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.
- JEHANGIR and another vs JAMIL AHMAD and another1985 MLD 518 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-08Read full judgment →
- JEHAN KHAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 306 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
- JAWED SALEHJEE vs ANSAR AHMAD1985 MLD 587 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-24Read full judgment →
- JAWAID IQBAL vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2402 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
- JAVID and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1901 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-06Read full judgment →
- JAVED SHAIKH vs The STATE1985 SCMR 153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged the legality of consecutive sentences awarded to the appellant following his conviction at a single trial. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to imprisonment for life (25 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 57, PPC) and seven years' rigorous imprisonment, respectively, with both sentences ordered to run consecutively. The Lahore High Court upheld the convictions and sentences. The core legal question was whether sentencing a convict to consecutive terms of imprisonment for life and seven years' imprisonment violates proviso (a) to Section 35(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which prohibits consecutive sentences aggregating more than fourteen years. The Supreme Court held that imposing consecutive terms exceeding the statutory limit violates Section 35(2)(a), Cr.P.C., and ordered both sentences to run concurrently rather than consecutively, partially allowing the appeal on the question of sentence.
Questions settled- Whether consecutive sentences aggregating more than fourteen years can be lawfully imposed upon a convict in a single trial under Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether a sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be ordered to run consecutively with another term of imprisonment awarded in the same trial?
- How does the statutory restriction in proviso (a) to Section 35(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply when sentencing an offender to multiple punishments in a single trial?
- JAVED SALEEM vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2926 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-08Read full judgment →
- JAVED RAZA vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 475 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-16Read full judgment →
- JAVED IQBAL vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1724 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-08Read full judgment →
- JAVED IQBAL vs PRINCIPAL, KHYBER MEDICAL COLLEGE, PESHAWAR AND 21985 PLD Peshawar 60 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- JAVED IQBAL AND ANOTHERs vs THE STATE1985 PLD Federal Shariat Court 141 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- JAVED IQBAL AND 42 OTHERS vs CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS1985 PLC (C, S.) 995 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- JAVED DURRANI vs HABIB BANK LTD.1985 PLC 565 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-06-12Read full judgment →
- JAVED ASLAM AND 2 OTHERS vs MESSRS PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY1985 PLC 539 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-01-07Read full judgment →
- JAVED ARSHAD vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 592 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-13Read full judgment →
- JAVED AKHTAR vs I.-G. OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 594 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-01-01Read full judgment →
- JAVAID vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1443 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-05-14Read full judgment →
- JAVAID IQBAL and others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1384 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD KHAN vs SHAH MIR HUSSAIN And Other1985 SCMR 2029 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an order of the Peshawar High Court in a civil revision, which set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the petitioner's declaratory suit. The petitioner had filed the suit to challenge a consent decree regarding 3 Kanals of land, alleging that he was in Hissadari possession of the property and that the vendors could not sell it. The trial court and appellate court both ruled in favour of the petitioner, holding the consent decree ineffective against his possession. However, the High Court reversed these findings upon reviewing the revenue record, concluding that the petitioner failed to prove his Hissadari possession over the specific disputed land and that the lower courts had misread the documentary evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the High Court was fully justified in setting aside concurrent factual findings where they were based on a misreading of documentary evidence. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court in civil revision can interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on a misreading of documentary evidence?
- Can a party challenge a consent decree as ineffective against their rights if they were not impleaded as a party to the original suit?
- Whether failure to prove specific Hissadari possession over disputed land invalidates a claim challenging a land transaction.
