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.
- HASSAN BHAI vs HAJI1985 MLD 215 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
- HASSAN and others vs HABIB and others1985 MLD 559 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
- HASSAN ALI and others vs Ch. BASHIR AHMAD and others1985 CLC 605 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
- HASHMAT IQBAL vs MAQBOOL AHMED Alias MAKOO And 3 Other1985 SCMR 1028 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Sind High Court, which dismissed a State appeal against the acquittal of respondents in a murder case under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should grant leave to re-appraise evidence where the prosecution's case, based on ocular testimony, was contradicted by independent witnesses examined by the prosecution. The Court held that leave to appeal should be refused. It reasoned that when independent witnesses consistently testify that the incident was unwitnessed and occurred in darkness, and this testimony is not merely a result of being won over but provides a coherent alternative version, the prosecution's case is fatally diluted. The principle laid down is that where independent prosecution witnesses demolish the complainant's version of events by consistently asserting the occurrence was unwitnessed, the appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal or re-appraise evidence, as no useful purpose would be served in such circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal for re-appraisal of evidence when independent prosecution witnesses have contradicted the complainant's version?
- Does the testimony of independent witnesses consistently stating that an incident was unwitnessed and occurred in darkness fatally dilute the prosecution's case?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's ocular evidence is demolished by its own independent witnesses?
- HASHMAT ALI vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 409 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-23Read full judgment →
- HASHMAT ALI alias RUSTAM ALI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 558 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
- HASHMAND vs Haji SOHBAT KHAN And Other1985 SCMR 1438 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld an ejectment order against a tenant of agricultural land. The petitioner, a lessee, was sued by the respondent landlord for ejectment based on allegations of rent arrears, unauthorized cutting of trees, and unauthorized construction of houses on the leased land. Following multiple rounds of litigation before revenue authorities, including the Collector, Additional Commissioner, and Board of Revenue, the ejectment order was maintained, and the petitioner was awarded compensation for improvements. The petitioner challenged these orders, arguing that the ejectment was ordered without jurisdiction as the landlord never alleged a violation of tenancy rights, that the construction was necessary for agricultural purposes, and that the landlord had waived the right of ejectment by renewing the lease. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the lower courts erred in their findings regarding the grounds for ejectment and whether the orders were consistent with the pleadings and applicable tenancy laws, specifically regarding the alleged change in land use.
Questions settled- Can a landlord be deemed to have waived the right of ejectment by repeatedly renewing a lease?
- Does the construction of temporary structures for agricultural family maintenance constitute a change in the nature of agricultural land?
- Can a court order ejectment on grounds not specifically pleaded or asserted by the landlord?
- HASAN MOHIUDDIN vs MUHAMMAD HANIF1985 CLC 1606 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-23Read full judgment →
- HASAN ABBAS ZAIDI vs WAPDA1985 PLC 55 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-19Read full judgment →
- HAQ NAWAZ vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1503 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
- HAQ NAWAZ vs SHERA and others1985 MLD 494 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-10Read full judgment →
- HAQ NAWAZ vs RIAZ and 8 others1985 P Cr. L J 1960 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-12Read full judgment →
- Hap NAZIR AHMAD vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, FAISALABAD1985 CLC 1748 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-15Read full judgment →
- HANIF and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2800(2) · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-01-12Read full judgment →
- HANIF and 3 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 993 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-01-12Read full judgment →
- HAMID NAWAZ KHAN And Another vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT1985 SCMR 140 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the identity and title of urban evacuee property, where two parties claimed ownership based on different modes of transfer. The respondents were transferees of the property via C.H. Forms since 1959, holding a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.). The petitioners' predecessor-in-interest subsequently purchased what was purported to be a different property number through an auction held years later. Upon discovery that the properties were effectively the same, the Lahore High Court ruled in favour of the respondents, affirming their status as prior transferees. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld this decision, holding that the prior disposal of evacuee property must be given legal preference over a subsequent auction. The Court established the principle that if property has already been validly transferred to a party, it ceases to be available for auction; therefore, a subsequent auction of the same property is without lawful authority. The petitioners cannot succeed against prior transferees regarding the same property, though they may seek relief regarding the specific property they intended to purchase if it differs from the respondents' holdings.
Questions settled- Does a prior transfer of evacuee property take precedence over a subsequent auction of the same property?
- Is an auction of property that has already been transferred to another party valid?
- Can an auction purchaser claim property that was previously transferred to a prior transferee via C.H. Forms?
