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.
- KHAN MUHAMMAD vs M.A.H. BOKHARI and others1985 CLC 2507 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-03Read full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMAD QURESHI vs THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 369 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the legality of an order reverting the appellant, an Estate Manager, from Grade-19 to Grade-18 under the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978. The appellant was appointed to the post during the period specified in the Ordinance. The core legal question was whether Section 3 of the Ordinance, which authorizes the removal or reversion of employees appointed or promoted between 1972 and 1977, permits the reversion of an employee who was appointed to a post but not promoted to it. The Supreme Court held that the statutory power to revert is exclusively applicable to employees who were promoted during the relevant period, as the term 'his lower post or grade' presupposes a prior held position. Conversely, the power to remove from service applies to those appointed during that period. Since the appellant was appointed and not promoted, the authority lacked the power to revert him to a lower grade he had never held. Consequently, the Court set aside the reversion order, establishing that the power to revert under the Ordinance is strictly limited to cases of promotion.
Questions settled- Does Section 3 of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978 authorize the reversion of an employee who was appointed but not promoted during the relevant period?
- Can an employee be reverted to a lower post or grade that they never previously held under the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978?
- Is the power to remove from service and the power to revert to a lower post under the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978 applicable to different categories of employees?
- KHAN MUHAMMAD KHAN vs ALI MUHAMMAD AND 7 01 HERSs1985 PLD SC (A J & K) 91 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-12-08Read full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMAD and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2238 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMA D vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, PESHAWAR and others1985 CLC 1273 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-06-18Read full judgment →
- KHAN MASIH and 4 others vs TOWN COMMITTEE, CHAWINDA1985 PLC 220 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-08-14Read full judgment →
- KHAN BADSHAH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2609 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-07-12Read full judgment →
- KHAN BADSHAH And Another vs NOORUL HAQ Through Legal Heirs And Other1985 SCMR 1434 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two civil appeals involving the right of pre-emption under the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1950. The core legal question was whether a pre-emption suit could be defeated by the vendee transferring the suit property to a third party with an equal or superior pre-emptive right after the expiry of the limitation period for filing a pre-emption suit. The Supreme Court held that the 'Explanation' added to Section 16 of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1950, by the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption (Amendment) Act, 1972, explicitly provides that a pre-emptor-plaintiff shall not be deemed to have lost a subsisting right of pre-emption if the vendee-defendant transfers the property after the period of limitation. The Court affirmed that this provision applies retrospectively to pending suits and appeals. Consequently, the Court ruled that transfers made after the limitation period cannot defeat the plaintiff's superior right of pre-emption, thereby setting aside the contrary findings of the lower courts.
Questions settled- Does the transfer of suit property by a vendee to a third party after the expiry of the limitation period defeat a plaintiff's right of pre-emption?
- Is the Explanation added to Section 16 of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1950, by the 1972 Amendment Act applicable to pending appeals?
- Does the term 'appeal' in the Explanation to Section 16 of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1950, include second appeals?
- KHAN and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1032 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-02Read full judgment →
- KHAMISANI SONS vs EXCISE & TAXATION OFFICER 'P' DIVISION and 2 others1985 CLC 267 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-27Read full judgment →
- KHALIQ UR RAHMAN vs AMEER UD DIN And Another1985 SCMR 1000 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an eviction order against a tenant in residential premises. The landlord sought eviction on grounds of sub-letting, personal requirement, reconstruction, and rent default. The Rent Controller ordered eviction based solely on bona fide personal requirement, rejecting other grounds. On appeal, the High Court upheld the personal requirement finding and reversed the Rent Controller's decision regarding reconstruction, ordering eviction on both grounds. The tenant challenged this, arguing that the landlord's cross-objections in the High Court were incompetent under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The Supreme Court declined to address the maintainability of the cross-objections because the eviction order was independently sustainable on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. Regarding the personal requirement, the Court rejected the tenant's argument that a landlord living in rented accommodation must prove the insufficiency of that accommodation to seek possession of their own property. Relying on precedent, the Court affirmed that the statutory requirement for a landlord to not occupy another suitable residential building does not extend to rented premises. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the statutory requirement that a landlord must not occupy another suitable residential building extend to rented premises?
