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.
- HABIB KHAN vs Mst. KHATOO AND OTHERSPLD 1985 Rev. 121 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1971-09-12Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK, Ltd. vs MUHAMMAD NASIR HASSAN1985 MLD 966 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LTD., MIANWALI vs SHAMIM HUSSAIN1985 PLC 862 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-04Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK Ltd., LAHORE and another vs Mian MUHAMMAD ASHRAF1985 PLC 210 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-08-05Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK Ltd., KARACHI vs Syed ABBAS RAZA HAIDER NAQVI1985 PLC 212 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-08-05Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK Ltd. vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KAKAR and 3 others1985 PLC 1100 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-05-18Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LTD. vs MUHAMMAD EHSAN1985 PLC 860 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-04Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LTD. vs JAHANGIR MALIK1985 PLC 599 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-10-29Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK Ltd. vs IQBAL MUJEEB and another1985 PLC 283 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-28Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK Ltd. vs Ch.MUHAMMAD SHAFI1985 CLC 559 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-21Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LIMITED vs ANWARUL HAQ QURESHI1985 PLC 298 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-06-03Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LIMITED vs AL-MEEZAN INTERNATIONAL Ltd. and others1985 CLC 3023 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-13Read full judgment →
- HABIB and 4 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2105 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
- HABIB AHMAD vs LIAQUAT HUSSAIN1985 PLD Karachi 741 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Sindh High Court arose from a Rent Controller's order directing the eviction of a tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent. The tenancy was created after the enforcement of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. The High Court examined whether an eviction application based on an unwritten tenancy agreement was maintainable under Section 5 of the Ordinance and evaluated the evidence regarding rent default and rate of rent. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that Section 5 of the Ordinance mandatorily requires tenancy agreements executed after its enforcement to be reduced to writing, rendered certified/attested written agreements as exclusive proof of the relationship, and deprived the Rent Controller of jurisdiction over oral tenancies. On the merits, the court held that where a landlord fails to issue rent receipts as required by Section 10, he cannot insist on strict proof of payment by receipts, and the tenant's oral testimony under oath can be accepted to discharge the burden of proving payment.
Questions settled- Is a written tenancy agreement mandatory under Section 5 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 for tenancies created after its enforcement?
- Does a Rent Controller have jurisdiction to entertain an eviction application based on an oral tenancy created after the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 came into force?
- How is the burden of proof regarding payment of rent affected when a landlord fails to issue written acknowledgments of rent under Section 10 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- HAAKAM KHAN vs TOWN COMMITTEE, HAVELIAN1985 CLC 808 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
- H A BI B U AH KHAN vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL and others1985 CLC 2694 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-27Read full judgment →
- GULZAR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 322 · Sindh High Court · 1984-07-17Read full judgment →
- GULZAR HUSSAIN vs ABDUR REHMAN And Another1985 SCMR 301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court in revisional jurisdiction, whereby the High Court set aside the judgments of the courts below and remanded a pre-emption suit for a fresh decision on the issue of court-fee valuation. The core legal question was whether a court is under an absolute obligation to conduct a suo motu inquiry into the valuation of a suit under Section 9 of the Court-Fees Act, 1870, even in the absence of reasonable grounds or material suggesting under-valuation, and whether an objection to the formal mode of proof of a document can be raised for the first time in appeal or revision when not taken at the trial. The Supreme Court held that the High Court proceeded on an incorrect assumption that a court-fee inquiry is obligatory without initial reasonable grounds, and reaffirmed that objections to the formal mode of proof of a document cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate or revisional stage if not objected to when the document was exhibited. The appeal was allowed and the trial court decree was restored.
Questions settled- Whether a court is under a mandatory obligation to conduct a suo motu inquiry into the valuation of a suit under Section 9 of the Court-Fees Act, 1870, without any reasonable ground to believe the valuation is incorrect?
- Can a party raise an objection regarding the formal mode of proof of a document for the first time in appeal or revision when no such objection was taken at the trial when the document was exhibited?
- Does the failure of a defendant to object to the admission of a document at the time of its exhibition render the document admissible in evidence for all subsequent stages of litigation?
- What constitutes reasonable grounds for a court to initiate an inquiry under Section 9 of the Court-Fees Act, 1870?
- GULZAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2756 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
- GULZAR BEGUM vs Mst. AMTUN NISA1985 MLD 119 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-27Read full judgment →
- GULZAR AKHTAR vs ABDUL HAFIZ and 3 others1985 CLC 1909(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-31Read full judgment →
- GULZAII. AHMAD vs THE STATE AND OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 353 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-25Read full judgment →
- GULRAIZ AKHTAR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 28 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
- GULLA KHAN vs PAKISTAN ALUMINIUM AND INDUSTRIAL WORKS LTD.1985 PLC 411 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-10-15Read full judgment →
- GULL MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1375 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-14Read full judgment →
- GULEE alias GHULAM NABI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1552 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-20Read full judgment →
- GULDAD vs NADIR DIN and 2 others1985 CLC 2602 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-05-25Read full judgment →
- GULAB vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1617 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
- GULAB DIN vs MUHAMMAD SALIM1985 P Cr. L J 721 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-25Read full judgment →
- GUL MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1135 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
- GUL MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ And Other1985 SCMR 77 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-10-27Read full judgment →
- GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN vs COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 105 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-08-28Read full judgment →
- GUL MUHAMMAD And Others vs THE ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other1985 SCMR 491 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the appellants' case regarding the cancellation of an original land allotment had received proper consideration in the High Court. The dispute arose from an allotment of land made to one Nek Muhammad in District Jhang using surplus units allegedly transferred from Sahiwal, where his claim had already been satisfied. Nek Muhammad subsequently sold the land to predecessors, who sold it to the appellants via registered deeds in 1964. Following a report, the Additional Settlement Commissioner permitted a review, leading to the cancellation of the allotment. The appellants' constitutional petition was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that discretionary constitutional jurisdiction cannot be issued in aid of injustice. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly refused relief because the transaction involved a double allotment and the complete satisfaction of the original claim in Sahiwal, establishing strong equities against the appellants and making any intervention an action in aid of injustice. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can refuse to exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction in aid of injustice?
- Does a subsequent purchaser of a double allotment have a protected right as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice?
- Whether the power of review was available for setting aside land allotments after Act XIII of 1964?
- GUL MUHAMMAD And Others vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN1985 SCMR 127 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a vendees' petition arising from a pre-emption matter concerning the sale of land by one Allah Ditta to the petitioners. The respondent, who is the vendor's son, filed a suit for pre-emption, which was initially dismissed by the trial Court on the ground of waiver. However, the Additional District Judge accepted the pre-emptor's appeal and decreed the suit, and the High Court upheld this decision in revision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower appellate court had misread the evidence regarding the respondent's knowledge and waiver of his right of pre-emption, and whether the High Court failed to examine the record. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions, holding that it was a fit case for leave as the High Court failed to examine the record in the face of allegations of misreading of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether the son of a vendor can be presumed to have knowledge of a proposed sale by his father for the purpose of establishing waiver of the right of pre-emption?
- Does a failure by the High Court to call for and examine the record in revision when misreading of evidence is alleged warrant the grant of leave by the Supreme Court?
- GUL MUHAMMAD and anothers vs The STATE and 3 others1985 P Cr. L J 621 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-27Read full judgment →
- GUL MUHAMMAD and 2 others vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI and 3 others1985 CLC 127 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-18Read full judgment →
- GUL MEHAR KHAN vs Syed AKRAM ALI1985 SCMR 1584 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Sind High Court, which affirmed an eviction order issued by the Rent Controller against the petitioner. The Rent Controller had ordered the petitioner's eviction on the grounds of default in rent payment and the respondent-landlord's bona fide personal requirement of the premises for his family of fifteen members. The petitioner contested the eviction by denying the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, asserting instead that he held title to the property, and argued that the matter should have been adjudicated by a civil court. The Supreme Court examined the findings of the High Court, which had conducted a re-appraisal of the evidence and concluded that the landlord-tenant relationship was established and the requirement for the premises was bona fide. The Supreme Court held that since the findings of fact were firmly rooted in the evidence presented, there was no legal basis for interference by the appellate court. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the eviction order.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with findings of fact regarding the landlord-tenant relationship if they are based on evidence?
- Is a dispute regarding the title of a property sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of a Rent Controller when the landlord-tenant relationship is established?
- Does a landlord's bona fide requirement for premises constitute a valid ground for eviction under rent laws?
