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.
- M. YOUSAF vs WALI MUHAMMAD and anothers1985 MLD 1085 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-06Read full judgment →
- M. USMAN SHAH And Another vs NIZAMUDDIN1985 SCMR 1284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning the transfer of property by settlement authorities and the subsequent cancellation of a sale-deed. The second petitioner was transferred a house on an L.H. Form, while the adjoining factory premises were auctioned to the respondent. A dispute arose regarding overlapping boundaries, leading to administrative findings that the house transfer did not include the factory portion. Meanwhile, the second petitioner transferred the house to his son, the first petitioner, via a registered sale-deed. The respondent filed a suit for the cancellation of the sale-deed and recovery of rent, which was ultimately decreed by the appellate court and upheld in revision by the High Court. The core legal questions involved the limitation period for challenging a fraudulent transaction and whether the suit was barred for omitting a consequential relief of possession. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly dismissed the contentions, noting that the plea of limitation was not raised in the written statement and that possession relief was inapplicable since tenants occupied the property. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether a plea of limitation can be raised for the first time at the revisional stage when it was not pleaded in the written statement nor tried by the courts below?
- Whether a suit for cancellation of a sale-deed is barred for want of a prayer for consequential relief of possession when the disputed property is in actual physical possession of tenants?
- What is the starting point of limitation for a suit based on a fraudulent transaction when the date of knowledge is explicitly pleaded and undisputed in pleadings?
- M. MOBIN KHAN vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS VALUATION AND OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 523 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-02-10Read full judgment →
- M. LATIF QURESHI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1680 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
- M. IRSHAD AHMAD AND 138 OTHERS vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN1985 PLC 704 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- M. IKRAM HASSAN KHAN vs THE PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN through Secretary, Home Department and 2 others1985 CLC 789 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
- M. HABIBULLAH vs THE STATE1985 PLD Karachi 680 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-17Read full judgment →
- M. C. JHANG vs UMAR DARAZ1985 MLD 1474 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
- M. ASLAM AWAN vs RAS TARIQ CHAUDHARY1985 CLC 2514 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal impugns the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondent-firm against an ejectment order was decreed. The core legal questions involved whether the respondents proved their independent possession of the shop as a firm or if the suit was barred by non-registration under partnership law, and whether there was a misreading of evidence by the lower courts. The Lahore High Court held that the lower courts committed gross misreading and perversity in appreciating the evidence, which clearly showed that the father alone was in continuous possession while the sons were students, employees, or abroad, and that the suit by an unregistered firm was barred under section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932. The key principles laid down are that an unregistered firm cannot institute a suit to enforce a right arising from a contract including a lease, and that findings based on a misreading of evidence resulting in perverse conclusions are liable to be set aside in second appeal along with the imposition of compensatory costs for collusive litigation.
Questions settled- Whether an unregistered firm can institute a suit to enforce a right arising from a contract such as the hiring of premises?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be set aside in second appeal on the ground of misreading of evidence?
- Whether a suit brought by sons in the name of a firm to nullify an ejectment order passed against their father can be deemed collusive?
- Does the bar under section 69 of the Partnership Act apply to a contract to hire a shop?
- M. AFSAR KHAN AND 12 OTHERS vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Peshawar 103 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-08-29Read full judgment →
- M. AFAQ MALI K vs Mst. IQBAL BEGUM Alias BALLAN1985 SCMR 1739 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a civil revision petition. The petitioner had filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that a registered deed of gift in favor of his wife was illegal and void. During the trial, after two witnesses were examined, the petitioner and his counsel failed to appear on the adjourned date, leading the trial court to dismiss the suit in default under Order IX, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner's subsequent application for restoration was dismissed due to a lack of sufficient grounds, a decision upheld on appeal and revision. The petitioner argued that the court should have decided the case on merits rather than dismissing it in default. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's dismissal was legally sound and a proper exercise of discretion. The Court distinguished the cited precedents, noting they applied to the closure of evidence rather than non-appearance, and consequently refused the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Is a trial court justified in dismissing a suit in default under Order IX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the plaintiff fails to appear on an adjourned date?