- Can an eviction order be sustained on the ground of bona fide personal requirement even if other grounds for eviction are contested?
- KHALIQ AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1373 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
- KHALILUR REHMAN vs Syed FARZAND RIZVI1985 PLD Supreme Court 373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a rent ejectment matter where the appellant-landlord sought the eviction of the respondent from non-residential premises on grounds of default and bona fide personal need. The core legal question was whether the landlord incurred a disqualification under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, specifically whether he had 'vacated' a similar building without sufficient cause, thereby barring him from seeking the tenant's eviction for personal use. The High Court had previously ruled against the landlord, interpreting the change in names on rent receipts for a different portion of the building as evidence of 'vacating' premises. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the mere change of names on rent receipts for a family-owned company did not constitute 'vacating' the premises. The Court clarified that the statutory disqualification applies only where a landlord, previously in possession of a building suitable for their business, vacates it without sufficient cause. As the landlord had not vacated any such premises, the disqualification did not apply, and the eviction order was restored.
Questions settled- Does a change in the name of the payee on rent receipts for a commercial property constitute 'vacating' the premises under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- What is the scope of the disqualification under Section 13(3)(ii)(c) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 regarding a landlord's previous possession of similar premises?
- Can a landlord be barred from seeking eviction for personal need if they have not personally occupied and subsequently vacated a similar building without sufficient cause?
- KHALILUR REHMAN KHAN, D. S. P. AND OTHERS vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH Home SECRETARY, PUNJAB AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from petitions examining the applicability of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 regarding the seniority and pro forma promotion of former Police Sergeants following the conversion and merger of their posts with those of Sub-Inspectors. The core legal question concerned whether the omission of Sergeants from the Pay Revision Rules of 1959 implied the abolition of their cadre, and whether subsequent orders by the Inspector-General of Police altering their conditions of service without provincial approval were binding and barred the Provincial Government from granting uniform relief. The Supreme Court held that the Provincial Government possessed the exclusive statutory authority under the Police Act, 1861 to determine pay and conditions of service, that Pay Revision Rules do not create or abolish posts, and that the Inspector-General's unauthorized orders could not override the Government's executive competence to redress inequalities. The Court established that the passage of time rendering a transaction past and closed does not estop the competent authority from rectifying departmental anomalies and ensuring even-handed treatment among personnel.
Questions settled- Whether the omission of a cadre from Pay Revision Rules operates as an implicit abolition of the posts and cadre?
- Does an order passed by the Inspector-General of Police without the approval of the Provincial Government possess legal efficacy under Section 12 of the Police Act 1861?
- Can the Provincial Government rectify past unequal treatment and grant relief to civil servants despite a transaction being otherwise regarded as past and closed?
- KHALILUR REHMAN and another vs Mst. RADHI BAI (through his legal Heirs)1985 CLC 142 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- KHALIL IQBAL vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 525 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-29Read full judgment →
- Khalifa Haji MUHAMMAD HANIF and 3 others vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR1985 MLD 221 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-09Read full judgment →
- KHALIDA SAIFI vs FAREED AHMED ANSARI AND ANOTHERsPLD 1985 Rev. 199 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1978-07-12Read full judgment →
- KHALID SULTAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 241 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 (P.O. No. 4 of 1979), for the possession of Charas. The core legal question is whether a cryptic, one-line report from a Chemical Examiner, which fails to detail the tests applied or the grounds for the opinion, constitutes sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. The Court held that relying solely on such a meager report amounts to an improper delegation of the judicial function to the expert. The Court emphasized that because the Chemical Examiner does not appear in court for cross-examination, their report must be comprehensive, providing the specific grounds and methodology for the conclusion reached. Finding the report insufficient to satisfy the judicial conscience, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the petitioner. The key principle established is that an expert's report, when serving as the primary basis for conviction, must be full and complete, as it effectively replaces the testimony the expert would have provided had they been called as a witness.
Questions settled- Is a one-line report from a Chemical Examiner sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction?
- Does a court improperly delegate its judicial function by relying on an unsupported expert report?
- What level of detail is required in a Chemical Examiner's report for it to be admissible as proof of guilt?