- GUL HASS AN vs HABIBULLAH and 3 others1985 CLC 2281 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
- GUL HABIB vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and another1985 MLD 254(2) · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-03Read full judgment →
- GUL BAZ vs ABDUR RAZ1Q1985 PLD Peshawar 38 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
- GUL BAHAR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2696 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-21Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, SIALKOT vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE1985 PLC 840 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-04Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, MULTAN vs SYED FAZAL HUSSAIN SHAH1985 PLC 798 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-02-15Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, BADAMI BAGH, LAHORE THROUGH ITS1985 PLC 567 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE vs GHULAM MOHY-UD-DIN1985 PLC 524 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB vs GHULAM RASOOL ZAHID1985 SCMR 1614 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Punjab Service Tribunal order that reinstated a government employee whose services were terminated. The respondent, initially appointed on an ad hoc basis to the Punjab Local Council Service, had his services terminated after the government clarified his position was against a leave vacancy. The Service Tribunal had ruled in favor of the respondent, finding he was entitled to confirmation after a probation period and that his terms of service could not be unilaterally varied. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the record, held that the initial appointment letter explicitly stated the employment was on an ad hoc basis, and the subsequent clarification regarding the leave vacancy was binding. The Court found that the Tribunal erred in concluding the respondent was regularly appointed and entitled to automatic confirmation. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order, affirming that an ad hoc appointment against a leave vacancy does not confer a right to permanent status or automatic confirmation, and the terms of the initial appointment letter govern the nature of the employment.
Questions settled- Does an ad hoc appointment against a leave vacancy confer a right to automatic confirmation after a probation period?
- Can the terms of an ad hoc appointment be clarified by a subsequent order regarding the nature of the vacancy?
- Does a Service Tribunal have the authority to deem an ad hoc employee as regularly appointed contrary to the terms of the appointment letter?
- GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB vs DR. IJAZ HASAN QURESHI1985 PLD Supreme Court 28 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a consolidated judgment of the Letters Patent Bench of the Lahore High Court, which had held that the declarations of certain periodicals did not automatically lapse during the period their printers and publishers were detained. The core legal question was whether the automatic annulment of a newspaper's declaration under Section 9(3) of the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance is suspended during the printer's or publisher's detention, and whether Section 9(5) requires personal appearance to satisfy the District Magistrate regarding reasons beyond their control. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that the statutory consequence of non-publication is mandatory and automatic unless the exception in Section 9(5) is invoked within the prescribed period. The Court ruled that 'showing' satisfaction to the District Magistrate does not require personal appearance and can be done in writing, which was entirely possible under prison rules. Consequently, the failure to notify the District Magistrate resulted in the automatic annulment of the declarations.
Questions settled- Does the automatic annulment of a newspaper's declaration under Section 9(3) of the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance get suspended during the publisher's detention?
- Does the expression 'shows to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate' in Section 9(5) of the Ordinance restrict the mode of representation to personal appearance only?
- Can a detained person claim the benefit of the legal maxims 'lex non cogit ad impossibilia' and 'impotentia excusat legem' if they made no attempt to communicate with the authorities despite prison rules permitting it?
- GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB vs MUHAMMAD1985 SCMR 1245 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from petitions filed by the Government of the Punjab against the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding the method of granting higher national pay scales to Civil Judges and District and Sessions Judges under the Pay Revision Rules, 1973. The core legal question is whether the entry of 15 percent of Civil Judges into N.P.S.-18 and District and Sessions Judges into N.P.S.-20 is automatic based purely on seniority or requires due consideration of fitness and suitability of the incumbents. The Supreme Court held that the case involves a substantial question of law of public importance as entry into higher pay scales opens up further chances of promotion and requires consideration of suitability, suspending the Tribunal's judgment and granting leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that movement into a higher pay scale quota which affects promotional pathways cannot be treated as entirely automatic without considering the incumbent's record and suitability.
Questions settled- Whether the entry of Civil Judges and District and Sessions Judges into higher national pay scales based on a 15 percent quota is automatic on the basis of seniority?
- Does the grant of a higher national pay scale that opens up further chances of promotion require consideration of the fitness and suitability of the incumbents?
- GOVERNMENT OF SIND through Direct'or Schools Education, Karachi and another vs VIII SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE_A.S.J._CONTROLLER, KARACHI and another1985 CLC 2115 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB vs MUNAWAR SULTANA And Other1985 SCMR 165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a land acquisition dispute involving the Government of Punjab and private landowners. The Government acquired 17 acres of land in Rawalpindi in 1961, with the Land Acquisition Collector determining compensation rates. Dissatisfied with the initial award, the landowners sought a reference under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, leading the Additional District Judge to enhance the compensation rates in 1965. The Government’s subsequent Regular First Appeal was dismissed by the High Court in 1977. Seventeen years after the initial acquisition, the Government petitioned the Supreme Court seeking a reduction in the compensation amount. The Supreme Court examined the petition and found that the petitioner’s counsel could not identify any legal flaw or error in the High Court’s judgment. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, observing that the Government should have exercised greater consideration for citizens whose land was compulsorily acquired, noting that the property value had appreciated significantly since the acquisition. The decision affirms the finality of the compensation determination made by the lower courts in the absence of legal error.