- Does the failure to produce evidence on a scheduled date mandate a decision on merits rather than a dismissal in default?
- M. A . WA HEED vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SIND AT KARACHI and 91985 CLC 95 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- LYALLPUR COTTON MILLS vs AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT1985 PLC 563 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
- LYALLPUR COTTON MILLS through General Manager, Faisalabad vs SHAMIM1985 PLC 1 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- LUTFULLAH KHAN MAZARI vs SOLICITOR TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 329 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-03-28Read full judgment →
- LUQMAN vs YAR MUHAMMAD and 3 others1985 CLC 2327 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant filed a suit claiming a right of pre-emption and possession over a portion of agricultural land, asserting his status as a Shaf-e-Jar and Shaf-e-Khilat and alleging that he duly performed the requisite demands of Talab-e-Mawasbat and Talab-e-Ishhad. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the appellant, but the District Judge set aside the judgment and dismissed the suit on appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove the making of Talab-e-Ishhad through reliable and independent witnesses. Upon second appeal, the Sindh High Court evaluated the evidence of the witnesses produced for Talab-e-Ishhad and noted significant contradictions, the status of a chance witness, and the failure to disclose witness names in the plaint or subsequent lists. The High Court upheld the appellate court's finding that the witnesses were untrustworthy and that the mandatory requirement of making Talab-e-Ishhad in the presence of two credible witnesses was not established. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to mention the names of witnesses for Talab in the plaint is fatal to a pre-emption suit?
- Does an unchallenged statement of a defense witness regarding threats have to be accepted if not cross-examined?
- Whether the testimony of a chance witness with material contradictions is sufficient to prove Talab-e-Ishhad?
- LUKMAN and another vs YAR MUHAMMAD1985 MLD 347 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-31Read full judgment →
- Lt.-Col. (Rtd.) MANZOOR ELAHI KHAWAJA vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and 2 others1985 MLD 1099 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-03Read full judgment →
- LT.-COL. (RETD.) AMANULLAH QURESHI AND ANOTHER vs PAKISTANI THROUGH SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN IN THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS ,1985 PTD 700 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-23Read full judgment →
- Lt. Col. MUMTAZ RAZA KHAN vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER And Other1985 SCMR 1597 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerned a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court, which had upheld an Additional Settlement Commissioner's order. The original dispute involved the cancellation of agricultural land allotted to the petitioner, with respondents claiming prior valid allotments. The core legal questions revolved around the existence and validity of the Deputy Commissioner's 1962 cancellation order, the petitioner's entitlement to the land given other allotments, and the time-barring of the petitioner's appeal to the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit. It held that factual contentions not raised before the High Court could not be inquired into at the special leave to appeal stage. The Court affirmed the findings that the petitioner's Khatooni was unsigned by a competent authority, he had obtained excess allotments, and the respondents' allotments were of a prior date, thus justifying the cancellation of the petitioner's allotment.
Questions settled- Can a factual contention not raised before the High Court be inquired into by the Supreme Court at the stage of a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Can an agricultural land allotment be cancelled if the Khatooni is found to be unsigned by a competent authority?
- Is an allotment of agricultural land justified if the allottee has already received excess land in other districts?
- Does a prior, uncontroverted allotment to one party invalidate a subsequent allotment of the same land to another party?
- Lt. (Retd.) Haji WALAYAT KHAN and another vs Mst. GHULAM SAKINA and another1985 MLD 199(2) · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-17Read full judgment →
- LIAQUAT ALI and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1260 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-09Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1392 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-18Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT SHAH And Others vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1415 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from the conviction and death sentences of the appellants for the murders of four persons and murderous assaults on two others in a family dispute. The core legal question involved whether the oral testimony of related and injured eye-witnesses could be relied upon without independent corroboration regarding all accused despite the acquittal of a co-accused. The court held that the ocular testimony of natural and injured witnesses, corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of weapons, was truthful and reliable, and did not require independent corroboration. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that where eye-witnesses are natural, present at the scene, and injured, and their testimony is consistent with the medical evidence and the number of injuries, their statements can safely form the basis of a conviction without needing independent corroboration. However, considering the young age of some appellants and the mitigating circumstances of grave and sudden provocation stemming from family honor and the influence of elder brothers, the death sentences of three younger appellants were commuted to imprisonment for life, while the convictions and death sentences of the two elder brothers were upheld.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of related and injured eye-witnesses requires independent corroboration to sustain a conviction for murder?