- HAMID BIN KHALEEQ and another vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE/CHIEF1985 CLC 653 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-02Read full judgment →
- HAMID ASGHAR vs The DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAWALPINDI and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 79 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
- HAMID ALI vs PUNJAB PROVINCE AND 3 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 821 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-11-16Read full judgment →
- HAMID ALI And Another vs Mst. SAEED KHATOON And Other1985 SCMR 337 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal is directed against a judgment of the High Court allowing a Constitution petition arising out of an urban settlement case concerning a composite building comprising shops on the ground floor and a hotel on the first floor. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the High Court interfered with the order of the Settlement Commissioner by misreading the evidence. The core legal question revolved around the effect of a civil court judgment on matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of settlement authorities and whether the High Court rightly restored the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to decide settlement cases or pass new transfer orders on the basis of interim miscellaneous proceedings, rendering its judgment without lawful authority and effectively devoid of legal force once the foundational settlement orders were set aside. The Court laid down the principle that civil courts cannot usurp the exclusive jurisdiction of settlement authorities, and that interim proceedings not inter partes cannot form the basis of a binding civil decree affecting property transfers under settlement laws.
Questions settled- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to decide settlement cases and alter property transfers made by settlement authorities?
- What is the effect of a civil court judgment that is based on interim settlement orders which have subsequently been set aside?
- Can settlement authorities divide composite premises at the stage of miscellaneous applications behind the back of affected parties?
- HAMAYUN vs The STATE1985 SCMR 603 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had maintained the petitioner's conviction under Section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing the death of a person by driving a truck. Initially, the petitioner was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge and sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment, while a revision petition filed by the complainant seeking enhancement to a charge under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the parties presented a compromise, wherein the complainant, as the sole heir of the deceased, received compensation and expressed forgiveness, stating he had no further grievance. The State raised no objection to the compromise. The Supreme Court, exercising its discretion, converted the petition into an appeal and maintained the conviction under Section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner. The key principle established is that in cases involving offences under Section 304-A, the court may consider a compromise between the parties as a mitigating factor for sentencing purposes.
Questions settled- Can a compromise between the parties be considered as a mitigating factor in a conviction under Section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to reduce a sentence to the period already undergone based on a compromise reached between the convict and the complainant?
- HAMAYUN MIRZA vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1050 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-17Read full judgment →
- HAMAYUN IJAZ AND ANOTHERs vs Mst. HIFZA BANO AND ANOTHERsPLD 1985 Rev. 151 [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
- HALIM Alias KHALIM vs The STATE1985 SCMR 18 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court which upheld the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the petitioner under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the trial court for the murder of a woman, along with a conviction under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for injuring a child. The core legal question involved the reliability of a child eyewitness who also sustained injuries in the incident, and whether conviction could be sustained upon such testimony supported by medical evidence and prolonged abscondence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the straightforward testimony of an injured child witness, corroborated by medical evidence regarding close-range firearm injuries and the appellant's lengthy abscondence, is entirely reliable to sustain a conviction. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of an injured child witness, when found credible and consistent, carries immense evidentiary value and can safely form the basis of a criminal conviction.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of an injured child eyewitness can be relied upon for sustaining a murder conviction?
- Does prolonged abscondence of an accused corroborate the prosecution case?
- Whether medical evidence showing close-range firearm injuries supports the ocular account of an injured witness?
- HAKOO vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2396 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-26Read full judgment →
- Hakim SHAHABUDDIN vs ABDUL MAJID and others1985 CLC 2495 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-12Read full judgment →
- Hakim MUHAMMAD FAZAL HAQUE vs ABDUL HAMEED1985 SCMR 1601 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a landlord, sought the ejectment of the respondent, a tenant, citing bona fide personal need for his son and default in rent payment. The Rent Controller initially granted the ejectment application based on the landlord's bona fide need. However, the High Court reversed this decision on appeal, reasoning that the landlord failed to deny the tenant's allegation in the written statement that another shop owned by the landlord had been rented out to a third party during the pendency of the proceedings. The petitioner challenged this reversal in the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court's finding was based on an incorrect reading of the evidence and that the record did not conclusively support the claim that the other shop was rented out. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to re-examine the record, noting that it had granted leave in a connected petition for the same purpose, and ordered that the appeal be heard on the existing record with liberty for parties to file additional documents.
Questions settled- Can a High Court reverse a Rent Controller's finding on bona fide need based on an unverified allegation in a written statement?