- KHALID SHARIF MALIK vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1448 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-25Read full judgment →
- KHALID SAIGOL vs NATIONAL INVESTMENT TRUST LTD. AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 124 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from an order of the Sind High Court dismissing an Intra-Court Appeal as time-barred under Article 151 of the Limitation Act 1908. The appellant sought setting aside of an ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which was dismissed by a single Judge. The intra-court appeal was filed past the 20-day period of limitation along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 for condonation of delay. The appellant attributed the delay to his former counsel failing to inform him of the dismissal order and allegedly misinforming his new counsel regarding the limitation period. The High Court refused to condone the delay, finding gross negligence and lack of good faith. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision, holding that gross negligence or unverified reliance on an estranged advocate does not constitute 'sufficient cause' under Section 5. Negligence of a counsel or party does not automatically excuse delay, particularly when valuable rights have accrued to the opposite party.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a counsel to inform a client about the dismissal of an application constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can a party rely on limitation advice given by an estranged advocate without independent verification to seek condonation of delay?
- Whether unverified reliance on incorrect legal advice constitutes gross negligence barring the exercise of judicial discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- KHALID SAEED vs The STATE1985 SCMR 567 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the petitioner's conviction for misappropriation of funds. The petitioner, an Octroi Clerk, was tried and convicted alongside a co-accused by the Senior Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Punjab, Lahore, for offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial court found the charges of misappropriation established and sentenced the petitioner to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000. Upon appeal, the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged the findings of the lower courts. After hearing the arguments presented by counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition. The Court held that there were no valid grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the High Court. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, thereby maintaining the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding criminal misappropriation?
- Is a conviction under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code sustainable when concurrent findings of guilt are established by lower courts?
- KHALID PERVAIZ vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, FAISALABA D DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C.S.) 768 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-11-11Read full judgment →
- KHALID MANSUR and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 281 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-26Read full judgment →
- MARATAB ALI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1183 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
- KHALID MAHMOOD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1595 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
- KHALID MAHMOOD vs SALAHUDDIN1985 P Cr. L J 1611 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-22Read full judgment →
- KHALID MAHMOOD vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER/CHIEF SETTLEMENT1985 MLD 355 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-24Read full judgment →
- KHALID MAHMOOD alias BABU vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1040 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
- KHALID HUSSAIN vs Messrs PEOPLE ENTERPRISES LIMITED1985 PLC 371 · Labour Court · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
- KHALID AHMAD KHAN vs Mst. RAZIA BEGUM and others1985 CLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-24Read full judgment →
- KHAKI JAN and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2074 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-07Read full judgment →
- KHAIRPUR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs COMMISSIONER KHAIRPUR SPLD 1985 Rev. 69 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1971-06-06Read full judgment →
- KHAIR DIN vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1913 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dismissing his criminal revision, which had challenged the refusal of lower courts to grant a de novo trial following the transfer of his cases between magistrates. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to a de novo trial upon the transfer of criminal cases from one magistrate to another under the relevant procedural law. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that there was no flaw in the impugned order of the High Court and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, finding no merit for interference. The key principle laid down is that the mere transfer of a criminal case to a different magistrate does not automatically warrant a de novo trial of the proceedings already conducted, unless justifiable grounds under the law are established.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to a de novo trial as a matter of right upon the transfer of a criminal case to a different magistrate?
- Does the High Court's dismissal of a criminal revision regarding the refusal of a de novo trial warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Whether the transfer of criminal cases necessitates the recording of prosecution evidence afresh from the beginning?
- KHAIR DIN and others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others1985 MLD 359 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-27Read full judgment →
- KHADIM vs HASAN And Other1985 SCMR 909 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-03Read full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs ZAFAR IQBAL and 7 others1985 CLC 2285 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-17Read full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs The STATE1985 SCMR 721 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Ghulam Farid. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular evidence in light of significant discrepancies between the medical report and the prosecution's narrative, the evidentiary value of an identification parade conducted eight months post-occurrence, and the credibility of an alleged extra-judicial confession. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found the ocular evidence unreliable due to unexplained inconsistencies regarding the weapons used—specifically, the medical evidence indicated axe injuries while the prosecution alleged knife usage—and the failure of witnesses to identify all accused during the parade. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that identification parades conducted after an inordinate delay, involving witnesses with close familial ties to the complainant, lack probative value. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, granting the appellants the benefit of doubt and ordering their immediate release.