Questions settled- Can the Government seek a reduction in compensation for compulsorily acquired land after the High Court has dismissed its appeal against the enhancement of such compensation?
- Does the failure to identify a legal flaw in the impugned judgment justify the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal?
- GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB And Others vs SALEEM HUSSAIN GARDEZI1985 SCMR 443 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had set aside a decision by the Martial Law Administrator regarding the reinstatement of a police officer. The core legal questions were whether the Service Tribunal possessed the jurisdiction to hear an appeal against an order passed by a Martial Law authority, and whether such orders were immune from judicial challenge under the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal lacked the competence to adjudicate the matter. The Court ruled that an order passed by a Martial Law Administrator does not qualify as an order of a departmental authority under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Article 15 of the Provisional Constitution Order 1981 provides a blanket immunity, barring any court or tribunal from questioning the validity of acts or orders executed under Martial Law authority. Consequently, the Tribunal’s decision to interfere with the Martial Law Administrator's order was set aside as legally unsustainable.
Questions settled- Does the Punjab Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against an order passed by a Martial Law Administrator?
- Is an order passed by a Martial Law Administrator considered an order of a departmental authority under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974?
- Does Article 15 of the Provisional Constitution Order 1981 bar courts and tribunals from questioning orders passed by Martial Law authorities?
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN vs ZAR BADSHAH1985 P Cr. L J 1419 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN vs MUHAMMAD SADIQ1985 SCMR 699 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by the Government of Pakistan and another challenges an order of the Service Tribunal which determined and declared respondent No.1 to be senior to the appellants in the Military Lands and Cantonments Department. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction under proviso (b) to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 by interfering with the fitness and suitability of civil servants for promotion, and whether the appellants were legally eligible for promotion at the relevant time. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction because the question of eligibility involves a matter of law rather than fitness or suitability, and the appellants were fundamentally ineligible for promotion at the time their appointments were made prior to the framing of applicable rules in 1974. The key legal principle laid down is that the statutory bar regarding fitness and suitability under the Service Tribunals Act applies strictly among eligible candidates and does not extend to cases involving the initial legal ineligibility of candidates for promotion.
Questions settled- Does the bar contained in proviso (b) to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 prevent the Service Tribunal from examining the initial legal eligibility of a civil servant for promotion?
- Can a promotion or appointment made in violation of existing recruitment rules be regularized retrospectively without explicit statutory backing?
- Does the principle of constructive res judicata apply when a civil servant seeks limited relief in an earlier service appeal regarding a Departmental Promotion Committee meeting?
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through the Secretary, Ministry of Food and Agriculture Division, Food Directorate, Karachi vs Messrs RAFI ASSOCIATES Ltd. and another1985 CLC 2234 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court. The core legal question was whether the time spent pursuing a petition for Special Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court, instead of filing an appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court, could be excluded under the Limitation Act, 1908, and whether the government is entitled to special treatment regarding limitation. The Court held that the delay could not be condoned, dismissing the appeal as time-barred. It ruled that the appellant failed to exercise due care and attention, and ignorance of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, which mandated the correct appellate forum, constituted negligence. The Court established that government departments are not entitled to preferential treatment or special indulgence compared to ordinary litigants. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that delay must be explained for every day, and negligence or lack of diligence does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
Questions settled- Can the time spent prosecuting a petition in the wrong forum be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, if the party failed to exercise due care?
- Are government departments entitled to special indulgence or preferential treatment regarding the condonation of delay in legal proceedings?
- Does ignorance of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, constitute a valid ground for condoning delay in filing an appeal?
- Is the delay of each day required to be explained when seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY vs BASHIR AHMAD KHAN1985 PLD Supreme Court 309 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal was filed by the Government of Pakistan against the judgment of the Central Service Tribunal, which had allowed an appeal filed by Bashir Ahmad Khan regarding his promotion and seniority in Grade-20 with effect from 1974. The primary issue before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether the respondent's appeal before the Service Tribunal was barred by limitation due to his repeated departmental representations following the rejection of his initial review applications. The Supreme Court held that the relevant civil service framework allows only one statutory representation or review against an adverse departmental order. Subsequent or repeated representations do not extend the period of limitation for appealing to the Service Tribunal as a matter of right. Calculating limitation from the rejection of his original review and raising a presumption of knowledge regarding the decision sent to his department, the Court held that the appeal before the Service Tribunal was time-barred. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Tribunal's judgment on the ground of limitation alone.