- Does the acquittal of one co-accused necessarily discredit the entire ocular testimony against the remaining accused?
- Can young age and the influence of elder brothers operate as mitigating circumstances to warrant the commutation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Whether minor discrepancies and improvements in the statements of eye-witnesses are sufficient to discard their otherwise reliable testimony?
- LIAQAT HAYAT And 5 Others vs MUHAMMAD SARWAR Alias FEROZ ALI And 21985 SCMR 1386 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the non-compliance with the provisions of Order III Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in filing a first appeal. The core legal question was whether the defect in the power-of-attorney and the presentation of the appeal by an advocate without proper execution within the limitation period constituted an incurable illegality or an excusable irregularity. The Supreme Court held that where the appeal was filed under instructions from the appellant and the defect lay merely in improperly completing the power-of-attorney, such a defect is an irregularity that can be condoned, attracting established legal principles. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the non-compliance with Order III Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in filing an appeal is an incurable illegality or an excusable irregularity?
- Can an appeal filed under instructions where the power-of-attorney lacks proper execution be treated as a validly presented appeal?
- Whether an appellate court should allow an appellant to rectify a defective presentation or power-of-attorney before dismissing an appeal on limitation grounds?
- LIAQAT and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2043 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-09Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT ALI ZAFAR vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others1985 CLC 2809 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-01Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT ALI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1084 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT ALI vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.1985 PLC 640 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-25Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT ALI vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NAROWAL DIVISION, WAPDA1985 PLC 534 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-31Read full judgment →
- LIAQA T ALI vs THE STATE And Another1985 SCMR 971 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
- LEVER BROTHERS (PAKISTAN) Ltd., RAHIMYAR KHAN vs MUHAMMAD AMIN1985 PLC 244(2) · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-05-21Read full judgment →
- LEVER BROTHERS (PAKISTAN) Ltd., RAHIMYAR KHAN vs AZIZ AHMED1985 PLC 234 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-07-11Read full judgment →
- LEVER BROTHERS (PAKISTAN) LTD. vs GHULAM SARWAR1985 PLC 329 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-08-19Read full judgment →
- LEIAH SUGAR MILLS vs HAKIM ALI1985 PLC 328 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-08-19Read full judgment →
- LEIAH SUGAR MILLS Ltd. vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN1985 PLC 95 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →
- LEHRASAB KHAN vs Mst. AQIL UN NISA1985 SCMR 1034 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's Regular Second Appeal on the grounds of incompetence. The petitioner had filed the appeal in a suit where the jurisdictional value was Rs. 200, a category for which second appeals had been abolished. The petitioner subsequently requested the High Court to convert the incompetent second appeal into a civil revision, a request the High Court declined to grant in the exercise of its judicial discretion. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was bound to allow such a conversion or if it remained a matter of judicial discretion. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court possesses the power to allow the conversion of a second appeal into a civil revision, the decision to grant or refuse such a prayer rests entirely within the High Court's judicial discretion. Finding no grounds to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the power to convert a Regular Second Appeal into a civil revision?
- Is the High Court bound to grant a request to convert an incompetent second appeal into a civil revision?