- JAN MUHAMMAD And Others vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the convictions of the appellants for triple murder under sections 148 and 302 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with certain sentence modifications. The core legal question concerned the reliability of interested ocular testimony, the veracity of weapon recoveries, and whether the assault was preceded by grave and sudden provocation arising from an incident where the complainant party threw crackers at a wedding party. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the prosecution's version regarding the origin of the assault and the immediate precursor events was doubtful and colored by animosity—finding that the attack was indeed provoked by the complainant party's mischief toward the wedding guests—the ocular evidence nonetheless stood sufficiently corroborated by prompt and genuine weapon recoveries. Consequently, the Court upheld the convictions but altered the death sentences of two appellants to imprisonment for life on the ground that the retaliatory assault was an outcome of the insult meted out to the wedding party, while maintaining the remaining sentences with concurrent operation and benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where the origin of an assault and the prosecution's account of immediate motive are found doubtful due to pre-existing enmity and provocation by the complainant side, such mitigating circumstances furnish an extenuating reason for commuting the death penalty to imprisonment for life, provided the core ocular testimony is corroborated by reliable and prompt recoveries.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of interested and inimical witnesses requires independent corroboration to sustain a conviction for murder?
- Does the throwing of crackers at a wedding party by the complainant side prior to the assault constitute an extenuating circumstance justifying the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Whether prompt and unblemished recoveries of blood-stained weapons at the instance of the accused furnish sufficient corroboration to ocular testimony?
- Can the prosecution's suppression of the true origin of an incident lead to the rejection of the narrative regarding the immediate prelude to the crime while still maintaining convictions based on established participation and recoveries?
- JAN MUHAMMAD and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2111 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-20Read full judgment →
- JAMSHEED ANSARI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1251 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-03Read full judgment →
- JAMSHED AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 576 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-11Read full judgment →
- JAMMU AND KASHMIR TEHRIK AMMAL PARTY, AND 11 OTHERS vs THE AZAD STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Azad J & K 95 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-06-11Read full judgment →
- JAMILUR REHMAN vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM USMAN1985 CLC 2463 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
- JAMIL AHMAD and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2483 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-11Read full judgment →
- JAMALUDDIN vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1949 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the High Court of Sindh, which had suo motu cancelled the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner by the Sessions Judge, Khairpur, and directed the trial court to issue non-bailable warrants for his arrest. The petitioner was nominated in a murder case but was empty-handed, and the deceased's dying declaration did not implicate him. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the pre-arrest bail and directing the issuance of non-bailable warrants. The Court held that cancelling pre-arrest bail does not automatically authorize a court to remand an accused to custody or issue non-bailable warrants without a police request. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the High Court erred by failing to consider the trial court's findings regarding the existence of deep-rooted enmity and the apprehension of police harassment for ulterior motives, which are valid grounds for pre-arrest bail. The petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, restoring the petitioner's bail.
Questions settled- Does the cancellation of pre-arrest bail by a court automatically authorize the court to order the accused into police custody or issue non-bailable warrants in the absence of a police request?
- Can a High Court cancel pre-arrest bail granted by a lower court without addressing or upsetting the lower court's findings regarding the apprehension of arrest for ulterior motives and harassment?
- Whether deep-rooted enmity and the apprehension of police harassment for ulterior motives constitute valid grounds for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- JAMAL DIN vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others1985 CLC 2387 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-26Read full judgment →
- JAMAL DIN and others vs GHULAM DASTGIR and others1985 MLD 249 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-15Read full judgment →
- JAMAL BHAI and 2 others vs ADMINISTRATOR, EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY and 6 others1985 CLC 1411 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves three interlinked revision applications arising from a civil suit concerning the status and transfer of a commercial godown in Jodia Bazar, Karachi, which was managed as evacuee trust property. The core legal question was whether a civil suit filed by the Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, to challenge orders passed by the Settlement Commissioner and Deputy Settlement Commissioner declaring the property as non-trust and transferring it—allegedly obtained through fraud and the use of a dead person's name—was maintainable, within limitation, and outside the bar of jurisdiction under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Sindh High Court held that the civil suit was barred by jurisdiction and limitation, that an order passed by a competent authority having jurisdiction is merely voidable (even if allegedly obtained by fraud) rather than void ab initio, and that the suppression of a party's death did not vitiate an order where the authority acted within its exclusive statutory domain. The court allowed the revision applications and set aside the lower appellate court's judgment.
Questions settled- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to challenge an order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 4(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Is an order obtained from a tribunal or authority through fraud or misrepresentation void ab initio or merely voidable?
- Does the invocation of a settlement authority's jurisdiction in the name of a deceased person automatically render the resulting order a nullity?
- What is the applicable period of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1908, for setting aside a voidable order passed by a government official in an official capacity?
- JALILUDDIN vs Messrs HABIB BANK LTD. And Other1985 SCMR 1965 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Sind High Court dated 31 May 1984, which dismissed an appeal as withdrawn upon the request of the appellants. The petitioner, who was a respondent in that appeal, contended that he was aggrieved by the order because he was not afforded an opportunity of being heard prior to the dismissal of the appeal. The core legal question is whether a respondent in an appeal has a right to be heard when the appellants seek to withdraw their own appeal, and whether such withdrawal inherently prejudices the respondent. The Supreme Court held that the appellants had the absolute right to withdraw their appeal, and since the petitioner had not challenged the original judgment and failed to show any legal prejudice resulting from the withdrawal, he had no right of being heard. The petition was dismissed as totally frivolous, and the Court additionally recorded strict observations regarding the conduct of the Advocate-on-Record in filing repeated frivolous litigations.
Questions settled- Does a respondent in an appeal have a right of being heard when the appellants choose to withdraw their appeal?
- Can a respondent claim prejudice solely due to the voluntary withdrawal of an appeal by the appellant?
- Whether filing repeated frivolous petitions warrants formal judicial observations regarding professional conduct?
- JALIL IQBAL vs THE STATE1985 MLD 663 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-05Read full judgment →
- JALIL AHMED KHAN vs NATIONAL LABORATORIES1985 PLC 148 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-29Read full judgment →
- JALIL AHMAD KHAN vs NATIONAL LABORATORIES, 1-AABKARI ROAD, LAHORE1985 PLC 166 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-29Read full judgment →
- JALALUDDIN vs MESSRS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. AND OTHERS1985 PLC 919 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-04-14Read full judgment →
- JALALUDDIN And 3 Others vs The STATE1985 SCMR 132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Sind High Court dated 28-6-1984, which dismissed the bail application of the petitioners who were charged under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of one Dhalo. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail in light of alleged discrepancies regarding the venue of the crime between the F.I.R. and the Mashirnama of Wardat, as well as inconsistencies between the medical evidence and the prosecution case regarding the number of injuries. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that no grounds were made out to interfere with the concurrent orders of the courts below refusing bail. The key principle laid down is that minor discrepancies in the venue of the crime or medical inconsistencies do not automatically warrant the grant of post-arrest bail at the leave stage when lower courts have properly considered the case.
Questions settled- Whether post-arrest bail can be refused under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when there are alleged discrepancies in the venue of the crime?
- Does inconsistency between medical evidence and the prosecution case regarding the number of injuries entitle an accused to bail?
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent orders of the lower courts denying bail in a murder case without strong grounds?
- JALAL vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1532 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-19Read full judgment →
- JALAL DIN and another vs NAZIR HUSSAIN and 4 others1985 CLC 687 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-11Read full judgment →
- JALADA KHAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 659 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-10-02Read full judgment →
- JAHANZEB vs The STATE1985 SCMR 682 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, Jahanzeb, was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife and sentenced to death. Following the confirmation of the sentence by the High Court, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the families of the appellant and the deceased reached a compromise, with the heirs of the deceased pardoning the appellant and receiving compensation of Rs. 10,000. The core legal question was whether a compromise between the parties in a murder case, where the death penalty was imposed, could justify a reduction in the sentence. The Supreme Court, satisfied that the compromise was voluntary and fair, maintained the conviction but set aside the death sentence, reducing it to life imprisonment. The Court relied on the principle established in Muhammad Bashir v. The State, holding that a compromise between the parties in a murder case, while not negating the conviction, constitutes a valid ground for mitigating the sentence of death to life imprisonment, while also granting the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Can a compromise between the heirs of a deceased and the accused justify the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable when a death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment?
- JAHANDAD KHAN through his Legal Heirs vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN1985 CLC 2577 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-04-23Read full judgment →
- JAHANA vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1773 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
- JAHANA and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1829 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-12Read full judgment →
- JAHAN KHAN vs MUHAMMAD CHHUTTALPLD 1985 Rev. 113 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1972-02-01Read full judgment →
- JAGDEV alias JAGGA and others vs INSPECTOR POLICE, CHUHARKANA and others1985 P Cr. L J 1471 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-26Read full judgment →
- JAFFAR KHAN and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2611 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-07-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Quetta, which overruled the petitioners' objection regarding the taking of cognizance on a direct challan under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question concerns the competence of the High Court to entertain a revision petition against an order relating to a Hudood matter in light of constitutional bars. The Balochistan High Court held that by virtue of Articles 203-DD and 203-G of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, exclusive jurisdiction to examine the record and proceedings of any criminal court under any law relating to the enforcement of Hudood vests in the Federal Shariat Court, ousting the jurisdiction of High Courts. The court established the principle that revision petitions against orders passed in Hudood cases must be filed before the Federal Shariat Court and consequently directed that the revision petition be returned to the petitioners for presentation before the proper forum.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition against an order passed by a criminal court under a law relating to the enforcement of Hudood?
- Does Article 203-G of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar the High Court from exercising revisional jurisdiction in Hudood matters?
- What is the proper forum for filing a revision against an order passed in a case under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
- JAFFAR HUSSAIN vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER1985 SCMR 526 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute over the transfer of a property plot in Lahore under the settlement laws. The petitioner challenged the transfer of the plot to the respondent, contending that the Additional Settlement Commissioner who dismissed his revision petition had a conflict of interest, having previously served as the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who initially transferred the property to the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to set aside a predecessor's order via a miscellaneous application. The Lahore High Court dismissed these contentions, finding they were not raised before the revising authority, and further concluded that the petitioner failed to prove possession prior to the cutoff date of 31-12-1959 required for entitlement under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings, noting that the date of occupation is a question of fact determined by the lower court based on the record. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that no interference was warranted and dismissed the petition, affirming that factual findings regarding possession dates are not subject to appellate review when supported by the record.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner raise objections regarding the jurisdiction or bias of a quasi-judicial authority for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction if they failed to raise them before the revising authority?
- Is a finding regarding the date of occupation of a property, based on a review of the record, a question of fact that precludes interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does a party who fails to establish possession of a property prior to 31-12-1959 qualify for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
- JAFAR And Another vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1743 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentences imposed on the appellants for the double murder of two individuals. The core legal questions concerned whether the ocular testimony of interested witnesses received sufficient corroboration and whether mitigating circumstances justifying a lesser sentence for the murder of one victim—who had maintained illicit relations with the appellants' sister—should extend to the murder of the second victim killed in the same transaction. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions, finding the ocular evidence sufficiently corroborated by independent circumstances. Regarding sentencing, the Court held that because both murders occurred during the same transaction, the mitigating factors applicable to the first victim must also apply to the second. Consequently, the Court commuted the death sentence for the murder of the second victim to life imprisonment. The judgment reinforces the principle that where multiple offenses arise from a single occurrence, mitigating circumstances affecting the motive or provocation for one act must be considered in sentencing for the entire transaction, ensuring consistency in the administration of criminal justice.
Questions settled- Does the corroboration of interested testimony require independent evidence of the occurrence?
- Should mitigating circumstances regarding the murder of one victim extend to the murder of another victim killed in the same transaction?
- Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment based on mitigating circumstances found in a related murder?
- IZZAT KHAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1148 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-02-01Read full judgment →
- IZHARUDDIN and 3 others vs SARDAR AHMAD and 3 others1985 CLC 666 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-10-09Read full judgment →
- IVIAZHAR HUSSAIN vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1985 PLD Lahore 394 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a candidate who successfully cleared the competitive examination, psychological test, viva voce, and medical examination for the post of Civil Judge, securing the 44th position for 67 advertised vacancies. Despite being recommended by the Punjab Public Service Commission, the Government of Punjab omitted his name from the appointment notification, citing his alleged political affiliations as a disqualification for a sensitive judicial post. The High Court examined whether the government, as the appointing authority, could arbitrarily refuse to appoint a recommended candidate on such grounds. The Court held that while the Commission's recommendations are advisory, the government must act in accordance with the law and relevant service rules. Under the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, political affiliation prior to entry into service is not a disqualification. Any political activity is prohibited only after entering service under the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1966. Consequently, the Court declared the government's refusal unlawful and directed the respondent to appoint the petitioner.
Questions settled- Is political affiliation prior to entry into government service a valid legal disqualification for appointment as a Civil Judge?
- Can the appointing authority arbitrarily refuse to appoint a candidate recommended by the Public Service Commission on grounds not specified in the service rules?
- At what stage do the statutory prohibitions against taking part in politics and elections apply to a public servant?
- Does the High Court have the power of judicial review to set aside an appointment refusal that disregards the statutory service rules?
- ITTEHAD CHEMICALS vs Ch. NAFEES AHMAD BAJWA and others1985 MLD 1126 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-13Read full judgment →
- ISRAR AHMAD vs ABDUL AZIZ1985 MLD 1562 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-24Read full judgment →
- ISMAIL vs REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, LAHORE And Another1985 SCMR 527 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition arising out of a land settlement dispute. The petitioner claimed to be a confirmed allottee of the land since 1951 based on a certificate of entitlement under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, but verification subsequently resulted in a 'no land' finding, leading to the land in dispute eventually being allotted to respondent No. 2. The High Court declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction in favor of the petitioner, noting that neither party was at fault regarding their respective verifications and allotments, the petitioner committed a serious default by initially filing a writ petition against a dead person which remained pending for four years, and both parties stood on an equal footing as claimants settled in the same estate. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner failed to show that the considerations weighed by the High Court were against any principle of law. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's exercise of discretion and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can decline to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction when both parties are equally innocent regarding land allotments?
- Does a delay caused by filing a constitutional petition against a deceased person constitute a valid ground for refusing relief?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in constitutional jurisdiction without proof of a violation of a principle of law?
- ISMAIL vs ABDUL AZIZ And Other1985 SCMR 908 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower courts rejecting a plaint in a suit for possession by pre-emption due to the pre-emptor's failure to deposit the requisite one-fifth of the pre-emption amount within the stipulated time. The core legal question was whether an inference of implied extension of time for depositing the amount could be drawn when the deposit was made significantly later than the deadline set by the trial court. The Supreme Court held that the view taken by the lower courts rejecting the plea of implied extension was correct, thereby upholding the dismissal of the suit and the petition. The key principle laid down is that failure to comply with a mandatory deposit order in pre-emption suits without a formal or validly inferred extension of time results in the rejection of the plaint.
Questions settled- Whether an inference of implied extension of time for depositing the pre-emption amount can be raised when the deposit is made after the expiry of the deadline fixed by the trial court?
- Does the failure to deposit the 1/5th amount within the stipulated time warrant the rejection of the plaint in a suit for possession by pre-emption?
- ISLAMUDDIN vs THE PROVICE OF SIND and others1985 P Cr. L J 1468 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-21Read full judgment →
- ISLAMUD DIN and another vs THE STATE1985 MLD 910 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-09Read full judgment →
- ISLAM RIFFAT SIDDIQUI vs MAHMOOD ABID RIZVI1985 SCMR 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an order of the High Court dismissing the appellant's appeal against the striking off of his defence by the Rent Controller for non-compliance with a rent deposit order. The Controller had directed the appellant to deposit arrears of rent amounting to several months within thirty days. The appellant made partial and delayed deposits, which the authorities treated as wilful defiance. The core legal question was whether the appellant could be held guilty of non-compliance under Section 16(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance when bank drafts allegedly covering the deficit were lying with the Controller. The Supreme Court held that bank drafts issued in the name of the landlord rather than the Court do not constitute a valid deposit in compliance with the Controller's order. Consequently, the concurrent decisions of the lower courts were upheld and the appeal was dismissed, laying down the principle that furnishing instruments not payable to the court fails to satisfy mandatory rent deposit directives.