Questions settled- Does filing repeated departmental representations extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Can a civil servant make a second representation under Section 22(2) of the Civil Servants Act 1973 where a remedy of review already exists under the relevant rules?
- Does sending reminders to departmental authorities exclude time as of right when calculating limitation under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Others vs Kh. IMTIAZ MUHAMMAD1985 SCMR 875 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which, while upholding the compulsory retirement of the respondent, ordered the payment of full pay and allowances for the period of his suspension. The Tribunal had reasoned that the initial suspension order issued by the Auditor-General was without lawful authority. The petitioner, the Government of Pakistan, contends that the Federal Service Tribunal erred in its factual assessment, asserting that the suspension order was issued by the Auditor-General acting as the 'Authorised Officer' with the express approval of the 'Authority,' identified as the President of Pakistan. The Supreme Court found that this submission raised a substantial question of law requiring further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine the validity of the Tribunal's finding regarding the suspension order's legality. Pending the final hearing of the appeal, the Court suspended the operation of the impugned portion of the Tribunal's order, subject to the condition that the respondent be paid one-half of the salary due to him during the interim period.
Questions settled- Can the Federal Service Tribunal order payment of full salary for a suspension period if the suspension order was allegedly approved by the competent authority?
- Does an order of suspension issued by the Auditor-General with the approval of the President of Pakistan constitute a lawful exercise of authority?
- GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. and 3 others vs BAHADUR KHAN1985 CLC 1457 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a trial court decree awarding damages for the wrongful cancellation of an octroi collection contract. The core legal questions concern the existence of a valid contract, the legality of the cancellation, and the sufficiency of evidence regarding damages. The High Court held that a valid contract existed based on the parties' conduct, notwithstanding the absence of a formal written agreement. While the appellants possessed the authority to cancel the contract, the failure to provide the mandatory 15-day notice rendered the cancellation improper. However, the court set aside the damages decree, ruling that the respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving actual financial loss with reasonable certainty. The judgment establishes that while a contract may be formed through conduct, a claim for damages under Section 73 of the Contract Act 1872 requires proof of actual loss sustained; speculative or hypothetical estimates are insufficient to establish the quantum of damages, and the onus remains on the plaintiff to provide concrete evidence of financial injury.
Questions settled- Can a valid contract be formed through the conduct of parties despite a requirement for a formal written agreement?
- Does the failure to provide a mandatory notice period for contract cancellation render the cancellation illegal or merely improper?
- Is a plaintiff entitled to damages for breach of contract without proving actual financial loss with reasonable certainty?
- GOVERNMENT OF N. W.F.P. And Others vs BUNER KHAN And Other1985 SCMR 1158 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions directed against an order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal regarding the promotion and seniority of Grade-18 officers in the Provincial Education Department, where posts were allocated 75% by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment without proper rotation of vacancies. The core legal question concerned the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal to direct the Government to promote specific employees, given the bar under proviso (b)(i) to section 4 of the North-West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act, 1974 regarding fitness for promotion, and the legality of maintaining separate seniority lists. The Supreme Court held that while the promotees had a legitimate grievance regarding the failure to fill vacancies according to the quota and rotation rules, the Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to directly order the promotion of the respondents from a specific date. The Court laid down the principle that a service tribunal cannot substitute its own decision to promote an individual, but may direct the competent authority to properly consider candidates for promotion from the dates vacancies in their respective quota became available, followed by the issuance of a joint seniority list.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to direct the Government to promote a particular person to a higher post or grade?
- Are promotees entitled to be considered against vacancies occurring in their quota when proper rotation of vacancies is not maintained?
- Whether separate seniority lists for directly recruited officers and promoted officers are proper under the service rules?
- GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN Through Secretary Local Government And Rural Development Department vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ PASHTUN1985 SCMR 2089 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by the Government of Baluchistan challenged a Service Tribunal order that set aside the dismissal of a civil servant. The core legal question concerned the interpretation of Rule 5(3)(c) of the Baluchistan Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1981, specifically whether it provided an independent ground for summary dismissal or required compliance with the preceding clauses (a) and (b). The Supreme Court held that clause (c) is not an independent provision but a "follow-up" mechanism that must be read in conjunction with clauses (a) and (b). Consequently, summary dismissal under clause (c) is only permissible after efforts to comply with the notice requirements of clauses (a) and (b) have been exhausted or frustrated by the accused's conduct. In the instant case, because the respondent’s unavailability at his last known address frustrated the initial procedural attempts, the resort to summary dismissal was upheld. The Court ultimately allowed the appeal but suggested the government consider accepting the respondent's resignation upon repayment of training expenses.
Questions settled- Is Rule 5(3)(c) of the Baluchistan Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1981, an independent provision authorizing summary dismissal without following clauses (a) and (b)?
- Must disciplinary rules be read as a cohesive whole rather than as isolated provisions?
- Can a government department resort to summary dismissal under Rule 5(3)(c) when the civil servant's conduct has frustrated prior attempts at procedural compliance?
- GOVERNMENT MEDICAL STORES DEPOT EMPLOYEES' UNION through its1985 PLC 20 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- GOHAR REHMAN vs THESTATE1985 SCMR 763 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a Peshawar High Court judgment that set aside the trial court's acquittal of the appellant in a murder case, convicting him under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned whether the conviction was sustainable despite alleged improvements in ocular testimony regarding the distribution of weapons, potential identification difficulties due to lighting conditions, and omissions in the First Information Report. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conviction was sound. The Court reasoned that the dying declaration, corroborated by medical evidence and the presence of injuries on both sides, established the occurrence and the appellant's involvement. It held that minor improvements in testimony or omissions in the First Information Report do not automatically invalidate the prosecution's case when the foundational evidence remains consistent and credible. The Court affirmed that the timing and location of the incident precluded claims of identification failure, thereby upholding the High Court’s decision to convict based on individual acts.
Questions settled- Does the omission of specific details in the First Information Report necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case?
- Can a conviction be sustained when there are minor improvements in the ocular testimony regarding the sequence of events?
- Is the presence of injuries on both the complainant and the accused sufficient to establish a sudden fight?
- GOHAR KHAN and 3 others vs MEHDI KHAN (deceased) Through Legal Heirs1985 MLD 284 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-27Read full judgment →
- GLOBAL SHIPPING CO. (PVT.) Ltd. vs m.v. 'SEA ELITE' and others1985 CLC 1509 (2) · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-24Read full judgment →
- GHUNCHA GUL And Another vs NADIR KHAN And Another1985 SCMR 436 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a pre-emption suit instituted in February 1976 in the Malakand District, where the trial court had returned the insufficiently stamped plaint for correction without specifying a time limit, leading the plaintiffs to file a fresh properly stamped plaint on 1-10-1976. The core legal question was whether the second plaint constituted a fresh, time-barred suit or a continuation of the original suit filed within limitation, given the absence of a time-bound order under Order VII, Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court held, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts and the High Court, that a plaint cannot be lawfully rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(c) without first granting time to supply the deficient court-fee. The Court laid down that Order VII, Rule 11 is penal in nature and must be construed strictly, making it mandatory for the court to grant time to make up the deficiency, and where no such time-specified order of rejection is passed, the suit is deemed to have been instituted on the date the original plaint was lodged.
Questions settled- Can a plaint be lawfully rejected for insufficient court-fee without first granting time to the plaintiff to supply the deficiency?
- Whether the return of a plaint without specifying a time for correction operates as a rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does a subsequent filing of a properly stamped plaint relate back to the original date of institution when no proper order under Order VII Rule 11(c) was initially passed?
- GHULAM YASIN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And 2 Other1985 SCMR 549 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent findings of the lower courts and the High Court dismissing his suit for possession. The petitioner had purchased a 3/5 share of land in an auction for Rs.900 against a reserved price of Rs.12,300, but discrepancies arose regarding the exact area auctioned and recorded in the mutation. The core legal questions involved whether a suit for possession simpliciter was maintainable without seeking a declaration of title, and whether the petitioner had discharged the burden of proof regarding the area actually auctioned. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly concluded that the respondents' denial of the petitioner's right operated as a clog on his title, rendering a suit for possession simpliciter not maintainable, and that the petitioner failed to prove the extent of the area auctioned in his favour. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that a plaintiff must properly establish title and seek appropriate declaratory relief when title is disputed.
Questions settled- Is a suit for possession simpliciter maintainable when the defendant denies the plaintiff's title?
- Does a discrepancy between the bid-sheet and the mutation regarding the auctioned area require a suit for declaration of title?
- Who bears the burden of proof to establish the exact area purchased in a public auction?
- GHULAM YASIN And Others vs ARSHAD A1.1 SHAH And Another1985 SCMR 1904 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a pre-emption suit instituted by the respondents in April 1974, where the trial court directed them to make up a deficiency in the court-fee. The respondents repeatedly sought extensions of time to obtain the necessary statements from the revenue officials, but the trial court failed to pass orders on these applications for years, ultimately dismissing the application and rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The first appellate court reversed this order and remanded the case, finding no negligence or contumacious conduct by the respondents, which decision was affirmed in limine by the High Court. The core legal question concerned the propriety of rejecting a plaint for failure to supply court-fee deficiency where the delay was not attributable to the plaintiff's negligence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that the High Court's view was in accordance with the established rule laid down in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan.
Questions settled- Whether a plaint can be rejected for non-payment of court-fee deficiency when the delay is caused by pending applications for extension and lack of official records without plaintiff's negligence?
- Does the failure of a trial court to pass orders on an application for extension of time to make up court-fee prejudice the plaintiff's right to rectify the deficiency?
- GHULAM SIKAN DAR AND ANOTHERC vs MAMARAZ KHAN AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 11 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court heard appeals against a Lahore High Court judgment in a double murder case, where two accused were acquitted and one, Mamaraz Khan, was convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 326, Pakistan Penal Code, with a lesser sentence. The core legal questions revolved around the principles for interfering with an acquittal, the necessity of strong corroboration for the testimony of an interested and inimical eyewitness, and the enhancement of sentence in cases found to be without premeditation. The Court upheld the acquittal of Khan Beg and Maqbool Elahi, finding no strong and independent corroboration against them, especially given the tainted nature of the sole eyewitness's testimony. It affirmed Mamaraz Khan's conviction but refused to enhance his sentence to death, concurring with the lower courts' finding of no premeditation. However, the Court significantly enhanced the fine awarded to Mamaraz Khan for compensation to the heirs of the deceased and the injured witness.
Questions settled- What principles guide the Supreme Court when considering an appeal against acquittal?
- When is strong and independent corroboration required for the testimony of an interested and inimical eyewitness?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal merely because a different conclusion is possible on re-appraisal of evidence?
- Does the principle of 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' apply in Pakistan's criminal justice system?
- Under what circumstances can a sentence be enhanced in an appeal against acquittal, particularly regarding the finding of premeditation?
- GHULAM SIDDIQUE and anothers vs THE STATE and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 2450 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SHAH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2714 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SHAH vs NOOR SHAH And Other1985 SCMR 935 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Section 449/302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the murder of Wazir Shah. The core legal question was whether the concurrent acquittal by the lower courts was based on a misappreciation of evidence or perverse reasoning. The Supreme Court held that the trial court and the High Court correctly evaluated the evidence, noting significant discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including the unreliability of eye-witness testimony, the lack of motive, and the physical impossibility of the witnesses observing the event as described. The Court affirmed that it would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they were shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or conjectural. As the petitioner failed to demonstrate any such error in the lower courts' assessment of the evidence, the petition was dismissed, upholding the acquittal of the respondents.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a criminal acquittal?
- Does the existence of blood-stained recoveries and eye-witnesses automatically necessitate a conviction if the testimony is found unreliable?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be sustained if the petitioner fails to demonstrate that the lower courts' findings were perverse or arbitrary?
- GHULAM SHABBIR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2452 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-04Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SHABBIR vs MANAGER, POLYPROPLENE PACKAGES LTD. INDUSTRIAL1985 PLC 691 · Labour CourtRead full judgment →
- GHULAM SHABBIR vs DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (SCHOOLS), FAISALABAD1985 PLC (C.S.) 304 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-06-03Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SHABBIR and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1684 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-25Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR vs The STATE1985 P Cr. L J 647 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-24Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR vs Mst.KALSOOM BIBI and others1985 CLC 2807 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-07Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR vs DISTRICT JUDGE and others1985 CLC 2478 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR vs DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MULTAN and others1985 MLD 1300 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-16Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 14 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE & SECONDARY EDUCATION, BAHAWALPUR through its Chairman and another1985 CLC 2459 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR QURESHI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, FOOD1985 PLC (C.S.) 902 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1671 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR AND ANOTHER vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, FAISALABAD1985 PLC 814 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- GHULAM SAMDANI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPATMENT AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 631 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-06-19Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SABIR NAJMI vs REGIONAL MANAGER, PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL1985 PLC 211 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- GUL HASSAN KHAN vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THARPARKAR AT MIRPURKHASPLD 1985 Rev. 167 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1984-06-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM S A DIQ vs NAZ ALI and others1985 CLC 2737 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-24Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASUL vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2732 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASUL vs JOINT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS and others1985 MLD 1584 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASUL And Others vs THE STATE And Other1985 SCMR 1450 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of multiple connected criminal appeals arising from a murder trial where four accused persons were convicted for murder and causing injuries under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerned the merits of the convictions and the potential enhancement or mitigation of sentences, particularly in light of a compromise reached between the parties and a request for the statutory benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court dismissed the complainant's appeal for enhancement as not pressed due to the compromise, and dismissed the convicts' appeals on merits while granting them the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The key principle laid down is that while convictions on merits may be upheld, appellate courts may extend the statutory benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the period spent in detention during trial under appropriate circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be granted to convicts whose appeals on merits are dismissed?
