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.
- GHULAM RASOOL And 2 Others vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL SETTLEMENT CELL And Other1985 SCMR 1832 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an order of the High Court of Sind, which allowed an application under Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to implead respondents as parties in a pending Constitutional Petition. The petitioners, who purchased land from a transferee whose transfer was subsequently cancelled, sought to challenge that cancellation. The respondents, sitting cultivators of the land, sought to be impleaded, asserting a right of purchase under the relevant scheme framed under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975. The core legal question was whether these cultivators were necessary or proper parties to the Constitutional Petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court correctly impleaded the respondents. The Court reasoned that if the original transfer to the petitioners' predecessor was found invalid, the respondents would have a statutory right to purchase the land under the 1975 Act. Consequently, they were proper parties who must be heard before the matter is decided, ensuring their interests are protected in the adjudication of the land's title.
Questions settled- Are sitting cultivators claiming a right of purchase under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975 necessary or proper parties in a constitutional petition challenging the cancellation of land transfer?
- Can a party be impleaded in a constitutional petition if they have a potential statutory interest in the subject matter of the dispute?
- GHULAM QASIM vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1604 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-26Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 256 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-06Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR vs THE COMMISSIONER, GUJRANWALA DIVISION, GUJRANWALA1985 PLC (C.S.) 259 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-07-02Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others1985 P Cr. L J 2772 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-25Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 257 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-22Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI vs THE STATE SPLD 1985 Rev. 76 [Sindh] · Board of Revenue · 1971-06-09Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI vs Sardar NAZIR AHMAD1985 SCMR 824 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by right arises from a judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court, which allowed the respondent's regular first appeal and decreed his suit for possession through pre-emption after permitting an amendment of the plaint. The core legal question involved whether the High Court was justified in allowing the amendment of the plaint to correct misdescriptions and omissions of certain Khasra numbers at a late stage of the trial, and whether the suit was bad for partial pre-emption. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the errors in the description of the property were accidental or clerical and that the power to amend pleadings under Order VI, Rule 17 and Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be exercised at any stage, including at the appellate stage, to determine the real question in controversy. The key principle laid down is that accidental clerical errors or omissions in describing property in a pre-emption suit do not warrant dismissal for partial pre-emption when the intent was to pre-empt the entire sale and no prejudice or limitation bar arises.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff can be allowed to amend the plaint to correct clerical errors and omissions in the description of property in a pre-emption suit?
- Can the power to amend pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be exercised at the appellate stage?
- Does an accidental omission of a Khasra number in a pre-emption plaint render the suit bad for partial pre-emption?
- GHULAM NABI And 3 Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Another1985 SCMR 551 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of evacuee property measuring 5 Kanals 5 Marlas in Mianwali Town. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, who obtained an allotment of the unconstructed portion of the property as agricultural land in 1971, held a valid title against the respondent, who had converted the entire property into a hospital and subsequently secured a transfer of the whole property under Settlement Scheme No. VIII in 1974. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's dismissal of the petitioners' writ petition. The Court held that the disputed area was neither agricultural land nor available for allotment in 1971, and that the petitioners' allotment was a nullity as it was made without notice to the respondent and lacked delivery of possession. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the respondent's 1974 transfer had acquired finality as it remained unchallenged by the petitioners. The key principle established is that an allotment made without notice to an existing occupant and without delivery of possession is a nullity, and a subsequent, unchallenged transfer of property acquires finality.
Questions settled- Can an allotment of evacuee property be considered complete without delivery of possession?
- Is an allotment of property made without notice to the existing occupant considered a nullity?
- Does a transfer of property that remains unchallenged by the opposing party acquire finality?