Questions settled- Whether bank drafts issued in the name of the landlord can be treated as a valid deposit in compliance with a rent deposit order?
- Does delayed and partial deposit of rent amount to wilful and negligent defiance justifying the striking off of defence?
- Can concurrent decisions regarding the striking off of a tenant's defence be interfered with when no valid deposit is established?
- ISHWARDAS vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MIRPURKHAS and another1985 CLC 1385 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-25Read full judgment →
- ISHFAQ AHMED BHUTTA vs PUNJAB AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT1985 PLC (C.S.) 1075 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-18Read full judgment →
- ISHFAQ AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 PLD Supreme Court 435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 182 and 211 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner had initially lodged a complaint before the Assistant Commissioner against certain persons including a police officer, leading to the registration of a case. Following an investigation concluding the allegations were false, the Station House Officer initiated proceedings under Sections 182 and 211 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 against the petitioner. The core legal question concerns whether the proceedings violate Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the proper authority competent to file a complaint for offences under Sections 172 to 190 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to make an authoritative pronouncement on the question and stayed the proceedings in the interim.
Questions settled- Whether proceedings under sections 182 and 211 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be initiated without a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned under section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar a court from taking cognizance of offences punishable under sections 172 to 190 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 except on the written complaint of the specific public servant concerned or their superior?
- ISHAQ vs THE STATE1985 PLD Karachi 595 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-02Read full judgment →
- IRTIZA KHAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 858(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
- IRTIQA RASUL HASHMI vs WAPDA1985 PLC (C.S.) 9 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-09-17Read full judgment →
- IRSHAD ALI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, FOOD, AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT AND 39 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 925 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1985-06-10Read full judgment →
- IRSHAD ALI vs NIAZ AHMAD and others1985 MLD 917 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-03Read full judgment →
- IRSHAD AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1719 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
- IRSHAD AHMAD vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED1985 PLC 137 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
- IRSHAD AHMAD vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, HOUSING AND PHYSIC AL PLANNING, PUNJAB AND 3 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 557 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-01-22Read full judgment →
- IRSHAD AHMAD and 6 others vs ABDUL HAMID and 4 others1985 CLC 1513 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-06Read full judgment →
- IRFAN IQBAL AND 2 OTHERS vs Ch. MUHAMMAD HAN1F AND 4 OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 523 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an order of the District Judge, Multan, which set aside a trial court's rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The respondents had filed a suit for perpetual injunction based on an agreement to sell, seeking to restrain the appellants from interfering with their possession. The trial court rejected the plaint, finding the suit improperly framed to avoid court fees and that a suit for specific performance was the appropriate remedy. The District Judge remanded the case, suggesting the plaintiffs could amend their suit. The High Court held that the suit as filed was not maintainable because it failed to assert readiness and willingness to perform the contract, nor did it offer to pay the balance consideration. Furthermore, the court ruled that an appellate court cannot suo motu direct the amendment of a plaint in anticipation of an application, nor can it grant such an application before it is filed. Consequently, the High Court set aside the remand order and restored the trial court's rejection of the plaint.
Questions settled- Is a suit for perpetual injunction maintainable on the basis of an agreement to sell without seeking specific performance?
- Can an appellate court suo motu direct the amendment of a plaint in anticipation of an application?
- Does an agreement to sell create title or interest in property sufficient to maintain a suit for declaration of title?
- Can a court grant an application for amendment of pleadings in anticipation of its submission?