- Does the failure of a landlord to deny an allegation regarding the renting of another property during litigation automatically negate a claim of bona fide personal need?
- Hakim MUHAMMAD BUTA AND ANOTHER vs HABIB AHMAD AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arises out of a suit for mandatory injunction filed by the appellants to demolish alleged illegal constructions made by respondents on a common courtyard. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the construction constituted a continuing wrong under section 23 of the Limitation Act. The lower appellate court dismissed the respondents' appeal on merits regarding the legality of the construction without examining limitation due to waiver by the respondents. However, the Lahore High Court in revision re-opened the question of limitation, held the suit barred by time, and dismissed it. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the High Court was justified in re-opening limitation and whether the transfers included appurtenant rights to the courtyard. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of section 3 of the Limitation Act are mandatory and cannot be waived, and courts are duty-bound to dismiss time-barred suits apparent on the record. The Court further held that the constructions constituted a completed wrong rather than a continuing wrong under section 23, affirming the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Whether the bar of limitation can be waived by the parties to a suit?
- Does a wrong decision on limitation debar the High Court from revising such decision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether the construction of a permanent structure on a common courtyard constitutes a continuing wrong under section 23 of the Limitation Act?
- HAKIM KHAN vs LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND OTHERS1985 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-05-26Read full judgment →
- HAKIM ALI vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1037 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This jail petition arises from a criminal matter where the petitioner, Hakim Ali, was convicted and sentenced to death under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, along with convictions under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, for the murder of Mst. Sheeman and the attempted murder of prosecution witnesses following a dispute regarding a marriage proposal. The trial court and the High Court both upheld the convictions based on a promptly lodged first information report, natural eye-witness accounts, corroborative medical evidence, and the testimony of injured witnesses whose presence at the scene was unquestionable. The core legal question concerned the reliability of the ocular and medical evidence supporting the conviction for murder and attempted murder. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on credible evidence and that the defense's plea of false implication due to an alleged illicit connection was meritless. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of natural and injured witnesses, corroborated by prompt reporting and medical evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for capital crimes.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of injured witnesses is sufficient to maintain a conviction for murder and attempted murder?
- Can a criminal conviction be sustained on the basis of a promptly lodged first information report and natural eye-witness accounts?
- Whether a plea of false implication based on an alleged ulterior motive of the police and local influential persons is acceptable without substantial proof?
- HAKAM AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN1985 PLD Lahore 39 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-04Read full judgment →
- HAKAM ALI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2423 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-05Read full judgment →
- Haji Syed AINULLAH vs ABDUL RASHID1985 SCMR 1991 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from an ejectment proceeding initiated by the appellant landlord against tenant widows, during the pendency of which the respondent's application to be joined as a party was dismissed by the Rent Controller on the ground that he was not a tenant. The respondent did not appeal that preliminary order. Subsequently, after the death of the widow tenants, the Rent Controller ordered eviction. The respondent appealed to the High Court, which set aside the eviction order. The core legal question was whether a person whose application to be joined as a party was rejected by the Rent Controller, and who failed to appeal that refusal, has the locus standi to file an appeal against the final eviction order. The Supreme Court held, following established precedent, that the respondent lacked locus standi to challenge the final order having failed to appeal the preliminary rejection. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the appeal, subject to making up court-fee deficiencies.
Questions settled- Does a person whose application to be joined as a party in rent proceedings is rejected have the locus standi to file an appeal against the final eviction order without having appealed the initial rejection?
- Whether an appeal filed against a consolidated judgment of the High Court disposing of two separate appeals is maintainable as a single appeal?
- Haji Sheikh MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others vs CITIBANK1985 CLC 2467 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two regular first appeals arising from banking recovery suits filed under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The appellants challenged the Special Court's order granting conditional leave to defend, which required the deposit of the claimed amounts. The core legal question was whether the Special Court correctly exercised its discretion in imposing these conditions and whether the suits were defective due to non-joinder of parties. The Court held that the discretion to impose conditions for leave to defend rests on the quality of the defense rather than the adequacy of security. Finding that the appellants failed to raise a plausible defense or demonstrate specific inaccuracies in the bank's accounts, the Court upheld the conditional leave. Furthermore, the Court ruled that contractual provisions allowing banks to sue independently overrode general objections regarding non-joinder of parties under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The key principle established is that the quality of the defense, not the extent of security, governs the court's discretion in granting conditional leave to defend in summary banking litigation.
Questions settled- Is the existence of security a sufficient ground to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit when granting leave to defend in a summary suit?
- Does the failure to comply with a conditional order for leave to defend entitle the plaintiff to a decree without further proof?
- Can a bank sue on a hypothecation agreement without joining a co-mortgagee if the agreement expressly permits separate suits?
- What is the determining factor for a court when deciding whether to impose conditions on granting leave to defend in summary banking suits?
- HAJI SHAH and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 638 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-16Read full judgment →
- Haji SAMAD KHAN And Others vs KHALID KHAN And Other1985 SCMR 770 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against a High Court judgment regarding the revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue over orders passed by a Commissioner. The core legal question was whether the Board of Revenue could exercise revisional jurisdiction over such orders, given the limitations in the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950, or whether Martial Law Regulation 115 (1972) provided an independent and overriding basis for such jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that while Section 56 of the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950 might restrict successive revisions, Paragraph 3 of Martial Law Regulation 115 (1972) contains an overriding clause that supersedes conflicting laws. Consequently, Sub-paragraph (7) of Paragraph 25 of the Regulation explicitly empowers the Board of Revenue to call for the record of any case decided by a Collector or Commissioner to examine its correctness, legality, or propriety. The key principle laid down is that special legislation with an overriding effect supersedes general procedural statutes regarding the scope of revisional jurisdiction, allowing the Board of Revenue to exercise its powers notwithstanding procedural limitations in the Tenancy Act.
Questions settled- Does the Board of Revenue have revisional jurisdiction over orders passed by a Commissioner under the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950?
- Does Martial Law Regulation 115 (1972) override the procedural limitations of the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950 regarding revisional jurisdiction?
- Can the Board of Revenue exercise revisional powers under Paragraph 25(7) of Martial Law Regulation 115 (1972) to review orders passed by a Collector or Commissioner?
- Haji SADULLAH and 3 others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 680 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-03Read full judgment →
- Haji RAHIM BAKHSH vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN, IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT and 2 others1985 PLC 1077 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- HAJI PUNHOON vs PROVINCE OF SIND and 3 others1985 CLC 932 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-31Read full judgment →
- Haji PUNHOO vs THE PROVINCE OF SIND and 3 others1985 CLC 899 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-15Read full judgment →
- Haji PEERAL KHAN and 2 others vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND and 6 others1985 CLC 2068 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-13Read full judgment →
- Haji NOORUL HASSAN vs DISTRICT JUDGE, DERA ISMAIL KHAN and 8 others1985 CLC 2620 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-03-04Read full judgment →
- Haji NISAR AHMAD alias PAHAR BABA AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1985 PLD Peshawar 148 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-06-12Read full judgment →
- Haji NAWAZISH ALI KHAN vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SAHIWAL And Another1985 SCMR 1379 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition against the acquisition of the petitioner's land for a housing scheme. The petitioner argued that the acquisition was improper because non-proprietors, for whom the scheme was intended, had already constructed houses on other lands in the village, which should have been acquired instead. The petitioner relied on the proviso to Section 3 of the Punjab Housing Facilities for Non-Proprietors in Rural Areas Ordinance, 1974, claiming that the existing residential sites should have been prioritized for acquisition. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, noting that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the existing houses were built on 'village Shamlat land' or 'land in Abadi Deh,' which are the specific statutory prerequisites for the proviso to apply. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's case did not fall within the scope of the proviso and dismissed the petition. The Court noted, however, that the petitioner should be compensated with one-third of the acquired land as per the rules framed under the Punjab Acquisition of Housing Act, 1973.
Questions settled- Does the proviso to Section 3 of the Punjab Housing Facilities for Non-Proprietors in Rural Areas Ordinance 1974 apply to all residential houses built by non-proprietors?
- Must land acquired for a housing scheme under the Punjab Acquisition of Housing Act 1973 meet specific criteria regarding the nature of the land to trigger the proviso in Section 3 of the 1974 Ordinance?
- Haji MUHAMMAD SABIR vs GHAZI COMMERCIAL FINANCE LTD.1985 PLD Lahore 229 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-03Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Sabir Finance Limited. vs Ghazi CommercialPTCL 1985 (CL.) 292 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-03Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and 3 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1959 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-26Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD MEHAR ELLAHI represented by Legal Heirs and 6 others vs Messrs MANDVIWALLA MOTOR CO. and 2 others1985 CLC 2155 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-08Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD ISMAIL through Legal Representatives and 8 others vs WADHO AKHARO TRUST1985 CLC 1406 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-10Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1470 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-17Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD ASLAM AIJAZ ALI & BROS. vs COTTON TRADING1985 CLC 848 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMAMD UMAR KHAN vs HOTI CORPORATION, LAHORE and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 2529 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-03Read full judgment →
- Haji MIR QALAM KHAN vs GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN And Another1985 SCMR 430 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a pre-emption suit where the appellant challenged an exchange mutation, alleging it was a disguised sale intended to defeat his right of pre-emption and that the transaction violated Martial Law Regulation 115 regarding the alienation of subsistence holdings. The core legal questions were whether the exchange transaction constituted a sale, whether it was void for violating land reform regulations, and whether the alleged arbitration proceedings between the parties were valid. The Supreme Court held that the right of pre-emption is a right of substitution based on the assumption that the underlying transaction is valid; therefore, a pre-emptor lacks locus standi to challenge the validity of the transaction itself. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence that the exchange was a disguised sale. Regarding the arbitration, the Court held that an award made without court permission, lacking proper stamp duty, and not registered as required by law, is ineffective. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the suit, establishing that a pre-emptor cannot challenge the legality of the transaction they seek to pre-empt.
Questions settled- Does a pre-emptor have the locus standi to challenge the validity of the transaction they seek to pre-empt?
- Can an arbitration award regarding landed property be enforced without being made a rule of the court and without proper registration?
- Does a pre-emptor need to file cross-objections to support a trial court's judgment on an issue decided against them in the appellate court?
- Haji MAKHDOOM ALI AND 8 OTHERS vs NOOR SAMAND AND 7 OTHERSPLD 1985 Rev. 37 [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1985-02-20Read full judgment →
- Haji KHUDA BAKHSH vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1985 CLC 2707 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-04Read full judgment →
- HAJI KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs KHAMISO KHAN AND ANOTHERsPLD 1985 Rev. 194 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1975-06-06Read full judgment →
- Haji JAN MUHAMMAD and 4 others vs MUHAMMAD BACHAL1985 MLD 1218 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-16Read full judgment →
- Haji JAMIL AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM1985 SCMR 869 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against an interim order passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petitioner sought review of a previous order that had granted interim relief—specifically, restoration of possession of demised premises—which the petitioner had not actually requested in their initial petition. The core legal question was whether the Court could grant relief that exceeded the specific prayers made by the petitioner in their application. Upon review, the Court found merit in the contention that the relief granted went beyond what was sought, as the petitioner had only requested an injunction against the respondent to prevent the sale, encumbrance, or transfer of the property pending the final decision of the appeal. The Court held that it should not grant relief not specifically prayed for by the parties. Consequently, the Court recalled its previous direction regarding the restoration of possession and substituted it with an order restraining the respondent from selling, encumbering, or changing the status of the premises until the final disposal of the appeal.
Questions settled- Can a court grant interim relief that was not specifically prayed for by the petitioner?
- Is a court empowered to recall a direction in a previous order if it exceeds the scope of the relief requested by the parties?
- Haji IMAM ALI vs KHADIM HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERSPLD 1985 Rev. 155 [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1985-04-22Read full judgment →
- Haji IBRAHIM vs S. REHMATULLAH (Represented By Legal Heirs)1985 SCMR 241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an ejectment order passed against a tenant on the ground of the personal bona fide need of the landlord's adult son. During the pendency of the tenant's petition for leave to appeal, the original landlord passed away, prompting the legal question of whether the personal need of the son survived the landlord's death. The Supreme Court examined the nature of personal actions and the survival of heritable rights. It held that while a personal action generally abates if the beneficiary dies before an eviction order is made, once an eviction order is passed, it matures into a vested property right that forms part of the landlord's heritable estate. Consequently, the legal heirs can defend and execute the order. The Court further clarified that appellate courts possess discretionary power to take note of subsequent events to mould relief in the interest of justice. Because the specific beneficiary (the son) was still alive and had stepped into the shoes of the landlord, the cause of action survived, and the case was set down for a hearing on the merits.
Questions settled- Whether the personal need of a landlord's son for whose benefit an eviction order was obtained survives the death of the landlord pending appeal?
- Does an eviction order obtained on the ground of personal need become part of the heritable estate of a deceased landlord?
- Can an appellate court take notice of subsequent events occurring after the passing of an eviction order to mould the relief?
- Whether proceedings for ejectment based on personal need abate if the beneficiary dies before an order of eviction is actually made?
- Haji IBRAHIM and 4 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2560 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-13Read full judgment →
- Haji GUL MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN And Another1985 SCMR 198 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the High Court's judgment acquitting the respondent of a murder charge under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in acquitting the respondent despite the prosecution's evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the acquittal. The Court held that the presence of the respondent's brother's dead body near the victim, the recovery of a weapon used by the victim to attack that brother, and the respondent's decision not to abscond from the scene, collectively raised a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's version of events. The Court determined that these circumstances supported the respondent's plea of private defense. Applying the principle established in Safdar Ali's case, the Court concluded that the respondent acted in defense of his brother, thereby justifying the acquittal. The Court affirmed that where the evidence supports a plausible defense theory, the prosecution must negate it beyond reasonable doubt, which was not achieved in this instance.
Questions settled- Does the presence of a dead body of an accused's relative at the scene of a crime support a plea of private defense?
- Can an acquittal be upheld when the prosecution fails to negate a plausible defense theory beyond reasonable doubt?
- Is the failure of an accused to abscond from the scene of a crime a relevant factor in determining the validity of a self-defense claim?
- HAJI GUL AND ANOTHER vs REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND 41985 PLD Karachi 348 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-06Read full judgment →
- Haji GHULAM YASEEN AND 16 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND 2 OTHERSPLD 1985 Rev. 5[Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
- Haji GHULAM FAROOQ SAMOO vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.1985 PLC 482 · Labour Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
- Haji FAZAL HUSSAIN vs Mirza DIN MUHAMMAD through Legal Heirs and 41985 CLC 1960 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
- Haji DIN MUHAMMAD vs Mst. HUSNA BEGUM and 3 others1985 MLD 976 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-30Read full judgment →
- Haji Ch. FAZALUR REHMAN vs Hafiz HASEEN AHMAD1985 SCMR 1302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as an appeal against an order of the Sind High Court, which had upheld a Rent Controller's decision to evict the appellant from shop premises under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The appellant had initially sought leave to appeal on the legal question of whether a landlord must prove the bona fide nature of their requirement for personal use to succeed under Section 14. However, upon review, the Supreme Court found that the lower courts had already framed and adjudicated upon a specific issue regarding the landlord's bona fide requirement. Both the Rent Controller and the High Court had concurrently determined, based on evidence, that the landlord did indeed require the premises in good faith for personal business use. The Supreme Court held that since this was a concurrent finding of fact supported by evidence on record, it was not liable to be reopened in the present proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as lacking substance, affirming the eviction order.
Questions settled- Is the bona fide requirement of a landlord a relevant consideration for eviction under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide requirement for personal use when supported by evidence?
- Haji BASHIR AHMAD vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1985 SCMR 545 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Central Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his removal from service as an Officer on Special Duty under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The core legal questions involved whether the removal under section 12-A required compliance with normal service safeguards, including an opportunity of hearing, and whether leave to appeal should be granted merely for an academic exercise when the petitioner no longer desired reinstatement. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner stated he had no desire to join service, it would be improper to grant leave to appeal for an academic exercise, and thus refused leave. However, the Court directed the expungement of certain unessential adverse remarks made against the petitioner in the impugned judgment. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will decline to grant leave to appeal for academic exercises when the petitioner does not seek reinstatement, and unnecessary adverse remarks in judgments lacking merits examination should be expunged.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal should be granted for an academic exercise when the petitioner does not wish to be reinstated into service?
- Does action taken under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 exclude the normal safeguards and considerations available in regular removal cases?
- Can unessential adverse remarks made in a judgment be ordered to be expunged when the merits of the case were not examined?
- Haji BASHIR AHMAD AND 9 OTHERs vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS1985 PLD Karachi 83 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-08Read full judgment →
- Haji AZIZ MUHAMMAD vs Haji JAN MUHAMMAD1985 SCMR 168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Haji Aziz Muhammad sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed his civil revision against the District Judge's order concerning an interlocutory matter relating to an interim injunction. The petitioner had filed a suit for a declaration that he was the owner-in-occupation of the suit land and that his ejectment order was illegal, alongside an application for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Civil Judge, the District Judge, and subsequently the High Court all dismissed the application and subsequent challenges. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the core question of whether interference was warranted in concurrent interlocutory orders regarding temporary injunctions. Holding that the three lower courts had successively considered and dismissed the application and that no important question of law or legal defect was demonstrated, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as meritless, establishing that concurrent interlocutory findings on interim injunctions without substantial legal defects shall not be disturbed by the apex court.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent interlocutory orders passed by lower courts regarding temporary injunctions?
- Does an interlocutory matter concerning an interim injunction necessarily require leave to appeal in the absence of an important question of law?
- Haji ATTA MUHAMMAD vs Malik SHABBIR AHMAD KHAN And Another1985 SCMR 960 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the Election Tribunal's order setting aside the petitioner's election to a local council. The core legal question concerned whether the appointment of an unauthorized stranger by the Presiding Officer to issue ballot papers and the commission of other material irregularities vitiated the election. The Supreme Court held that the association of an unauthorized person to perform crucial election duties, coupled with established malpractices and irregularities that materially affected the result, justified setting aside the election. The Court affirmed that such illegalities cannot be condoned on the alleged ground of candidate consent when no such consent was established and complaints were promptly lodged. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused, establishing that unauthorized delegation of election duties and proven electoral irregularities render an election void as a whole.
Questions settled- Whether the appointment of an unauthorized person to issue ballot papers vitiates an election?
- Does the closure of polls before the scheduled time and discrepancies in ballot papers constitute material irregularities?
- Can an unauthorized delegation of election duties be justified by the alleged consent of a candidate?
- Haji AMAN GUL and another vs Mian KHADIM SHAH1985 CLC 78 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-06-23Read full judgment →
- Haji ALI REHMAN and anothers vs THE STATE and 6 others1985 P Cr. L J 1771 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
- Haji ALI MUHAMMAD PANWALA through Legal Heirs vs Haji MUHAMMAD1985 CLC 2801 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
- Haji ABDUL WALI KHAN vs MUHAMMAD HANIF1985 CLC 827 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
- Haji ABDUL SALAM vs ABDUL AZIZ and another1985 CLC 1232 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-05Read full judgment →
- Haji ABDUL REHMAN vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL (FIELD), AGRICULTURE1985 PLC (C.S.) 247 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-07-31Read full judgment →
- Haji ABDUL MAJID vs HAFEEZ ULLAH BUTT and 2 others1985 MLD 1203 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-28Read full judgment →
- Haji ABDUL HAMEED Through Legal Heirs vs Mrs. MUMTAZ AYUB1985 SCMR 1595 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- Haji ABDUL GHANI vs ASGHAR ALI1985 CLC 2080 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-13Read full judgment →
- Haft ILAHI BAKHSH vs NOOR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 41 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the Lahore High Court was justified in reversing concurrent findings of fact in civil revision and whether proper legal effect was given to entries in the Roznamcha Waqiati. The plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership and possession based on prior oral transactions and admissions made before revenue officials in 1945 and 1947, which mutations were refused under the Punjab Land Alienation Act as the land was treated as agricultural. The trial and appellate courts dismissed the suit, holding the transactions required registration and that the appellant was a bona fide purchaser. The High Court reversed this, decreeing the suit. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly interfered in revision because the lower courts had ignored material oral and documentary evidence, including the testimony of the official who recorded the admissions and contemporaneous documents showing the land was a building site (Ghair Mumkin Abadi). Consequently, the Punjab Land Alienation Act did not bar the sale, and the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was right to hold that presumption of correctness attached to the entries in the Roznamcha Waqiati?
- Whether the Judge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was right to reverse the concurrent finding of the Courts below on a question of fact?
- Whether land with a house built upon it constitutes land for the purposes of the Punjab Land Alienation Act 1900?
- HAFIZUDDIN vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR1985 SCMR 1289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court which set aside a trial court decree in favor of the petitioner for the recovery of money based on an alleged agreement and receipt. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner had successfully proved the execution of the disputed receipt and the payment of the advance amount, and whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence of fact regarding the signature and merits. The Supreme Court held that the burden of proving the disputed receipt lay on the petitioner, who failed to establish the payment, and that the High Court's findings of fact based on the evidence were unexceptionable. The Court laid down the principle that concurrent or appellate findings of fact based on an evaluation of the record do not warrant interference under leave to appeal when no substantial question of law arises, particularly where the plaintiff abandons expert evidence and fails to discharge the burden of proof.
Questions settled- Whether the burden of proving a disputed receipt lies heavily on the plaintiff who alleges payment under a contract?
- Can an appellate court's finding of fact based on the evaluation of evidence be interfered with when no substantial question of law arises?
- Is a court bound to compare disputed signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act when contradictory statements exist on the record?
- HAFIZ UR REHMAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1203 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-08Read full judgment →
- Hafiz SULTAN MAHMOOD vs MUSHTAQ ALI and others1985 CLC 2542 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-03Read full judgment →
- Hafiz MUHAMMAD KHAN vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BORAD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE And Other1985 SCMR 92 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition regarding the resumption of land granted to him as a temporary Lambardar. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who failed to be appointed as a permanent headman, had a legal right to retain the land allotted to him under a notification permitting permanent headmaids to purchase and retain land. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was correct in law as the petitioner had no strict legal right to retain the land upon failing to become a permanent headman. However, considering that the petitioner had been in possession for over 55 years and developed the land, the Court dismissed the appeal subject to the observation that the authorities should consider transferring the area to him through private negotiations by executing a private treaty.
Questions settled- Whether a temporary headman is entitled to retain land granted under notifications restricted to permanent headmen?
- Can revenue authorities transfer land through private negotiations to a long-standing occupant who lacks a strict legal right to retain it?
- Hafiz MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C.S.) 876 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1985-05-08Read full judgment →
- HAFIZ BROTHERS Ltd. vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 3 others1985 CLC 2026 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
- Hafiz AZIZ AHMAD KHAN vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1943 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-08-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of a Sub-Inspector of Police under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 100, which conviction and sentence were upheld by the High Court. The core legal question is whether the solitary, uncorroborated testimony of an interested witness, who was hostile and played a central role in setting up the trap, is sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction for bribery. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that the testimony of the sole direct witness lacked independent material corroboration, and critical discrepancies—such as the unexplained appearance of an envelope containing the marked currency notes—rendered the prosecution's case doubtful, establishing the principle that a conviction for corruption cannot rest solely on the uncorroborated evidence of an interested and hostile witness.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for accepting a bribe be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an interested and hostile witness?
- Whether the evidence of witnesses who do not claim personal knowledge of the actual passing of bribe money can serve as valid corroboration?
- What is the legal effect of an unexplained material discrepancy regarding the handling of marked currency notes in a corruption raid?
- Hafiz ABDUR REHMAN vs Mst. BIRJEES BEGUM And Another1985 SCMR 1249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed the respondent's constitutional petition regarding the transfer of an evacuee shop. The petitioner, who was in possession of the shop, had previously accepted the transfer of the property to the respondent in multiple eviction proceedings, thereby acknowledging his status as a statutory tenant and entering into compromises to obtain concessions. Instead of vacating the premises as agreed, the petitioner applied for and obtained a transfer order for the same shop under a different number. The High Court set aside this transfer. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's repeated admissions of the respondent's ownership in solemn court proceedings could not be ignored. The Court ruled that because the petitioner sought to take undue advantage of the time granted to him by the landlady, he was not entitled to the discretionary relief of leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a tenant who has repeatedly admitted the landlord's title in solemn court proceedings subsequently challenge that title to obtain a transfer of the same property?
- Whether the Supreme Court will exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal to a party who has acted in bad faith by violating a court-approved compromise?
- Does a party's admission of ownership in eviction proceedings estop them from seeking a fresh transfer of the same property under a different identification number?
- Hafiz ABDUL LATIF vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C.S.) 1038 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- HAFIZ ABDUL KARIM vs LYALLPUR COTTON MILLS, FAISALABAD1985 PLC 838(2) · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-22Read full judgment →
- Hafiz ABDUL HAMID and others vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SHEIKHUPURA and others1985 CLC 2395 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-22Read full judgment →
- HAFEEZ and others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1358 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-29Read full judgment →
- HADI RAZA KHAN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, SOCIAL WELFARE AND ZAKAT DEPARTMENT, LAHORE1985 PLC (C.S.) 151 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-10-30Read full judgment →
- HABIBULLAH vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1398 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-03Read full judgment →
- HABIBULLAH SHAH AND ANOTHERs vs GHULAM RASOOLPLD 1985 Rev. 92 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
- HABIBULLAH KHAN vs MIR ALI KHAN and 2 others1985 P Cr. L J 744 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
- HABIB ULLAH vs THE STATE and another1985 P Cr. L J 519 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-02Read full judgment →
- HABIB ULLAH KHAN vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL and others1985 CLC 2925 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-27Read full judgment →