- Does the refusal of the High Court to exercise its discretion to convert an appeal into a revision warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- LEESHA MASIH vs Mian SARDAR MUHAMMAD, Kiln Owner1985 PLC 134 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-17Read full judgment →
- LEEMON vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1826 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-30Read full judgment →
- LEELO alias A. GHAFFAR and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 948 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-15Read full judgment →
- LATIFUR RAHMAN KHAN vs ANWAR ALI and 2 others1985 MLD 1144 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-24Read full judgment →
- LAQA ALI vs SUMMARY MILITARY COURT No.17, LAHORE1985 SCMR 1079 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had refused to interfere with the petitioner's conviction by a Summary Military Court. The petitioner, convicted under Martial Law Regulations 5, 10, 13, and 33, had served his full sentence of one month's rigorous imprisonment before filing the writ petition. The core legal question was whether the High Court was bound to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to determine the validity of a conviction when the petitioner had already served the sentence and delayed filing the challenge. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition, holding that the High Court's refusal to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction was unexceptionable given the petitioner's conduct. The Court established that while writ jurisdiction is available, it is discretionary, and a petitioner's failure to challenge a conviction during the pendency of a sentence, combined with an unexplained delay in filing, are relevant factors for a court to consider when deciding whether to grant relief under Article 199 of the Constitution.
Questions settled- Can a High Court exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to challenge a conviction after the sentence has already been served?
- Is the conduct of a petitioner, including delay in filing a petition, a relevant factor for the High Court in exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Does the High Court have an obligation to grant a declaration under Article 199 of the Constitution when an effective alternative remedy was available to the petitioner?
- LAL vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2009 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-12Read full judgment →
- LAL MASIH and 3 others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1037 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-01Read full judgment →
- LAL KHAN vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER_SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other1985 SCMR 1732 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two civil appeals arising from concurrent decisions of the Sind High Court, which dismissed the appellants' constitutional petitions against the cancellation of their land allotments. The core legal question was whether the appellants had been issued notice and granted a hearing by the Settlement Commissioner before their subsequent land allotments were cancelled in favour of a prior allottee. The Supreme Court held that since the original record did not substantiate the claim of lack of notice and the prior allotment in favour of the contesting respondent remained undisputed and validly in the field, the subsequent allotments were rightly treated as nullities that created no vested rights. The Court laid down the principle that a subsequent land allotment made without the cancellation of a prior valid allotment is a nullity, and factual assertions regarding lack of notice in official proceedings must be substantiated by the record to rebut the presumption of regular performance.
Questions settled- Whether a subsequent land allotment can be sustained when a prior allotment in favor of another person holds the field?
- Does a subsequent allottee acquire a vested right from an allotment that is made while a prior allotment remains uncanceled?
- How is the presumption of proper performance of official acts under section 114 of the Evidence Act rebutted in proceedings challenging service of notice?
- LAL KHAN vs ALLAH BAKHSH AND OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 610 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-23Read full judgment →
- LAL KHAN and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1689 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-27Read full judgment →
- LAL KHAN AND 9 OTHERS vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 584 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
- LAL DIN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 841 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-22Read full judgment →
- LAL DIN MASIH vs Mst. SAKINA JAN And Another1985 SCMR 1972 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment proceeding initiated under the Rent Restriction Law on the grounds of default in payment of rent and personal need. The Rent Controller ordered the tenant's ejectment, but the appellate authority reversed this decision and dismissed the landlord's petition. On a writ petition, the High Court interfered with the appellate order and restored the ejectment. The petitioner contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, could not interfere with findings of fact recorded by an appellate forum. The Supreme Court held that while findings of fact are generally protected, interference is justified under writ jurisdiction if the appellate forum flouted statutory provisions or failed to follow the law laid down by superior courts. Finding that the appellate authority's conclusions on default and personal need were contrary to established legal principles and the evidence on record, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's interference and dismissed the petition, granting the tenant two months to vacate.
Questions settled- Can the High Court in its writ jurisdiction interfere with a finding of fact recorded by an appellate forum in rent matters?
- Under what circumstances is the High Court justified in overturning an appellate rent authority's decision under constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does the failure of a landlord to issue rent receipts excuse a tenant from the obligation to tender rent?
- LAL BAZ KHAN AFRIDI and 2 others vs REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KARACHI through its Secretary and another1985 CLC 2402 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-11Read full judgment →
- LAIQUR REHMAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1224 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
- LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION vs Sh. FAZAL KARIM and 4 others1985 MLD 206 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-15Read full judgment →
- LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS vs WALI-1985 PLC 768 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another vs Messrs, ALI CON LTD.1985 MLD 381 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-01Read full judgment →
- KOURO vs THE STATE1985 PLD Karachi 684 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-22Read full judgment →
- KISHANDAS and 2 others vs MOTIRAM1985 MLD 212 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-18Read full judgment →
- KIFAYATULLAH Alias KIFAYAT KHAN vs The STATE1985 SCMR 559 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for bail before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a criminal matter where the petitioner sought bail on the ground that the alleged offence fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, which had not yet been constituted in District Dir. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should entertain a ground for bail regarding the non-constitution of a Special Court when that specific ground was not pressed before or examined by the High Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that because this ground was not raised before the High Court, the High Court could not ascertain the status of the Special Court's constitution or address the plea satisfactorily. The Court laid down the principle that new grounds concerning the non-existence of a trial forum must first be raised before the High Court, granting the petitioner liberty to move the High Court to consider this specific point.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner raise a new ground regarding the non-constitution of a Special Court for the first time before the Supreme Court in a bail application?
- What is the proper forum to first ascertain and address the factual non-existence or non-constitution of a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act?
- KIFAYAT ALI vs ALI BUX1985 MLD 422 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-23Read full judgment →
- KHUSHTI KHAN vs THE STATE and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 1423 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-09Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2070 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-15Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1973 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-09Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE1985 PLC 621 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and others vs Haji MUHAMMAD ZAKARIA1985 CLC 2654 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-08Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2454 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MASIH vs THE STATE1985 MLD 822 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-05Read full judgment →
- KHUSHHAL KHAN and 20 others vs THE LAND MANAGEMENT OFFICER, HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION1985 CLC 2144 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-17Read full judgment →
- KHUSHAL KHAN vs MANAGER, MILITARY DAIRY FARM, MALIR CANTT KARACHI1985 SCMR 1895 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his dismissal from service. The petitioner, a daily wage worker at the Military Dairy Farm, Malir, was transferred to Ruk, Sukkur, but failed to assume duty, remaining absent despite multiple notices and a published show-cause warning. The core legal question concerned the legality of the petitioner's dismissal from service on grounds of unauthorized absence and whether he was denied a proper opportunity of being heard. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's unauthorized absence from his new station of posting remained unexplained, as his medical certificates covered only a later period, rendering his absence unjustified. The Court affirmed the dismissal and refused leave to appeal, establishing that failure to report to a transferred duty station coupled with prolonged unauthorized absence justifies disciplinary action and dismissal from service.
Questions settled- Whether an employee's failure to report to a transferred duty station justifies dismissal from service after due notice?
- Can an employee claim denial of a hearing when multiple notices and a show-cause warning are issued for unauthorized absence?
- Whether medical certificates covering a later period can justify prior unexplained absence from duty?
- KHUSH MUHAMMAD and 3 others vs SHER MUHAMMAD and 6 others1985 MLD 1432 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-01Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID MUHAMMAD vs ANWAR KHAN1985 CLC 2895 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-25Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID MARBLE INDUSTRIES LTD. vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and another1985 CLC 2437 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-03Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID ANWAR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 97 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-07Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID ALAM vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LYALLPUR And 2 Other1985 SCMR 615 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a settlement dispute concerning the transfer of a residential property in Lyallpur under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. The appellant, a claimant and prior allottee, challenged the Settlement Commissioner's decision to divide the residential portion and transfer separate units to the respondents, arguing that as a claimant, he was entitled to the entire property under the Schedule to the Act. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Commissioner acted within his authority in dividing the property into separate units and whether the High Court erred in refusing to interfere with this administrative division. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner provided valid reasons for the division of the property into separate units. Consequently, the Court determined that the provisions of paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Act were inapplicable once the property had been validly divided. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that it was justified in declining to interfere with the administrative division of the property, and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Does the Settlement Commissioner have the authority to divide a residential property into separate units for transfer purposes?
- Is the High Court competent to interfere with the administrative division of property made by a Settlement Commissioner?
- Does the entitlement of a claimant under the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 persist after a property has been validly divided into separate units?
- KHURSHID ALAM vs SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 339 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-06-12Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID ALAM and 2 others vs MUHAMMAD SHAH NAWAZ and 12 others1985 CLC 1286 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-02Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID AHMAD vs THE CHAIRMAN,WAPDA1985 PLC 341 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-05-23Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID AHMAD vs Mst. ZUBAIDA KHATOON and 5 others1985 CLC 2366 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-13Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID AHMAD And 28 Others vs NADEEM IQBAL And 23 Other1985 SCMR 40 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition against an eviction order. The core legal questions concerned whether a single, composite eviction application filed against multiple tenants was maintainable and whether the tenants could challenge the landlords' title through new factual arguments. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the eviction order. The Court held that technical objections regarding the misjoinder of parties are inapplicable to rent proceedings where common questions of law and fact exist and no prejudice is demonstrated to the tenants. Furthermore, the Court established that factual controversies, including challenges to the validity of sale deeds or the transferor's title, must be raised at the trial stage and cannot be introduced for the first time during constitutional jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the Rent Controller's finding regarding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, based on evidence, was conclusive, and that tenants who fail to pay rent cannot avoid eviction by raising belated, unsubstantiated claims regarding the landlord's title.
Questions settled- Is a single, composite eviction application maintainable against multiple tenants occupying different portions of the same property?
- Can a party raise new factual arguments regarding the validity of sale deeds or title for the first time during constitutional jurisdiction?
- Are technical objections regarding the misjoinder of parties applicable to proceedings before a Rent Controller?
- KHUDA1 REHM vs HAZRAT NOOR1985 CLC 802 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-11-16Read full judgment →
- KHUDA YAR and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2849 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-03Read full judgment →
- KHUDA VAR and another vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND HOME1985 PLC (C.S.) 443 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
- KHUDA DAD And Others vs FAZAL1985 SCMR 1503(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which reversed concurrent findings of fact made by the two lower courts regarding the validity of a gift. The core legal question is whether the High Court, in the exercise of its second appellate jurisdiction, is empowered to reverse concurrent findings of fact, specifically regarding the delivery of possession in a gift transaction, under the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that the High Court exceeded its legal authority by interfering with these concurrent factual findings. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the limits of the High Court's jurisdiction in second appeals. The principle laid down emphasizes that a High Court in second appeal is generally restricted from disturbing concurrent findings of fact unless there is a substantial error of law or procedure that warrants such interference.
Questions settled- Can the High Court reverse concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the reversal of a finding regarding the delivery of possession in a gift case by the High Court in second appeal constitute an excess of jurisdiction?
- KHUDA BUX vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and 9 others1985 CLC 1335 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-05Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BUX LASSI vs MESSRS NATIONAL MOTORS LTD., KARACHI1985 PLC 1011 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BAKHSH vs The STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2873 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BAKHSH vs SULTAN MUHAMMAD And Another1985 SCMR 192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1959-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal from a revisional order of the Judicial Commissioner, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar, arising out of a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the trial court's discretion to extend the time for depositing pre-emption money under section 23, subsection (4) is restricted by statutory considerations or the period of limitation, and whether the Judicial Commissioner erred in interfering with the trial court's order in revision. The Supreme Court held that the discretion of the trial court under section 23(4) is absolute, is not restricted by statutory considerations or the period of limitation for the suit, and that the trial court committed no illegality or material irregularity in extending the time and awarding damages. The key principle laid down is that a trial court possesses absolute discretion under section 23(4) to extend the time for depositing pre-emption money without being constrained by the period of limitation for filing the suit, and such discretionary orders should not be interfered with in revision unless vitiated by illegality or material irregularity.
Questions settled- Whether the discretion of the trial court to extend the time for depositing pre-emption money is absolute?
- Can the time for depositing pre-emption money be extended beyond the period of limitation for the suit?
- Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere in revision with a trial court's order extending the time for deposit?
- KHUDA BAKHSH vs ABDUL HAQUE And Another1985 SCMR 1378 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a rent dispute spanning multiple rounds of litigation, wherein the respondent-landlord sought the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from a commercial shop on the grounds of non-payment of rent and bona fide personal need. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the eviction application, but the appellate authority reversed this finding, established the default in rent and personal need, and ordered ejectment. The tenant's Second Appeal from Order abated by operation of law, subsequent to which his constitutional writ petition before the High Court was dismissed. Upon further petition, the Supreme Court evaluated the matter and observed that the writ petition essentially agitated factual controversies which were not competent for writ jurisdiction. The Court held that factual findings concurrently arrived at by the appellate authority do not warrant interference under constitutional jurisdiction unless shown to be illegal or suffering from jurisdictional defects. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a writ petition is competent against concurrent factual findings in a rent matter?
- Does default in payment of rent justify the ejectment of a tenant?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the dismissal of a writ petition relating to pure questions of fact?
- KHIZAR vs THE STATE1985 MLD 875 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-15Read full judgment →
- KHIZAR HAYAT vs THE STATE1985 MLD 671 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-07Read full judgment →
- KHAWAR M. BUTT and another vs ABDULLAH H. HABIB and 2 others1985 MLD 1193 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-30Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Sethi MUHAMMAD MOINUDDIN vs UNITED BANK LTD.1985 PLC 898 · Labour Court · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
- Khawaja SETHI MUHAMMAD MOINUDDIN vs Messrs UNITED BANK LIMITED1985 PLC 294 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
- Khawaja MUHAMMAD MUNAWAR vs NISAR AHMAD and 2 others1985 CLC 1613 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-15Read full judgment →
- Khawaja JALAL DIN And Others vs THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE And Other1985 SCMR 1359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an order of the Lahore High Court holding that a constitutional writ petition had abated totally due to the failure to bring on record the legal representatives of a deceased writ petitioner and deceased respondents within the limitation period prescribed by Article 177 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The core legal questions were whether Article 177 or the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act applied to constitutional petitions of a civil nature, whether Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure applied to such writ petitions, and whether amendments introduced by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 had retrospective effect on pending abatements. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that writ proceedings of a civil nature attract the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and that Article 177 of the Limitation Act governs applications for the substitution of legal representatives in such matters. The Court laid down that the amendments to Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 are not retrospective and do not cure abatements that occurred prior to their enforcement.
Questions settled- Whether Article 177 or Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies to an application for bringing on record legal representatives of a deceased party in a constitutional writ petition?
- Do the provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 apply to constitutional petitions of a civil nature?
- Are the amendments made by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 to Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 retrospective in nature?
- Khawaja GULZAR AHMAD vs Mst. LATIFAN1985 CLC 1044 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-30Read full judgment →
- Khawaja ASIMUDDIN vs IFTIKHAR BAN001985 CLC 707 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-19Read full judgment →
- Khanzada HADAYAT ALI KHAN vs MAZHAR ALI KHAN and others1985 P Cr. L J 2871 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comprises nine petitions for special leave to appeal against the consolidated order of the Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore, acquitting the respondents under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in private complaints filed under sections 409, 420, 468, 166, 167, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The core legal question was whether disputes touching the internal management and business of a co-operative society, remediable under section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, preclude criminal prosecution or require resolution through the mechanisms provided under the Co-operative Societies Act. The court held that although the trial court erred in failing to record preliminary evidence before entertaining applications for acquittal, remand was unnecessary as the dispute inherently touched upon the internal management of the society, which falls within the statutory framework of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. The court laid down that where disputes regarding embezzlement and cheating relate to the business of a co-operative society, the statutory mechanism under the Co-operative Societies Act must be invoked, and technical irregularities in procedure do not warrant interference if the ultimate conclusion is correct.
Questions settled- Whether disputes touching the business and internal management of a co-operative society must be resolved through the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925?
- Can an appellate court decline to remand a case for recording preliminary evidence if the ultimate legal result would remain unchanged?
- Does the Registrar of Co-operative Societies have the power to initiate criminal prosecution under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925?
- KHANIZAMAN vs M. MAQSOOD KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Peshawar 69 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-02-01Read full judgment →
- Khan Sahib SHER MUHAMMAD MIR vs MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD1985 PLC (C.S.) 422 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-10-06Read full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1378 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-06Read full judgment →