- GHULAM NABI A ND 6 OTHERS vs HASAN DIN AND OTHERSPLD 1985 Rev. 13 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1984-06-30Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs THE STATE1985 MLD 600 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-30Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs Messrs TEXTILE WINDING MACHINERY COMPANY LIMITED1985 PLC 447 · Labour Court · 1984-08-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs ABDUL RAHMAN AND OTHERSPLD 1985 Rev. 19 [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1983-06-11Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs ABDUL HAMID and another1985 MLD 728 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA GABOL and another vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT1985 CLC 2414 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA BHATTI vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, MULTAN AND 21985 PLC 818 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- GHULAM MURTAZA vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 295 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 915 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, SARGODHA REGION, SARGODHA ,1985 PLC (C.S.) 245 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-07-10Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs SECRETARY (ESTABLISHMENT), BOARD OF REVENUE1985 PLC (C.S.) 823 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-10-11Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI1985 MLD 101 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs Mst. SAIDAN and 7 others1985 P Cr. L J 1808 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-01-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs Mst. NOOR BIBI1985 CLC 2540 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-01Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs MALHI and 18 others1985 MLD 1461 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-06Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs KHIZAR HAYAT and 3 others1985 P Cr. L J 370 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs IZHAR HOUSING LTD., JAUHERABAD1985 PLC 493 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs Ch.KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and another1985 CLC 457 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from an order of the Additional District Judge vacating a temporary injunction previously granted to the plaintiff by the Civil Judge under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, claiming ownership and possession of a specific portion of land purchased from the first defendant, and alleging threatened interference by the defendants after obtaining an approved building plan from the Town Committee. The core legal question concerns whether a plaintiff in admitted peaceful possession is entitled to a temporary injunction protecting that possession pending trial, despite disputes over exact title and boundaries. The Lahore High Court held that a party in settled, peaceful possession is entitled to protection against forcible dispossession or interference otherwise than through due process of law, regardless of technical defects in title at the interlocutory stage. However, because the exact extent of the property and alleged encroachment on a public street were undetermined, the High Court set aside the lower appellate court's order, remanded the matter for fresh decision after local commission demarcation, and preserved interim protection subject to excluding public street areas.
Questions settled- Whether a party in admitted peaceful possession of immovable property is entitled to a temporary injunction against threatened forcible interference pending a decision on title?
- Can a temporary injunction be granted to protect possession without first determining the exact extent and site of possession through a local commissioner when boundaries are disputed?
- Is a person in actual possession entitled to judicial protection against extra-judicial eviction even if their title or the full extent of their purchase is contested?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs ALLAH DITTA and others1985 CLC 2037 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-23Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD through his Legal Heirs vs MUHAMMAD RIAZ1985 MLD 131 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-30Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD NAZAR vs THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL and others1985 CLC 2560 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1964 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD And Others vs THE PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1985 SCMR 1779 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower courts and the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's suit for a declaration of ownership regarding certain evacuee land. The core legal question was whether the evacuee land, for which sanction for sale had been accorded by the Central Government to the Punjab Road Transport Board under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, formed part of the compensation pool and could be validly transferred to subsequent claimants. The Supreme Court held that the property did not form part of the compensation pool by virtue of a notification issued under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and therefore the subsequent allotment and transfers to the petitioner conveyed no valid title, rendering the petitioner without locus standi. The key principle laid down is that evacuee property exempted from the compensation pool through central sanction and notification is excluded from settlement operations, and subsequent purported transfers of such property are void ab initio.
Questions settled- Does evacuee land sanctioned for sale by the Central Government form part of the compensation pool under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
- Whether a subsequent allottee acquires a valid title to evacuee property that was previously exempted from the compensation pool by central sanction?
- Does a person claiming through a void subsequent transfer possess the locus standi to challenge a prior valid administrative sanction for the sale of evacuee property?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and others1985 CLC 2511 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-07Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD and another vs ABDULLAH and 2 others1985 MLD 1211 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-29Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD and 4 others vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SANGHAR1985 MLD 401 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-16Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD and 33 others vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT1985 PLC 29 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD (AHMAD) vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM1985 CLC 1165 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-02Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MOHYUDDIN vs Ch. SHAUKAT ALI, SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 118 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-10-05Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MOHAYAUDDIN and 3 others vs JAFFAR and another1985 CLC 1992 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MOHAMMAD vs COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION, SARGODHA and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 145 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
- GHULAM KADIR vs Mst. ASSIPLD 1985 Rev. 158(2) [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1978-04-10Read full judgment →
- GHULAM JILLANI and others vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others1985 CLC 2466 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-25Read full judgment →
- GHULAM JILANI vs THE STATE1985 MLD 906 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-05Read full judgment →
- GHULAM JAFFAR vs THE STATE1985 MLD 41(2) · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM IQBAL KHAN vs ABDUL JALIL AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Peshawar 43 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-11-05Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2674 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-25Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs SHAUKAT ALI and another1985 CLC 1997 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller in favor of the landlords on the ground of personal bona fide need. The core legal questions involve whether a landlord can contract out of the statutory right of ejectment through a lease agreement clause, and whether a Rent Controller possesses the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon complex questions of title, specific performance, or property ownership. The Sindh High Court held that a clause in a tenancy agreement purporting to bar the landlord from ever seeking ejectment does not preclude the statutory remedy unless supported by substantial reciprocal advantages or benefits, and that a Rent Controller is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction unable to decide intricate questions of title or specific performance, which must instead be agitated before a civil court of competent jurisdiction. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding the ejectment order.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord can contract out of the statutory right of ejectment through a clause in the lease agreement?
- Does a Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon complex questions of title, specific performance, and property ownership?
- Whether an agreement barring ejectment so long as rent is paid is binding on the landlord without proof of substantial reciprocal advantage?
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs MUKHTAR AHMAD and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 467 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-09Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs Mst. BAKHAN1985 SCMR 1917 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Ghulam Hussain sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld the dismissal of his application for the custody of his minor daughter under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The petitioner had alleged that his divorced wife, Mst. Bakhan, was of bad character and suffered from Tuberculosis, but failed to produce any medical evidence to substantiate the illness claim. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the welfare of the minor did not lie with her mother. Furthermore, the petitioner had remarried whereas the respondent mother had not, which further favored the respondent. Holding that the welfare of the minor was paramount and best served with the mother, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Questions settled- Whether the custody of a minor child of tender years should remain with the mother when the welfare of the minor is best served thereby?
- Does the remarriage of the father weighed against his claim for custody compared to an unmarried mother?
- Is an allegation of illness without medical evidence sufficient to displace the mother's right to custody?
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs AKBAR ALI1985 SCMR 1108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a civil revision filed by the petitioner-vendee-defendant upholding a pre-emption decree in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The core legal question before the Supreme Court concerned whether the custom of pre-emption could be presumed to prevail across the entirety of the old city of Multan upon proof of its existence in one Mohallah, given the conflicting judicial precedents and authorities cited by the parties. Upon hearing the counsel, the Supreme Court observed a clear conflict in the decided cases regarding the controversy and held that the issue required authoritative resolution. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the matter further, while ordering security and directing the prior stay order to remain in force.
Questions settled- Whether the custom of pre-emption presumed to prevail in one Mohallah of an old city applies to other parts thereof unless proved otherwise?
- Does a conflict in decided cases regarding the custom of pre-emption warrant the grant of leave to appeal?
- GHULAM HUSSAIN and others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 30 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN AND ANOTHERs vs GHOUS BUX AND ANOTHERsPLD 1985 Rev. 185 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1974-12-06Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN and another vs RAFIIM BU X and others1985 CLC 2506 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-08Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN And Another vs Malik SHAHBAZ KHAN And Another1985 SCMR 1925 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil pre-emption suit where the trial court permitted the plaintiffs to rectify a deficiency in court-fee. The defendants successfully challenged this order in a civil revision before an Additional District Judge, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiffs' subsequent constitutional writ petition by the Lahore High Court. The High Court declined to interfere, noting that the revisional order did not result in the rejection of the plaint, thereby leaving the plaintiffs with an adequate alternative remedy of appeal should the plaint eventually be rejected. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction in light of the availability of an alternative remedy. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court's refusal to interfere was justified. The Court affirmed that a revisional order regarding court-fee deficiency does not preclude the plaintiffs from challenging the matter through a regular appeal if the suit is ultimately dismissed or the plaint rejected, thus establishing that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked when other adequate legal remedies remain available.