- What is the effect of a compromise between parties on a criminal appeal filed for the enhancement of sentences?
- GHULAM RASUL And Others vs MUHAMMAD KHAN And Other1985 SCMR 1329 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves four civil petitions for special leave to appeal directed against a consolidated judgment of the High Court arising out of pre-emption suits. The petitioners had purchased four pieces of land from a vendor via a registered deed and three oral sales, prompting the respondents to file four separate pre-emption suits. The core legal question was whether a vendee, by acquiring multiple parcels of land, attains an equal status to a pre-emptor across all suits so long as any of the subsequent sales subsist when the initial suit is decreed. The Supreme Court held that since all four pre-emption suits had ultimately been decreed by the time the appeals were heard by the District Judge and the High Court, the petitioners' status as equal owners ceased to subsist, rendering any remand futile. The petitions were consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a vendee who purchases multiple pieces of land acquire an equal status against pre-emption suits if all such purchases are ultimately successfully pre-empted?
- Whether an appellate court should interfere with a pre-emption decree when subsequent sales relied upon for equal status have already been set aside by decrees in other suits?
- GHULAM RASOOL ZAHID vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, SOCIAL WELFARE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, LAHORE1985 PLC (C.S.) 863 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-03-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1990 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through an appeal by leave of the Court against a criminal conviction and sentence. The core legal question revolves around the appellant's entitlement to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court held that given the stance taken by the appellant's counsel that the major part of the sentence of rigorous imprisonment had already expired and the appeal was not being pressed save for the aforementioned benefit, it was a fit case to extend the same. The Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the appeal as not being pressed while granting the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the appellant, establishing the principle that such sentence reduction relief can be granted when appropriately prayed for and conceded in the circumstances of the case.
Questions settled- Whether the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be granted when an appeal is not pressed otherwise?
- Can a criminal appeal be dismissed as not being pressed while still granting relief regarding the computation of the sentence?
- GHULAM RASOOL vs Malik KHALID MEHMOOD1985 MLD 91 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-22Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND and 3 others1985 CLC 16 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL vs FAZAL DAD and another1985 CLC 1129 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-11-28Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL BALOCH vs MESSRS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. AND OTHERS1985 PLC 922 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL AND ANOTHERs vs THE RETURNING OFFICER, N. A. 196, MALIR1985 PLD Karachi 315 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL and another vs THE STATE1985 MLD 648 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-20Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL And 5 Others vs ALLAH BACHAYA And 17 Other1985 SCMR 416 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a dispute over the inheritance of land left by Khuda Bakhsh, who died in 1922. A mutation of inheritance was attested in 1922, dividing the property equally between his son, Jin Wadda, and Mst. Talehan, the widow of his pre-deceased son. In 1961, Jin Wadda filed a suit for declaration claiming sole ownership, asserting that the parties were governed by Shariat and that Mst. Talehan was excluded. The trial court and the first appellate court (on remand) decreed the suit in the plaintiff's favor, finding no proof of a custom allowing a pre-deceased son's widow to inherit. However, the High Court reversed these findings in second appeal, holding that the 1922 mutation conformed to custom, as evidenced by the plaintiff's 38-year acquiescence and joint dealings. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, holding that while the burden of proving a special custom lies on the party asserting it, long-term submission, joint property dealings, and contemporaneous revenue inquiries sufficiently establish the custom, justifying the High Court's interference in second appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a party's continuous submission to a mutation of inheritance for nearly forty years and joint dealings with the property can establish the existence of a custom?
- Can a second appeal be received under Section 4 of the Court Fees Act 1870 if the proper court-fee stamp was unavailable on the last day of limitation due to the absence of the stamp vendor?
- Is the High Court justified in reversing concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal if the lower courts failed to raise necessary presumptions from revenue records and the prolonged conduct of the parties?