Questions settled- Does a marked inconsistency between ocular evidence and medical evidence regarding the weapon used undermine the prosecution's case?
- Can an identification parade held eight months after the occurrence be considered reliable evidence?
- Is the testimony of a witness who frequently acts as a prosecution witness reliable for proving an extra-judicial confession?
- Does the failure of witnesses to identify one of the accused in an identification parade cast doubt on their identification of other co-accused?
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs Mst. RIAZ SULTANA1985 CLC 1576 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN MAUJI vs The DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 85 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-06-26Read full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN KHAN vs DR. AKBAR HUSSAIN KHAN AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Azad J&K 53 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-02-01Read full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN KHALID vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1985 PLC (C.S.) 678 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-19Read full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 32 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
- KHA DIM HUSSAIN vs PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC 662 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-16Read full judgment →
- KENNITH S. ZIEBELMAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2586 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-16Read full judgment →
- KEMAL SHARIF RANA AND 33 OTHERS vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF HEALTH, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 135 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, unregistered medical practitioners, sought the enforcement of the Allopathic System (Prevention of Misuse) Ordinance, 1962, and the 1968 Rules to obtain permits for prescribing antibiotic and dangerous drugs. The core legal question was whether the subsequent promulgation of the Medical and Dental Degrees Ordinance, 1982, impliedly repealed the 1962 Ordinance and the 1968 Rules. The Court held that the 1982 Ordinance did not impliedly repeal the 1962 Ordinance. It determined that both statutes could coexist, as they served the common objective of eliminating quackery and regulating medical practice. The Court affirmed that repeal by implication is not favored and requires clear repugnancy between statutes, which was absent here. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to process the petitioners' applications for permits under the 1962 Ordinance and 1968 Rules within six months. The principle laid down is that where two statutes can be harmoniously construed, the court will not infer repeal by implication, and the re-enactment of a law does not automatically repeal intermediate legislation unless there is a clear legislative intent or necessary inconsistency.
Questions settled- Does the Medical and Dental Degrees Ordinance, 1982, impliedly repeal the Allopathic System (Prevention of Misuse) Ordinance, 1962?
- Can a writ of mandamus be issued to compel the government to process applications for medical permits under existing rules?
- Under what circumstances does a subsequent statute impliedly repeal an earlier one?
- Are the Allopathic System (Prevention of Misuse) Rules, 1968, still operative despite the enactment of the Medical and Dental Degrees Ordinance, 1982?
- KAURO KHAN vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHERPLD 1985 Rev. 58 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1972-04-25Read full judgment →
- KASSAM HAJI vs IBRAHIM UMER1985 MLD 583 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-27Read full judgment →
- KARIMUDDIN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1404 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-01Read full judgment →
- KARIM DAD vs SHERURREHMAN and others1985 P Cr. L J 1620 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-02-12Read full judgment →
- KARIM DAD vs MEMBER III, BOARD OF REVENUE, BALUCHISTAN AND 5 OTHERS1985 PLD Quetta 252 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Baluchistan, which set aside concurrent revenue court orders and directed a fresh trial of a civil suit regarding property entries and partition. The core legal questions involved whether proceedings conducted by a newly constituted tribunal without the statutory quorum and in the absence of parties were valid, and whether subsequent orders built upon such void proceedings could be sustained. The Balochistan High Court held that since the tribunal failed to meet the quorum requirement under Section 7 of Ordinance I of 1968 and violated the mandatory hearing provisions under Section 8, the entire proceedings were coram non judice and void. The Court ruled that any superstructure of rights and obligations built upon a void order must collapse. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the Board of Revenue's decision.
Questions settled- Are proceedings conducted by a statutory tribunal without the mandatory quorum legally valid?
- Does a decree based on a tribunal report made without hearing the parties violate mandatory statutory provisions?
- What is the legal effect of a void foundational order on subsequent orders and proceedings built upon it?