- IRFAN HUSSAIN KHAN vs Messrs UNITED LINER AGENCIES OF PAKISTAN Ltd., KARACHI1985 PLC 330 · Labour Court · 1984-07-25Read full judgment →
- IQBAL vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2276 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
- IQBAL MIRZA vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT (WORKSHOPS), PAKISTAN1985 PLC 162 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- IQBAL HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2091 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
- IQBAL HUSSAIN QURESHI and 3 others vs Mst. NAZIR BEGUM1985 CLC 2252 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-01Read full judgment →
- IQBAL HASAN (represented by Legal Heirs) vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR and 61985 CLC 1957 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-01Read full judgment →
- IQBAL and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2413 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-15Read full judgment →
- Iqbal And Another vs The StatePTCL 1985 (CL) 47 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-23Read full judgment →
- IQBAL AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD MUJTABA And 2 Other1985 SCMR 544. · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed in limine a constitutional petition challenging an eviction order. The petitioner, a tenant, faced eviction from a shop on grounds of default in rent payment and the landlord's bona fide personal requirement. Following an initial eviction order by the Rent Controller and subsequent appellate proceedings, the District Judge maintained the eviction based solely on the landlord's personal need. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's bona fide requirement, particularly where the tenant alleged misappreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit, as it sought a re-appraisal of evidence regarding a question of fact already concurrently determined by the statutory forums. The Court affirmed that such factual findings are not liable to be reopened in the absence of any demonstrated illegality in the proceedings, thereby upholding the eviction order.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence regarding a question of fact that has been concurrently determined by lower statutory forums?
- Does the fact that a landlord has previously obtained possession of adjacent premises preclude a claim of bona fide personal requirement for another property?
- Is a finding of bona fide personal requirement by a Rent Controller and appellate authority subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction when no illegality is shown?
- IQBAL AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD AYAZ and 4 others1985 P Cr. L J 2164 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-23Read full judgment →
- IQBAL AHMAD SABIR vs GOVERNOR OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 963 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-07-10Read full judgment →
- INTERNATIONAL PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION vs HABIB-UR-REHMAN1985 PLC 644 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-10-14Read full judgment →
- INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND OTHERS vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD WARRAICH AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil service appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding the inter se seniority of subordinate police officers for promotion to Deputy Superintendent of Police. The core legal question was whether the seniority of subordinate police officers is governed by Rule 12.2 of the Police Rules 1934 (which bases seniority on the date of confirmation) or by Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1974 read with Section 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 (which bases seniority on regular appointment).
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and held that the Police Act 1861 and the Police Rules 1934 constitute a special law enacted for a disciplined force, which co-exists with the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 as an existing law under Article 268 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Applying the legal maxim *generalia specialibus non derogant*, the Court ruled that the later general law did not impliedly repeal the earlier special law, and seniority must be determined under Rule 12.2 of the Police Rules 1934.
Questions settled- Does a subsequent general law on civil service impliedly repeal a prior special statute governing a disciplined force like the police?
- Whether the inter se seniority of subordinate police officers is governed by Rule 12.2 of the Police Rules 1934 or Section 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974?
- Are rules framed under the Police Act 1861 saved as existing law under Article 268 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant apply to resolve conflicts between civil service statutes and police service regulations?
- INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES AND LABOUR OFFICER (FACTORIES), KOTRI vs OCCUPIER AND MANAGER, KARIM SILK AND COTTON MILLS. KOTRI ,1985 PLC 680 · Labour Court · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →
- INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE And Another vs ALI ABBAS1985 SCMR 946 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 28-12-1983, whereby the respondent's appeal was accepted, directing that he be treated as having been appointed to a permanent post of Probationary Sub-Inspector (P.S.I.) with effect from 12-9-1960 and his seniority reckoned accordingly. The core legal question revolved around whether a permanent post was indeed in existence on 12-9-1960 when the respondent was originally recruited, or whether it only became available on 1-6-1973. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's counsel was unable to controvert the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal that a permanent post was indeed in existence on 12-9-1960 against which the respondent was entitled to be confirmed. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Tribunal's findings and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, laying down that concurrent factual findings of the Service Tribunal regarding the availability of a permanent post at the time of appointment will not be interfered with where the department fails to disprove such existence.
Questions settled- Whether an employee recruited against a temporary post can be treated as appointed against a permanent post if such permanent post was in existence on the date of initial appointment?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a factual finding of the Service Tribunal regarding the existence of a permanent post when the department fails to controvert it?
- INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERS vs SCOTTISH AND NEWCASTLE BREWERINES1985 PTD 102 · House of LordsRead full judgment →
- INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN- Plain tiff vs MESSRS HAJI1985 PLD Karachi 71 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
- INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN vs Messrs CHEMFABS Ltd. and 2 vothers1985 CLC 982 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-13Read full judgment →
- INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN vs JOHAR ALI SHARIFF and another1985 CLC 2176 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-13Read full judgment →
- INAYATULLAH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1490 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-03Read full judgment →
- INAYATULLAH KHAN vs THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT N.W.F.P., PESHAWAR1985 SCMR 1747 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from departmental proceedings resulting in the compulsory retirement of the appellant, a Reader in a Magistrate's Court at Peshawar, on charges of misconduct relating to the procurement of a bail order. The core legal question examined was whether the failure to issue a final show-cause notice against the proposed penalty violated the principles of natural justice. Conceding on the basis of established precedent that the omission of a second show-cause notice vitiated the proceedings, the respondent's counsel agreed to a remand of the matter. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower decisions, and remanded the case to the Authorized Officer to resume proceedings from the stage of the second show-cause notice and decide the matter afresh. The key principle laid down is that failure to provide a final show-cause notice before imposing a major penalty in departmental proceedings constitutes a violation of natural justice, warranting a remand for rectification.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to give a final show-cause notice against a proposed penalty in departmental proceedings violates the principles of natural justice?
- Does the omission of a second show-cause notice warrant the remand of a disciplinary case to the Authorized Officer?
- INAYATULLAH KHAN vs CAPT. (RETD.) INAYATULLAH KHAN AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD SC (AJ&K) 85 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-01-15Read full judgment →
- INAYATULLAH KHAN and another vs THE STATE1985 MLD 840 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-10Read full judgment →
- INAYAT ULLAH vs PERVEEN AKHTAR1985 CLC 1454 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-21Read full judgment →
- INAYAT ULLAH SHEIKH vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION, KARACHI1985 PLC 256 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- INAYAT MIR and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 588 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-26Read full judgment →
- INAYAT MASIH vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE and 2 others1985 CLC 1609 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-10Read full judgment →
- INAYAT ALI And Others vs NAZAR MUHAMMAD And Other1985 SCMR 1199 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by unsuccessful defendants in a pre-emption suit against the Lahore High Court's judgment, which upheld the dismissal of their first appeal as time-barred. The core legal question concerns the computation of limitation for filing an appeal and whether the time spent obtaining a copy of the decree sheet can be excluded under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, or if sufficient ground exists for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court held that even after making all allowances and exclusions, the petitioners filed the copy of the decree sheet with a culpable delay of 36 days, and that a court's procedural direction to supply a document by a certain date remains subject to just exceptions, including objections as to limitation. Consequently, the Court ruled that neither statutory entitlement nor the appellate court's direction saved the appeal from being time-barred. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming the principle that statutory limitation periods must be strictly adhered to despite procedural accommodations.
Questions settled- Whether the time spent in obtaining a copy of the decree sheet can be excluded under Section 12 of the Limitation Act when computing the period of limitation for filing an appeal?
- Does a court's direction to supply a certified copy of a decree sheet by a specific date override statutory objections regarding the bar of limitation?
- INAMUR REHMAN and another vs HABIB BANK Ltd.1985 CLC 296 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-06Read full judgment →