Questions settled- Does a revisional order regarding court-fee deficiency operate as a bar to raising the same issue in a regular appeal against the rejection of a plaint?
- Is a constitutional writ petition maintainable against an order in a civil revision when an alternative remedy of appeal is available?
- Does the High Court have justification to decline interference in a civil matter where the petitioner has not exhausted regular appellate remedies?
- GHULAM HUSSAIN and another vs GHULAM YASEEN and another1985 CLC 1272 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-09Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN And Another vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD And Other1985 SCMR 1906 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing their civil revision arising from a suit for possession of a house based on a sale-deed dated 5-8-1947. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in deciding issue No. 5 regarding whether the sale-deed was fictitious, fraudulent, and forged. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by all three courts below were based on a careful consideration of the evidence and did not warrant interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed as having no merit, affirming that concurrent findings of fact on questions of fraud and forgery do not justify interference under leave to appeal jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by three courts below regarding the validity of a sale-deed?
- Does a petition for leave to appeal lie against a High Court judgment dismissing a civil revision on a question of fact?
- GHULAM HUSSAIN and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1635 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-05Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER vs The STATE1985 SCMR 884 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had reduced his sentence for a conviction under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner had been originally sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 for causing serious head injuries to the complainant. On appeal, the High Court reduced the imprisonment to the period already served, citing a compromise between the parties, but maintained the full fine of Rs. 10,000. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the sentence of fine imposed was excessive given the circumstances of the case. Upon hearing the parties, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that the fine of Rs. 10,000 was indeed too severe. Consequently, the Court reduced the fine to Rs. 5,000, ordering that the entire amount be paid to the victim as compensation, while maintaining the default sentence of imprisonment in case of non-payment.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence of fine imposed by the High Court if it is found to be excessive?
- Is a sentence of fine subject to reduction upon appeal even if the term of imprisonment has already been served?
- GHULAM HAIDER vs SAIDUR REHMAN AND OTHERS1985 PLD Peshawar 13 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-05-01Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER vs SAID-UR-REHMAN and others1985 CLC 2638 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-05-01Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER vs Hafiz ALLAH BAKHSH1985 SCMR 1218 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' Regular Second Appeal (R.S.A.). The petitioners had filed a declaratory suit in 1975 challenging a mutation of inheritance sanctioned in favour of their grandfather's widow in 1953, claiming entitlement to inherit a portion of the land. The core legal question was whether the suit was barred by limitation and from which date the period of limitation began to run against the petitioners. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioners' father and predecessor-in-interest was present during the attestation of the mutation in 1953 and had objected to it, he possessed immediate knowledge of the transaction. Consequently, time started running against the petitioners from the date of the mutation sanction on 10-01-1953. The court affirmed that the suit filed in 1975 was hopelessly time-barred and dismissed the petition, reiterating the principle that knowledge of a predecessor-in-interest regarding a property transfer binds the successor-in-interest for calculating the limitation period.
Questions settled- Does the knowledge of a predecessor-in-interest regarding a mutation sanction cause time to start running for limitation against their heirs?
- Whether a suit challenging a mutation of inheritance filed decades after its attestation is barred by limitation when the plaintiff's predecessor had knowledge of the transaction at the time of sanction?
- GHULAM HAIDER vs AZIZ HUSSAIN1985 MLD 1080 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER AND OTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1985 PLD Lahore 332 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER And Others vs ABDUL KARIM And Other1985 SCMR 1468 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a suit for possession through pre-emption filed by the respondents against the petitioners, who had purchased the disputed land. The trial court initially ordered the plaintiffs to deposit the Zare-panjum and make up the deficiency in court-fee based on net profits. Although the plaintiffs complied within the prescribed time, the trial court later dismissed the suit, finding it insufficiently stamped because the net profits statement submitted pertained to the wrong period. On appeal, the District Judge reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiffs had inadvertently used the wrong period but had, in fact, paid court-fee on a valuation higher than what was required for the correct period. The High Court dismissed the subsequent revision petition, relying on the precedent in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, refusing to reopen findings of fact regarding the quantum of net profits. The Court held that in the absence of evidence of mala fide or contumacy, a suit should not be dismissed for insufficient court-fee where the amount paid actually exceeds the required valuation.