- KARIM BUX vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2613 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
- KARIM BIBI vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION RAJANA1985 P Cr. L J 213 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-01Read full judgment →
- KARIM BAKHSH vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1880 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Karim Bakhsh against the High Court's order dismissing his application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending his appeal against conviction under sections 302, 307, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal on the rule of consistency, given that co-accused attributed with injuries had already been released on bail under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, notwithstanding his additional conviction under section 307 for injuring a prosecution witness. The Supreme Court held that the case was a fit one for the grant of bail. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail to the petitioner, thereby reinforcing the principle of consistency in the treatment of convicted co-accused regarding the suspension of sentences pending appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a convicted person is entitled to bail pending appeal when co-accused assigned similar or graver roles have been released on bail?
- Can the suspension of sentence be granted under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to a convict who has an additional conviction under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- KARIM BAKHSH and others vs THE STATE-1985 MLD 1392 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-02Read full judgment →
- KARIM BAKHSH and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2298 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-13Read full judgment →
- KARAMAT vs THE STATE1985 MLD 871 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-20Read full judgment →
- KARAMAT and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1982 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-19Read full judgment →
- KARAMAT ALI And 5 Others vs KHAIR DIN And 6 Other1985 SCMR 1661 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute over the allotment of land to displaced persons. The appellants, whose land claims were reduced following a re-evaluation of produce-index-units, were previously granted a right by a Letters Patent Bench to choose which land to surrender to satisfy their reduced claims. Subsequently, the High Court set aside a Settlement Commissioner's order that allowed the appellants to retain specific land in Chak No. 12/M.R. while cancelling allotments in D.G. Khan, reasoning that no unsatisfied claims existed. The core legal question was whether the High Court could deny the appellants the right of choice previously affirmed by a final judicial order. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in denying this right. The Court affirmed that where the resumption of excess land is for rectifying administrative errors rather than penalizing fraud, the allottee must be permitted to exercise a choice regarding the land to be surrendered. The judgment establishes that such rights, once finalized by a competent court, cannot be arbitrarily revoked by subsequent judicial findings.
Questions settled- Does an allottee have a right to choose which land to surrender when an allotment is reduced due to administrative error?
- Can a High Court set aside an order granting an allottee a choice of land adjustment after that order has attained finality?
- Is the resumption of excess land for rectification of administrative error considered a punitive measure?
- KARAM ILLAHI vs The STATE1985 P Cr. L J 623 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-10Read full judgment →
- KARAM HUSSAIN vs ABDUL KARIM and 2 others1985 CLC 794 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-26Read full judgment →
- KARAM DIN vs AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER, LAHORE DIVISION LAHORE AND 21985 PLC (C.S.) 1034 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- KARAM DIN And Others vs MUHAMMAD KHAN And Other1985 SCMR 1920 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from two pre-emption suits filed by the respondents against the petitioners, challenging two land transactions. The first transaction was a registered sale-deed executed by one Khair Din, and the second was a transaction of land from Khair Din's wife, Mst. Rajo, which was ostensibly executed as a gift. The respondents contended that the gift transaction was actually a sale disguised as a gift to defeat their superior pre-emption rights. The trial court dismissed the suits, finding the transaction to be a gift. However, the District Judge and the High Court reversed this, finding the transaction to be a sale. On petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower appellate courts. The Court held that the determination of whether a transaction is a genuine gift or a sale disguised as a gift is a question of fact. Finding no question of law and no reason to disturb the concurrent findings of fact, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions.
Questions settled- Whether a transaction ostensibly executed as a gift can be scrutinized by courts to determine if it was actually a sale disguised to defeat pre-emption rights?
- Does a finding on whether a transaction is a gift or a sale constitute a question of fact or a question of law?
- Can a vendee successfully defeat a pre-emption suit under Section 21-A of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 if the transaction relied upon to improve their status is found to be a disguised sale rather than a genuine gift?
