' means issuing the notice or effecting service on the accused. The key principle revolves around statutory interpretation of notice requirements in seizure and confiscation proceedings under customs law.
Questions settled- Do the words 'notice given' under section 168(2) of the Customs Act 1969 mean the issuance of a notice or the actual service of the notice upon the accused?
- Whether failure to serve a show-cause notice within two months of seizure mandates the return of seized goods under section 168(2) of the Customs Act 1969?
- MANJU vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SANGHAR and another1985 MLD 329 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
- MANGA KHAN and others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1985 MLD 360(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
- MANAH MASIH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1601 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-04Read full judgment →
- MANAGER AUQAF and another vs MAZHAR ALI1985 CLC 1794 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-27Read full judgment →
- MAMOOR KHAN vs NASIRUDDIN alias NASIR MUHAMMAD and 5 others1985 CLC 130 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application challenges the concurrent findings of the lower courts rejecting a plaint and dismissing an appeal filed by tenants against an ex parte ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller. The core legal question was whether a civil suit is maintainable to challenge an ex parte rent order allegedly obtained by fraud when alternative remedies under the law existed. The Sindh High Court held that the civil suit was barred under Section 56(i) of the Specific Relief Act because an equally efficacious remedy was available by way of an appeal under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and further noted that provisions like Section 12(2) and Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure could also be availed of in rent proceedings. The revision application was accordingly dismissed in limine, upholding the maintainability bar and the dismissal of the suit.
Questions settled- Whether a civil suit to declare an ex parte rent order void is barred when an appeal under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is available?
- Can the provisions of Section 12(2) and Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure be availed of by parties litigating before a Rent Controller?
- Does Section 56(i) of the Specific Relief Act bar an injunction when an equally efficacious relief can be obtained through another usual mode of proceeding?
- MAMMAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2264 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-20Read full judgment →
- MALLA and 7 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 985 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-26Read full judgment →
- MALKANI SAHIBZADI TIWANA vs SHAHBAZ KHAN and 5 others1985 CLC 2717 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-01Read full judgment →
- Malik WAHID BAKHSH vs Mst. FAZAL BIBI And Other1985 SCMR 1256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from ejectment proceedings initiated by the respondent, Mst. Fazal Bibi, against the petitioner. The petitioner, having previously executed a rent note in favor of the respondent, subsequently challenged the landlord-tenant relationship, contending the property was evacuee trust property and thus outside the Rent Controller's jurisdiction. The Rent Controller, the Additional District Judge, and the Lahore High Court all rejected this plea. The core legal question was whether a tenant who executed a rent note is estopped from denying the landlord's title upon discovering the property might be evacuee trust property. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's conduct—specifically his unilateral decision to pay rent to the Evacuee Trust Property Administration without informing the respondent—precluded him from challenging the landlord's status. The Court emphasized that the nature of the property was a matter between the Administration and the landlord, and noted that the Evacuee Trust Property Board possessed the authority to validate transfers under the relevant statute. The petition was dismissed as the lower courts' findings were upheld.
Questions settled- Can a tenant who has executed a rent note subsequently deny the landlord's title on the basis that the property is evacuee trust property?
- Does the payment of rent to the Evacuee Trust Property Administration by a tenant behind the back of the landlord invalidate the existing landlord-tenant relationship?
- Does the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board have the authority to validate the transfer of property under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975?
- Malik TAJ DIN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others1985 MLD 241 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-09Read full judgment →
- Malik SHABBIR AHMAD vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others1985 MLD 1264 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
- Malik PIRAN DITTA and others vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD1985 MLD 1140 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
- Malik NUR HAYAT NOON And Others vs ADDITIONAL CHIEF LAND1985 SCMR 126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two civil petitions for special leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, involving common questions of law regarding land commission proceedings. The petitioners sought leave to appeal against orders passed by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner. Upon review, the Court noted that leave to appeal had already been granted by the Supreme Court in earlier, related petitions, specifically C.P.S.L.A. No.240-R of 1976 and C.P.S.L.A. No.241-R of 1976, which involved identical legal issues. Counsel for the petitioners informed the Court that those earlier appeals had already been heard and the judgment was currently reserved. Following this, the Supreme Court held that in the interest of consistency and judicial economy, leave to appeal should also be granted in the present cases. The Court directed that the petitions be prepared on the existing record, granted liberty to the parties to file additional documents, and ordered the appeals to be scheduled for hearing immediately following the announcement of the judgment in the previously mentioned connected appeals.