Questions settled- Can a suit be dismissed for insufficient court-fee if the amount paid actually exceeds the valuation required for the correct period?
- Does the absence of mala fide or contumacy preclude the dismissal of a suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a finding of fact regarding the quantum of net profits open to challenge in a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- GHULAM HAIDER and another vs THE STATE1985 MLD 750 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER AND 21 OTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 217 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-01Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FATIMA vs KOH-I-NOOR TEXTILE MILLS, FAISALABAD1985 PLC 727 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-10-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FARID vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1601 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-01Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FARID and 4 others vs SULTAN1985 MLD 1619 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ESA KHAN vs THE STATE AND OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 662 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-11-28Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ASGHAR vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1946 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-08-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, facing trial for murder, sought bail after the High Court dismissed his application. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s judicial statement, which admitted to striking the deceased but claimed self-defense and a lack of intent to kill, constituted a confession sufficient to deny bail. The Supreme Court examined the statement and held that it did not amount to a confession. Relying on the principle established in Najib Raza Rehmani v. The State, the Court determined that because the petitioner expressly repudiated the intention to kill and pleaded the right of self-defense, the statement could not be treated as a confession. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon used, a blood-stained lathi, was deemed to have little corroborative value regarding the critical issue of intent versus self-defense. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s order, converted the petition into an appeal, and granted bail to the petitioner, finding that the circumstances did not warrant continued incarceration pending trial.
Questions settled- Does a statement admitting to an act but claiming self-defense and denying intent constitute a judicial confession?
- Is the recovery of a weapon sufficient to deny bail when the core issue is the intent of the accused?
- Can a statement repudiating the intention to kill be treated as a confession for the purpose of bail?
- GHULAM ALI vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION1985 PLC 596 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-10-29Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ALI vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN KATHAWALA AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Karachi 152 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-30Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ALI vs MANZOOR HUSSAIN AND 8 OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 389 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-22Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ALI BUTT and others vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1985 MLD 244 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- GHULAM ALI BUTT and others vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (PLOTS)1985 CLC 2391 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-20Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ALI and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2518 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-26Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ALI and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2704 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-16Read full judgment →
- GHULAM AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2285 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM AHMAD vs ISLAND TEXTILE MILLS Ltd., KOTRI1985 PLC 275 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-11Read full judgment →
- GHULAM AHMAD SHAIKH vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND;1985 PLC (C.S.) 1100 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1985-06-17Read full judgment →
- GHULAM AHMAD MALIK vs The DIRECTOR FOOD, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 42 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-12-08Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ABBAS vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2451 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-04Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ABBAS vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 73 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-06-26Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ABBAS And Another vs FAQIR HUSSAIN And Another1985 SCMR 1093 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court which allowed a writ petition arising from an urban rent control matter, setting aside the appellate court's order and restoring the Rent Controller's order directing the ejectment of the appellants on the grounds of default in rent payment and subletting. The core legal questions examined were whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the appellate court's exercise of discretion regarding default and subletting under writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court was not justified in interfering with the appellate court's exercise of discretion on the minor default in rent, the interference regarding subletting was fully justified as the lower appellate court had misread evidence and based its findings on non-consideration of vital material. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding the ejectment order strictly on the ground of subletting. The key principle laid down is that a High Court may interfere in writ jurisdiction with a finding on subletting where the lower appellate court's exercise of discretion or evaluation of facts is vitiated by the omission of vital evidence and misreading of the record.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with the appellate court's exercise of discretion in rent matters under writ jurisdiction?
- Does prolonged absence of a tenant and exclusive possession by another family member constitute subletting under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963?
- Whether non-consideration of a vital piece of explanation by the appellate court justifies interference by the High Court in writ jurisdiction?
- GHULAB and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1726 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-25Read full judgment →
- GHUALM MUHAMMAD vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1442 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan wherein the appellant was convicted. During the proceedings, the Court discovered a police statement of the complainant recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Lahore, a copy of which had allegedly not been supplied to the appellant, and the trial court had mistakenly referenced it as the FIR during cross-examination. The core legal question concerns the effect of denying the accused access to a previous police statement of a witness for cross-examination. The Supreme Court held that the failure to supply the statement and denying the appellant the right to cross-examine the complainant with regard to his previous statement constitutes a gross violation of law, with prejudice necessarily presumed. The Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remanded the matter back for the appellant to be given an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant with respect to that statement, examine the DSP, record the accused statement, allow defense evidence, and decide the case afresh. The key principle laid down is that the denial of a previous police statement to an accused for cross-examination causes presumptive prejudice, necessitating a retrial or remand for proper procedural compliance.
Questions settled- Does the failure to supply a previous police statement of a witness to the accused constitute a violation of law?
- Whether prejudice is presumed when an accused is denied the right to cross-examine a witness with regard to a previous statement?
- What is the appropriate remedy when an appellate court finds that the accused was denied the right to cross-examine a witness based on a withheld police statement?
- GHIASUL MANSOOR and another vs NAIK MUHAMMAD alias Naikoo and 21985 MLD 487 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- GHIASUDDIN And Another vs MOINUDDIN1985 SCMR 85 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-08-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Sind High Court which dismissed the petitioners' High Court Appeal and upheld the trial court's order directing the petitioners to deposit a sum of money in court. The core legal question involves the propriety of an interlocutory order requiring a deposit to safeguard the plaintiff's interest in a suit for declaration, possession, partition, and permanent injunction where the execution of the sale agreement and the receipt of cash consideration were disputed. The Supreme Court held that the impugned orders passed by the lower courts were just and proper under the circumstances, as the execution of the agreement and payment receipt were contested and the petitioner's reply to the notice of demand was evasive. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, establishing that interlocutory conditions requiring the deposit of disputed sale consideration to protect a plaintiff's interest during pending proceedings are sustainable when receipt of payment is seriously contested.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court can interfere with an interlocutory order requiring a party to deposit a disputed sum to safeguard the plaintiff's interest during the pendency of a civil suit?
- Can a court direct the deposit of an alleged balance of sale consideration when the execution of the agreement and the cash payment are seriously disputed?
- GHAZI vs UMAR and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 251 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-06Read full judgment →
- GHAZI vs UMAR and 3 others1985 P Cr. L J 253 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-06Read full judgment →
- GHAZI vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1365 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-16Read full judgment →
- GHAZI KHAN vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1856 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction and death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts were sustainable in light of material discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence. The Supreme Court observed that the trial court and the High Court overlooked significant inconsistencies: the complainant's contradictory statements regarding the place of the petitioner's apprehension; the conflict between the eyewitnesses' testimony claiming a head injury and the medical evidence showing no such injury; and the ambiguity surrounding the alleged motive. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that these discrepancies and the uncertainty regarding the appropriate sentence required a deeper judicial review. The principle laid down is that where material contradictions exist between ocular testimony and medical evidence, and where the motive remains unproven or shrouded in mystery, a conviction and death sentence warrant further scrutiny by the appellate court.
Questions settled- Does a contradiction between ocular testimony regarding a head injury and the medical report showing no such injury warrant a re-evaluation of the conviction?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's evidence regarding the location of the accused's apprehension is inconsistent?
- Is leave to appeal appropriate when the motive for the crime remains shrouded in mystery and the lower courts have overlooked material discrepancies?
- GHAZI KHAN AND OTHERS vs AMAN ULLAH AND OTHERSPLD 1985 Rev. 136 [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1984-07-07Read full judgment →
- GHAZI KHAN and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1209 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-09Read full judgment →
- GHAZANFAR ALI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1428 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-12Read full judgment →
- GHAZANFAR ALI vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER1985 PLC 795 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-02-16Read full judgment →
- GHAZANFAR ALI and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 96 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-05Read full judgment →
- GHAUS MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD KHAN AND OTHERSPLD 1985 Rev. 52 [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1980-08-29Read full judgment →
- GHAUS BAKHSH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2958 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-24Read full judgment →