- KARAM BHARI vs MUHAMMAD SAEED and others1985 P Cr. L J 731 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
- KARAM and 8 others vs CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and another1985 MLD 146 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-11Read full judgment →
- Karachi], BARKAT ALI vs NOOR HUSSAIN ALWANI1985 CLC 2445 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-06Read full judgment →
- KARACHI PORT TRUST vs ORGANIZATION OF K.P.T. WORKERS1985 PLC 368 · Labour Court · 1984-05-16Read full judgment →
- KARACHI GASCOMPANY LTD. and another vs The DEPUTY REGISTRAR, JOINT1985 MLD 578 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-11Read full judgment →
- KARACHI GAS COMPANY LIMITED and others vs THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, JOINT1985 MLD 1467 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-11Read full judgment →
- KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI vs S. RAIS AHMAD1985 PLC 912 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-15Read full judgment →
- KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION Ltd. vs DIRECTOR TAXES, KARACHI1985 CLC 1989 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-12Read full judgment →
- KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Mst. FATIMA BAI and another1985 MLD 1496 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-08Read full judgment →
- KANTOLA And Others vs NAZR MUHAMMAD And Other1985 SCMR 1391 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, unsuccessful defendants, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing their regular second appeal. The plaintiff-respondents had filed a suit for possession of disputed land based on an oral sale followed by a mutation. The plaintiffs claimed that their predecessor-in-interest had sold his entire allotted property, but through collusion with revenue authorities, erroneous Khasra numbers were entered in the mutation. The trial court and appellate courts decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, repelling the petitioners' contention that a fraudulent contract was void ab initio and unenforceable. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the view taken by the lower courts regarding the enforceability of the oral sale was in conformity with the law, as the evidence showed an oral sale of the entire allotted property and subsequent misdescription could not defeat the claim. Consequently, the Court found no question of law requiring further examination and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an oral sale of property is rendered void ab initio and unenforceable due to a subsequent misdescription of Khasra numbers in the mutation?
- Can a plaintiff claim possession of property sold under an oral sale when the mutation contains erroneous property numbers resulting from revenue authorities' collusion?
- KANEEZ FATIMA vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SIALKOT and others1985 P Cr. L J 2707 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-14Read full judgment →
- KAMIR and another vs THE STATE1985 MLD 689 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-24Read full judgment →
- KAMALUDDIN and 30 others vs THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through the Secretary, Finance, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 232 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-11-16Read full judgment →
- KAMAL DIN and others vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN1985 MLD 1012 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-16Read full judgment →
- KALU vs MUHAMMAD RASHID And Another1985 SCMR 521 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal arising from a dispute over the transfer of property No.SW-III-57-S-14, Bheem Street, Krishan Nagar, Lahore. The petitioner had previously challenged the transfer of this property in a 1968 writ petition, which was partly accepted by the Lahore High Court, granting the petitioner one room but rejecting claims for additional accommodation. The petitioner accepted this order at the time. Subsequently, the petitioner sought to claim additional portions of the property, specifically a courtyard, latrine, and kitchen. The Lahore High Court rejected this later petition on the grounds of res judicata. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued for access to the room previously granted, implying a need for additional facilities. The Supreme Court held that granting such access would effectively require a review of the 1968 order, which had already finalized the scope of the transfer and denied additional accommodation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the matter was settled and could not be reopened.
Questions settled- Does the principle of res judicata bar a petitioner from claiming additional portions of a property after a prior writ petition regarding the same property has been adjudicated?
- Can a court grant access to additional facilities in a property when a previous final order specifically denied claims for additional accommodation in that same property?
- KALU vs Hafiz ABDUL RASHID AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 461 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-07Read full judgment →
- KALEY KHAN vs KOHINOOR OIL MILLS Ltd., KALA SHAH KAKU1985 PLC 253 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-05-26Read full judgment →
- KALA vs BOARD OF REVENUE AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Supreme Court 208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute under the Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960. The appellant, whose land holding was reduced under a consolidation scheme, did not file an appeal but later filed a miscellaneous application challenging the scheme before the Additional Commissioner. The application was dismissed, and the appellant subsequently filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which was accepted. The High Court, however, set aside the Board's order on the grounds that the appellant had failed to exhaust the statutory appellate remedies, that the revision was barred by limitation, and that the initial application was not labeled as a revision. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision, holding that the existence of an alternative appellate remedy does not bar the exercise of statutory revisional jurisdiction under Section 13 of the Ordinance. The Court further ruled that the non-mention of a specific statutory provision or the mislabeling of an application as a miscellaneous petition is a mere technicality that does not affect jurisdiction, and that the revision petition was filed within the prescribed limitation period from the date of the Additional Commissioner's order.