Questions settled- Should leave to appeal be granted when identical legal questions are pending adjudication in other connected matters?
- Can the Supreme Court consolidate or align the hearing of new petitions with previously heard appeals involving common questions of law?
- Malik NOOR MUHAMMAD And Others vs ATA MUHAMMAD And Another1985 SCMR 74 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondents filed a pre-emption suit for possession of land, and the trial court ordered them to deposit Zar-e-Punjam by 23-7-1963. The respondents deposited the amount on the due date itself rather than before it, leading the trial court to reject the plaint under section 22(4) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act for non-compliance. On appeal, the Lahore High Court accepted the appeal on the grounds that the deposit constituted valid tender or that an extension of one day ought to have been granted, and remanded the case for a fresh decision. The petitioners challenged this decision before the Supreme Court through a petition for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court considered the contentions that the High Court erred in holding the deposit as sufficient compliance and in substituting its discretion for that of the trial court after a considerable lapse of time, and consequently granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether depositing Zar-e-Punjam on the last date specified amounts to sufficient compliance with a court order directing deposit before that date?
- Can the High Court substitute its own discretion for that of the trial court in extending time for depositing pre-emption money?
- Whether a delay of fourteen years in challenging the trial court's exercise of discretion affects the High Court's justification to interfere?
- Malik MUHAMMAD ZAFAR vs THE COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION, SARGODHA and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 290 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
- MALIK MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1257 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-02Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD TUFAIL another vs THE STATE1985 MLD 743 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-01Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs KARIM-UD-Din and others1985 CLC 2483 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-26Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND 3 OTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 548 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-04-19Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD SAEED vs Mian MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE1985 MLD 1440 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular first appeal challenges the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge who decreed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell without recording evidence, relying solely on the defendant's failure to file a written statement under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question is whether a court can straightaway decree a suit under Order VIII, Rule 10 without requiring or recording legal evidence upon the defendant's failure to file a written statement. The Lahore High Court held that Order VIII, Rule 10 vests a judicial discretion in the court either to pronounce judgment or make such other order as it thinks fit, but pleadings do not constitute evidence, and unproved private documents cannot be relied upon without proper proof. The court laid down that the trial court's judicial conscience must be satisfied about the genuineness of the case and that a judgment cannot be based on no evidence whatsoever, thereby setting aside the decree and remanding the matter for fresh disposal.
Questions settled- Whether a court can decree a suit under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without recording any evidence upon the defendant's failure to file a written statement?
- Do pleadings or unverified statements constitute legal evidence upon which a civil court can base a decree?
- How must the discretion under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be exercised by a trial court when a party fails to present a written statement?
- Malik MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs TOWN COMMITTEE, GHAKHAR and others1985 CLC 2891 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-01Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs MUHAMMAD SHUJAHAT RAJA AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Lahore 248 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-17Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD IQBAL And Others vs Malik ROSHAN DIN And Other1985 SCMR 1383 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had restored a trial court's decree in a civil suit concerning a claim for a one-third share in agricultural land. The plaintiffs alleged that previous property alienations were sham transactions and that an understanding existed to distribute the property equally among brothers, effectively challenging transactions dating back to 1938. The trial court had granted the decree, conditional upon the payment of court fees for an additional share inherited during the proceedings. The first appellate court dismissed the suit, but the High Court restored the trial court's decree. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the lower courts erred by failing to record oral evidence and by improperly admitting and misreading a statement (Exh. P.7) made by a deceased party in separate proceedings. The Supreme Court found that these contentions regarding the admissibility of evidence and the legal implications of the Colonization of Government Lands Act required closer scrutiny and an authoritative pronouncement. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted, and a status quo order was issued.
Questions settled- Does the failure to record oral evidence in a civil suit regarding property alienations constitute a legal error warranting appellate intervention?
- Can a statement made by a party in separate proceedings be admitted as evidence without disposing of objections regarding its admissibility?
- What is the effect of Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 on the acquisition of proprietary rights and subsequent property claims?
- Malik MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs THE STATE and 4 others1985 P Cr. L J 929 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a private complaint case involving allegations of cheating under Section 420/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant alleged that the respondents had fraudulently obtained possession of a bus he had purchased. The trial court had acquitted all respondents, including those not yet served with process, based on an application filed by only two respondents. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate is justified in acquitting all accused under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. at an early stage without further evidence, and whether an affidavit filed by a third party, without opportunity for cross-examination, constitutes sufficient evidence for such acquittal. The High Court held that the trial court was not justified in passing the acquittal order, noting that the complaint disclosed a prima facie case and that the affidavit could not be treated as evidence without cross-examination. The court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case for trial, allowing respondents to re-apply under Section 249-A after evidence is recorded.
Questions settled- Can a Magistrate acquit all accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when some accused have not been served with process?
- Does an affidavit filed in court constitute sufficient evidence to warrant acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without the deponent being subjected to cross-examination?
- Is a Magistrate justified in passing an order under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after having already issued process upon finding a prima facie case, without recording further evidence?
- Malik MUHAMMAD ASADULLAH vs Mst. TASNEEM FATIMAH and 2 others1985 MLD 229 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-04Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD AFZAL and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 214 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-31Read full judgment →
- Malik MAHMOOD AKHTAR vs Mirza AMJAD BEG and 6 others1985 MLD 379 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-01Read full judgment →
- Malik KAMAL KHAN vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND 8 OTHERS1985 PLD Quetta 161 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-04-21Read full judgment →
- Malik INAYATULLAH KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Peshawar 23 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from an order setting aside an ex parte decree. The petitioner had filed a suit for damages against the respondents after his fruit garden was allegedly destroyed due to the stoppage of water supply by the respondents. The trial court granted an ex parte decree, which was subsequently set aside upon an application filed by the respondents under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of fraud. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing inter alia that the application was time-barred under Article 173 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act 1908, being akin to a review petition. The Peshawar High Court converted the mistaken appeal into a revision petition and held that an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is distinct in scope from a review petition under Order XLVII, and is instead governed by Article 181 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act 1908, prescribing a three-year limitation period. The Court further held that section 12(2) does not bar an application simply because an appeal was available, and dismissed the revision petition.
Questions settled- Whether an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be treated as a review petition?
- Which Article of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act 1908 governs an application filed under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 barred on the ground that the impugned order could be challenged in appeal?
- Malik GUL SHAH vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION AUTHORITIES AND 21985 PLD Lahore 294 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-09Read full judgment →
- Malik GHULAM RASOOL vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB And Other1985 SCMR 1107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his service appeal challenging orders reverting him from the post of Labour Officer to his substantive post of Stenographer. The core legal questions concerned whether the petitioner's promotions as Assistant Labour Officer and Labour Officer were made against quota reserved for promotion or initial recruitment, and whether his ad hoc appointment stood regularized and protected under Martial Law instructions. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's appointments were in excess of the quota reserved for promotees and that regularisation of an ad hoc appointment does not grant a higher status than that of an ad hoc appointment liable to reversion upon the availability of direct recruits. The court concluded that no question of law of general public importance arose, and accordingly refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an ad hoc appointment after regularisation under Martial Law instructions acquires a higher legal characteristic than an ad hoc appointment?
- Does promotion made in excess of the quota reserved for promotees entail liability of reversion upon the availability of direct recruits?
- Malik GHULAM MUSTAFA vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others1985 CLC 1922 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
- Malik FAIZ MUHAMMAD AWAN AND 6 OTHERS vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT1985 PLC (C.S.) 868 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-22Read full judgment →
- Malik FAIZ ALAM vs Malik MUHAMMAD ARSHAD KHAN and another1985 CLC 752 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-06-09Read full judgment →
- MALIK DIN vs MANZOOR ALI1985 PLD Quetta 142 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-04-21Read full judgment →
- Malik ABDUL HAFEEZ vs ALLAHDINO and another1985 MLD 474 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-05Read full judgment →
- Major SHAUKAT ALI RANDHWA vs Mst. ZARTAJ HAMID and others1985 CLC 3011 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-21Read full judgment →
- MAJOR AHSAN OMAR vs DIRECTOR (ADMN. AND OPERATION) AND 3 OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 391 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-21Read full judgment →
- MAJOR ABDUS SAMAD KHAN vs ATTAUR REHMAN and 2 others1985 CLC 2614 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
- Major (Retd.) ALAUDDIN AKHTAR vs THE COLLECTOR and others1985 CLC 2939 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-30Read full judgment →
- MAJID HUSSAIN REHMANI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT, LAHORE1985 PLC (C.S.) 498 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-02-24Read full judgment →
- MAJIBUR REHMAN AND 3 OTHERS vs FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAIVSTAN AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Federal Shariat Court 8 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- MAHMOODULLAH KHAN vs MESSRS TALPUR TEXTILE MILLS AND ANOTHER1985 PLC 953 · Labour Court · 1985-05-29Read full judgment →
- MAHMOODA BEGUM vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 347 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-26Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD-UL-HASSAN AND 35 OTHERS vs MECHANISED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN1985 PLC 682 · Authority under Payment of Wages Act · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD KHAN vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WATER WING) /1985 PLC 18 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-14Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD ELAHI FAROOQI vs IBRAHIM ABDUL LATIF1985 MLD 1009 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-28Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD BAKHSH And Others vs ALLAH BAKHSH1985 SCMR 1705 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing their Regular Second Appeal, which had upheld the reversal of the trial court's decree by the District Judge. The core legal question concerned whether the vendor, Shamsuddin, was insane at the time of executing the land sale in June 1962. The Supreme Court held that both the first appellate court and the High Court were fully justified in concluding that no sufficient proof of insanity at the relevant time was brought on record, noting that the medical evidence only indicated senile dementia in 1963, a year after the transaction. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that concurrent findings of fact regarding mental capacity at the time of a transaction will not be interfered with unless unsupported by evidence.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the sanity of a vendor at the time of a sale transaction can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Does medical evidence of senile dementia in 1963 suffice to prove insanity during a land sale executed in June 1962?
- MAHMOOD ANWAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER and others1985 CLC 2569 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-18Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD alias MOHDA and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2120 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-22Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD AKHTAR KHAN vs Dr.MUHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN1985 CLC 2853 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-21Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD AHMED (MUHAMMAD AHMED) vs TRIBUNAL_S. D. M. CITY, HYDERABAD1985 PLD Karachi 187 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, sought the quashment of criminal proceedings pending before the Tribunal and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hyderabad, under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. The core legal questions involved whether the mandatory provisions regarding the issuance of non-bailable warrants and supply of copies under sections 5 and 6 were complied with, whether isolated or vague allegations could qualify a person as a habitual offender under section 14, and whether the initiation of proceedings was mala fide. The High Court held that the issuance of a non-bailable warrant without recording reasons or showing immediate necessity, the failure to supply a copy of the police report, and the reliance on vague, unverified allegations regarding isolated instances without showing the accused to be a habitual offender rendered the proceedings illegal and without lawful authority. Furthermore, uncontroverted allegations of personal enmity established that the initiation of proceedings was mala fide. The petition was accepted and the proceedings were quashed.
Questions settled- Whether a Tribunal can issue a non-bailable warrant of arrest in the first instance under section 5 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, without recording reasons demonstrating immediate necessity?
- Does the failure to supply a copy of the police report along with the warrant violate the mandatory provisions of section 6 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975?
- Can vague allegations and isolated incidents unsupported by registered cases or FIRs justify initiating proceedings against a person as a habitual offender under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975?
- What is the legal effect of uncontroverted allegations of mala fides and personal enmity regarding the initiation of proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975?
- MAHBOOB vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1535 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
- MAHBOOB ALAM and another vs Mst. KALSOOM HADI1985 MLD 116 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-18Read full judgment →
- MAHAR HAKEEM vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 596 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-09Read full judgment →
- MADRASSA ZIAULALOOM vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1985 CLC 2963 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-25Read full judgment →
- Madhya Pradesh High Court COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, M. P. I.,BHOPAL1985 PTD 621 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1981-02-25Read full judgment →
- Madam ZEBA vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1596 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-24Read full judgment →
- Madam Zeba (Film Artist) vs The StatePTCL 1985 (CL.) 493 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-24Read full judgment →
- MADAD HUSSAIN SHAH vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD, MULTAN and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 91 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-11-30Read full judgment →
- MACKINNO N MACKENZIE & Co. vs THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF1985 PLD Karachi 21 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-09Read full judgment →
- MABOOD KHAN vs AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK1985 SCMR 1896 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal involving the interpretation of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978. The core legal question concerns the proper construction and application of the provisions of the said Ordinance regarding corporation employees. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the statutory interpretation of the enactment, ordered security in the sum of one thousand rupees, directed the appeal to be prepared on the existing record with liberty for parties to file additional documents, and instructed the office to fix all connected appeals involving the same legal point for hearing together. The principle laid down relates to the necessity of authoritative judicial interpretation of special powers ordinances affecting corporation employees.
Questions settled- How are the provisions of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978 to be interpreted?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted in matters involving the interpretation of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978?
- MA NZOOR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2914 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
- MA HMOOD vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE (Deceased) And Other1985 SCMR 1209 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arising from a trial court's decision concerning the payment of court fees and the effect of a compromise on a suit. The core legal questions presented for examination are two-fold: first, whether the trial court's failure to explicitly indicate a deficiency in court fees entitles a plaintiff to condonation of delay in payment, particularly in light of established precedents such as Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan and others, Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan, and Gulzar Husain v. Abdur Rehman; and second, whether a trial court is justified in dismissing an entire suit despite a compromise having been reached between the plaintiff and a vendee. The Court granted leave to appeal to resolve these issues, directing that the appeal be heard on the existing record while permitting the parties to submit additional documentation as necessary. The order establishes the scope of the appellate review regarding procedural compliance in court fee matters and the impact of partial compromises on litigation.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a trial court to indicate a deficiency in court-fee entitle a plaintiff to condonation of delay in payment?
- Can an entire suit be dismissed notwithstanding a compromise entered into between the plaintiff and a vendee?
- M.S.KHAN vs S . M . SIR AJU D DIN1985 CLC 562 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This First Rent Appeal filed by the tenant challenged the order of the XVII Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, which granted ejectment on the ground of personal need. The landlord sought eviction of four adjoining shops for use as a site office, while dropping the ground of default during arguments. The tenant contended that the landlord's requirement was mala fide and intended merely to coerce an enhancement of rent from Rs. 120 to Rs. 150 per month. The High Court analyzed the burden of proof, noting that while the landlord must show good faith, the tenant can establish mala fides. Upon examining the documentary evidence, including rent receipts and notices revealing undisclosed rent enhancement demands and subsequent concealment of these material facts by the landlord, the Court held that the tenant successfully proved bad faith. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the ejectment order.
Questions settled- Does a landlord's suppression of prior demands for enhanced rent establish mala fides in an application for eviction based on personal need?
- Can a landlord seek eviction for personal requirement after previously letting out the same premises that were once used for the same purpose?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish mala fides when challenging a landlord's personal need requirement?
- M.K. DAR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , . (1985 PTD 97 · Allahabad High Court · 1981-09-13Read full judgment →
- M.H. MERCHANT vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 2162 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-07Read full judgment →
- M.G. GAZDAR (deceased) through his 4 Legal Heirs vs MANZOOR HUSSAIN1985 CLC 2438 · Sindh High Court · 1955-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside certain orders on the grounds of fraud and collusion, which was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge on the grounds of limitation and maintainability. The core legal question was whether an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is maintainable in rent proceedings and how the question of limitation should be determined when fraud is alleged by a person not a party to the original proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the provisions and principles of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to rent proceedings, that Section 12(2) is applicable particularly when decrees are executed by civil courts, and that the question of limitation cannot be resolved without recording evidence when fraud is alleged by a non-party. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for framing issues and deciding the application on merits.
Questions settled- Whether an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is maintainable in proceedings under the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Can the question of limitation regarding an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be decided without recording evidence when fraud is alleged by a non-party?
- Are the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to proceedings under the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- M.C. BIBBERT vs MUHAMMAD NAZIR ALAM1985 MLD 1141 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-05Read full judgment →
- M. ZIKRIA KHAN vs AFTAB ALI KHAN AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Lahore 319 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These consolidated constitutional petitions arose from a dispute regarding the effectiveness of a divorce pronounced under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The core legal question was whether a Chairman of a Union Committee or Council is vested with the authority to suspend, annul, or declare ineffective a divorce upon the expiry of the statutory ninety-day period following the receipt of the notice of Talaq, particularly when reconciliation fails or a party defaults in appearance. The Lahore High Court held that the Chairman lacks any legal authority to annul a divorce or prevent it from becoming effective. The Court ruled that once a notice of Talaq is delivered to the Chairman and the ninety-day period expires without revocation by the husband, the divorce becomes effective automatically by operation of law, regardless of the non-appearance of parties before the Arbitration Council. The key principle laid down is that the Chairman's role is strictly limited to initiating reconciliation proceedings, and he possesses no adjudicatory power to declare a validly notified divorce ineffective.
Questions settled- Does a Chairman of a Union Committee or Council have the authority to annul a divorce or suspend its operation under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
- When does a divorce become effective after the pronouncement of Talaq and the transmission of notice to the Chairman under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
- What are the legal consequences if a party fails to appear before the Chairman or the Arbitration Council for reconciliation proceedings?
- Is a Chairman or an Arbitration Council required to issue a formal certificate to make a divorce effective under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?