Questions settled- Is the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 13 of the Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960 dependent on the party first exhausting the statutory right of appeal?
- Does the failure to label an application with the correct statutory provision or describing it as a miscellaneous application divest a statutory authority of its jurisdiction?
- How is the limitation period of ninety days under Section 13(1)(b) of the Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960 computed when a revision is filed against an order of the Commissioner?
- KAFAIT HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1764 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-24Read full judgment →
- KADIR BUX vs ALLAH' DINO AND OTHERSPLD 1985 Rev. 65 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1972-07-24Read full judgment →
- KADIR BAKHSH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2375 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-06-04Read full judgment →
- K.R.S. CAPTAIN vs COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX (CENTRAL), KARACHI1985 PTD 39 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
- K.C. MAMOO vs Mrs. BADRUNNISA1985 CLC 332 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts ordering the appellant-tenant's ejectment from the demised premises on the grounds of default, unauthorized construction, and subletting. The core legal questions concern whether the landlord's continued acceptance of rent with knowledge of the alleged breaches constituted a waiver under rent restriction law, and whether the alleged alterations materially impaired the value or utility of the building. The Sindh High Court held that the landlord's prolonged acceptance of rent for over three years after acquiring full knowledge of the subletting and structural changes operated as an implied waiver of the right to seek eviction on those grounds. Furthermore, the Court held that minor alterations or repairs do not amount to material impairment of a building's value or utility under the statute without concrete expert evidence. The appeal was accordingly accepted and the ejectment application dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the continued acceptance of rent by a landlord with full knowledge of subletting or unauthorized construction constitute a waiver of the right to seek ejectment?
- What constitutes material impairment of the value or utility of a building under rent restriction laws?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be interfered with in second appeal if they are based on a misreading of evidence or misconception of law?
- K.B. Raja MUHAMMAD WALAYAT KHAN vs The COMMISSIONER OF INCOME1985 SCMR 1326 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a tax reference arising from the assessment of rental income assigned by an assessee to his family members via a deed of settlement. The assessee challenged the inclusion of this rental income in his taxable income, leading to a reference before the Lahore High Court. The High Court, while answering the referred questions, observed that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had made errors of fact and law, and consequently directed the Tribunal to reconsider the appeals on their merits. The petitioner sought leave to appeal, contending that the High Court’s answers were inconsistent with its own findings regarding the sequence of the lease and assignment deeds. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the High Court exceeded its limited advisory jurisdiction by remanding the case for reconsideration of factual matters not properly before it, and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to re-examine matters that had become final. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the submissions regarding the scope of the High Court's advisory jurisdiction and the Tribunal's authority required further examination.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to remand a case to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for reconsideration of merits while exercising its advisory jurisdiction under the Income-tax Act 1922?
- Is the High Court's answer to a referred question valid if it is inconsistent with the findings of fact recorded in the same judgment?
- Can the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal re-hear or examine matters on which its order has already become final due to the absence of a reference against those specific findings?
- K H ALIQ URREHMA N vs KHILAFAT HUSSAIN and another1985 CLC 953 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-22Read full judgment →
- JUNEJO MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 440 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1984-11-28Read full judgment →
- JUMA KHAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1013 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
- JUMA KHAN vs BIBI SAHIBA AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Peshawar 88 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-07-22Read full judgment →
- JUMA KHAN and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1313 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-02-08Read full judgment →
- JOINT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RELIGIOUS AND MINIORITY AFFAIRS and 21985 CLC 231 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-27Read full judgment →
- JINDU KHAN vs FARAZA and 2 others1985 CLC 634 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-15Read full judgment →
- JIND A N vs RAHIM BAKHSH1985 CLC 2539 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-02Read full judgment →
- JIAL vs SAJJAN R.O.R.PLD 1985 Rev. 59 [Sindh] · Board of Revenue · 1972-07-16Read full judgment →
- JEHFER ALI and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1159 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-11-28Read full judgment →
- JEHANZEB vs THE STATE1985 PLD Peshawar 50 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-12-14Read full judgment →
- JEHANGIR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 522 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-15Read full judgment →
- JEHANGIR and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2905 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →