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.
- GHARIB SHAH And Others vs ABDUL SATTAR1985 SCMR 2094 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan which rejected a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge for setting aside an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and First Class Magistrate under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The core legal questions involved whether section 439-A of the Code applied to Pishin District and whether the Magistrate had violated earlier remand directions to record evidence. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure introduced via the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 were not extended to Pishin District and therefore the Additional Sessions Judge lacked revisional jurisdiction, but found on the merits that the Magistrate had complied with the remand directions by recording and cross-examining witnesses. The appeal was dismissed subject to the clarification on the geographical extent of section 439-A.
Questions settled- Whether section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was applicable to Pishin District during the relevant period?
- Was the Additional Sessions Judge competent to exercise revisional jurisdiction in respect of the Magistrate's order in Pishin District?
- Did the First Class Magistrate pass the order in disregard of the High Court's earlier remand directions?
- GHANIUR REHMAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 177 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner was convicted under section 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code for criminal intimidation by a trial court which sentenced him to one year's imprisonment but simultaneously released him on probation for a period of one year. On revision, the Additional Sessions Judge set aside the probation order, holding that the simultaneous imposition of a sentence and a probation order rendered the probation unlawful, and restored the sentence of imprisonment, while also confiscating the petitioner's licensed shotgun. The core legal question was whether a trial court's order sentencing an offender to imprisonment while simultaneously placing him on probation is entirely unlawful or whether the probation order can be sustained. The Peshawar High Court held that where a court convicts an offender and mistakenly imposes a sentence alongside a probation order, the sentence is suspended and the probation order remains effective, as the court has the power under the Probation of Offenders Ordinance to place the offender on probation instead of executing the sentence immediately. The High Court set aside the revisional order under its inherent jurisdiction and restored the trial court's probation order, while also ordering the return of the confiscated shotgun.
Questions settled- Whether the simultaneous imposition of a sentence of imprisonment and an order of probation by a trial court renders the probation order unlawful?
- Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside an order passed by a Sessions Judge under section 439-A?
- Does a court have the power to confiscate a licensed weapon that is not connected with the commission of the alleged offense?
- GH1ASUDDIN vs The STATE1985 SCMR 989 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal directed against an interlocutory order passed by a learned Single Judge on 15-2-1983, whereby the petitioner was directed to produce certain documents necessary for examining a plea raised in support of a revision application, and the complainant was ordered to be joined as a co-respondent. The core legal question concerns the propriety of interfering with an interlocutory order directing document production and joinder of parties in a revision proceeding. The Supreme Court held that since the High Court judge passed the order to satisfy himself regarding the petitioner's own plea, the petitioner could not validly challenge it, and further that interference by the Supreme Court was unwarranted given the interlocutory nature of the order. The petition was consequently dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an interlocutory order of the High Court directing the production of documents in a revision application?
- Can a party challenge an interlocutory order passed by the High Court to examine a plea raised by that same party?
- GH ULAM MUHAMMAD vs KHUSHI MUHAMMAD1985 CLC 2069 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-23Read full judgment →
- GH ULAM MU H AMMA D/Defendant vs ABDUL SATTAR and others1985 CLC 1190 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-02Read full judgment →
- GH UL AM N A BI vs BAKHSHAN and others1985 CLC 2624 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-10Read full judgment →
- GH UL AM B A RI vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL and others1985 CLC 2899 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-09Read full judgment →
- GH U LA M H A IDER vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER. SIND(GENERAL ), CENTRAL CELL and 4 others1985 CLC 2052 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-23Read full judgment →
- GHULAM JAFIR And Another vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1938 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three criminal petitions for special leave to appeal filed by various petitioners convicted of murder and related offences. The core legal question was whether a compromise between the parties, aimed at ending a long-standing family feud and fostering peace, constitutes a valid mitigating circumstance to justify the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the affidavits filed by the legal heirs of the deceased persons, accepted the compromise as a genuine effort to restore harmony. Consequently, the Court converted the petitions into appeals and held that the compromise serves as a significant mitigating factor. The Court reduced the death sentences of the appellants, Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Latif, to imprisonment for life under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while maintaining the fines imposed. The key principle laid down is that a compromise between the parties in a murder case, intended to resolve a family feud and promote future amity, may be considered a valid mitigating circumstance for the commutation of a death sentence.
Questions settled- Can a compromise between the parties in a murder case be considered a mitigating circumstance for sentencing?
- Does a compromise aimed at ending a family feud justify the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Is the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to sentences reduced due to a compromise?
- GEULAM ABBAS vs THE BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERss1985 PLD Lahore 370 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-11Read full judgment →
- GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN TELECOMMUNICATION REGION and another1985 PLC 392 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-12Read full judgment →
- GENERAL MANAGER, PECO Ltd. vs SHAUKAT ALI And Other1985 SCMR 2053 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed the employer's Constitutional petition against the Labour Appellate Tribunal's decision. The respondent workman, after recovering from a surgical operation and a recommended period of light duty, sought further accommodation and informed the employer of potential legal recourse. The employer promptly terminated the workman's services citing ill-health and lack of a light job. The Labour Court set aside the termination but denied back benefits, while the Labour Appellate Tribunal found the termination mala fide, granted back benefits, and dismissed the employer's appeal. The High Court dismissed the subsequent Constitutional petition in limine. The core legal question concerned the applicability of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and the sustainability of concurrent factual findings regarding mala fides. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of mala fides were unexceptionable and that section 25-A was validly invoked against a mala fide termination. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance XXIII of 1969 are attracted when an employer's action is found to be mala fide?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding mala fides rendered by the Labour Court and the Appellate Tribunal?
- Whether termination of a workman's service on the ground of ill-health is sustainable when the recommended period of light duty has already expired and no fresh medical examination has been conducted?
- GENERAL MANAGER, LAHORE CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICAL WORK LTD. vs EMPLOYEES' UNION LAHORE CHEMICAL AND PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS Ltd1985 PLC 53 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- GENERAL MANAGER, HOTEL INTER-CONTINENTAL, RAWALPINDI vs MUHAMMAD1985 PLC 257 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-18Read full judgment →
- GENERAL MANAGER LYALLPUR COTTON MILLS FAISALABAD vs AFTAB AHMAD1985 PLC 750 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-25Read full judgment →
- GENERAL MANAGER (ADMN.) And Another vs SHAFI AHMAD KHAN1985 SCMR 1699 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging a decision rendered by a Service Tribunal. The core legal questions concern the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction and the propriety of its findings. Specifically, the Court is tasked with determining whether the Service Tribunal acted within its legal authority when it made adverse observations regarding the conduct of a Deputy Director who was not a party to the proceedings and whose conduct was not under review. Furthermore, the Court must decide whether the Tribunal erred in concluding that a departmental punishment was imposed in bad faith, despite the absence of any allegations or proof of mala fides against the Enquiry Officer or the relevant departmental authorities. Finally, the Court will examine whether the proved charges against the respondent warranted the penalty of compulsory retirement. The judgment grants leave to appeal to address these significant questions of law, focusing on the limitations of the Tribunal's adjudicatory powers and the evidentiary requirements for establishing bad faith in departmental disciplinary proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a Service Tribunal make adverse findings regarding the conduct of an individual who is not a party to the proceedings?
- Is a finding of bad faith by a Service Tribunal sustainable when bad faith was neither alleged nor proved against the relevant authorities?
- Does the proof of charges in a departmental inquiry justify the penalty of compulsory retirement?
- GANGA R. MADHANI vs STANDARD BANK LTD. And Other1985 SCMR 1511 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the employment status of a Grade-III Bank Officer dismissed for misconduct. The appellant sought relief under Martial Law Order No. 52, asserting he was a "workman" under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The core legal question was whether an employee holding a Power of Attorney and performing supervisory duties qualifies as a "workman" under the Ordinance. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the appellant was not a "workman." The Court established that the definition of "workman" under the Ordinance is restricted to those performing manual or clerical work, excluding individuals in supervisory, administrative, or managerial capacities. The governing principle is that the status of an employee is determined by the nature of their primary and substantial duties rather than incidental tasks. Because the appellant’s Power of Attorney authorized him to exercise discretion, manage bank affairs, and make significant decisions, his role was managerial, thereby disqualifying him from the definition of a "workman."
Questions settled- Does an employee holding a Power of Attorney to manage bank affairs qualify as a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- What is the primary test for determining whether an employee is a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Do incidental clerical duties performed by a managerial employee bring them within the definition of a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- GAMAN and 3 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 511 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
- GAJETAN PINTO vs Dr. (Mrs.) SHIRIN1985 SCMR 1603 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an ejectment proceeding initiated by the respondent against a third party, wherein the petitioner sought to be impleaded as a necessary party, claiming to be the actual tenant of the premises and asserting that he had been regularly paying rent to the respondent. The trial court dismissed the petitioner's application for impleadment, finding that he was not a tenant and lacked the necessary locus standi to participate in the proceedings. Subsequently, an ejectment order was passed against the original respondent. The petitioner challenged both the dismissal of his impleadment application and the ejectment order before the High Court, which dismissed his appeal due to a lack of cogent or satisfactory evidence establishing his tenancy. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the factual dispute over tenancy. The Court held that it would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact where no evidence supports the petitioner's claim, thereby upholding the dismissal of the petition.
Questions settled- Can a third party be impleaded in ejectment proceedings if they fail to provide satisfactory evidence of their tenancy?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts regarding tenancy status?
- FORBES & ASSOCIATED CONCERNS WORKERS' UNION through its General1985 PLC 351 · Labour Court · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
- FINANCIAL ADVISER & CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 420 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from a service dispute wherein a railway peon, removed from service following an inquiry regarding an embezzeled cash bag, successfully challenged his removal before the Labour Court under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Labour Court set aside the removal due to a defective inquiry while permitting a fresh inquiry, and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed subsequent appeals by both parties. The Lahore High Court dismissed the constitutional petition in limine, holding that the employee, a peon performing outdoor duties such as carrying cash boxes and railway salaries, qualified as a 'workman' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and was thus excluded from the definition of a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Court further ruled that pleas not raised before the lower appellate authority cannot be raised for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction, and that the petition suffered from inordinate laches of nearly nine months.
Questions settled- Whether a railway peon performing outdoor duties such as carrying cash boxes qualifies as a workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?
- Does an employee who falls within the definition of a workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, fall within the definition of a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Can a new factual ground or plea that was not raised before the lower appellate authority be permitted to be raised for the first time in constitutional proceedings?
- Whether a delay of nearly nine months in filing a constitutional petition against an order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal constitutes fatal laches?
- FIDA MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE and 3 others1985 P Cr. L J 571 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-09-17Read full judgment →
- FIDA MUHAMMAD vs Pir MUHAMMAD KHAN (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 341 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case involved two appeals against a High Court judgment that dismissed the appellant's appeals concerning objections under the Land Acquisition Act. The core legal question was whether a power-of-attorney granted by Pir Muhammad Khan to Qalandar Khan authorized the sale of land, and whether the subsequent transaction between Qalandar Khan (as attorney) and his son Fida Muhammad (the appellant) was valid. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, ruling that the power-of-attorney did not contain a clear authority to sell the land. The Court found the transactions between the father and son to be fraudulent and collusive, aimed at depriving the real owner of compensation. While addressing a court-fee deficiency, the appeals were ultimately dismissed on merits. The judgment emphasized that a general power-of-attorney does not inherently include the power to alienate property, requiring a clear, specific clause for such authority. It also highlighted an agent's duty to communicate with the principal in cases of doubt and to obtain informed consent when dealing with the principal's property for personal benefit.
Questions settled- Does a 'general' Power-of-Attorney automatically include the power to alienate or dispose of the principal's property?
- What are the essential obligations of an attorney when dealing with the principal's property, especially when the attorney deals on his own account?
- Can a principal repudiate a transaction where an agent deals with the principal's property for his own benefit without full disclosure and consent?
- Can an appellate court correct an error by the High Court regarding the application of Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to appeals?
- What standard of proof is required to establish an attorney's authority to sell land when the power-of-attorney is ambiguous?
- FIDA HUSSAIN vs NOOR MUHAMMAD BANA1985 CLC 3014 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a first rent appeal filed by the landlord-appellant against the dismissal of his ejectment application by the Rent Controller. The core legal question is whether the appellant successfully established the ground of personal requirement for his son regarding the shop in the tenant's occupation, particularly when the appellant failed to disclose in the ejectment application or examination-in-chief that another shop was already in his possession, and failed to prove the unsuitability of that existing shop. The court held that the Rent Controller rightly dismissed the ejectment application as the appellant failed to establish bona fide personal requirement and omitted crucial material facts regarding alternate accommodation from his pleadings and examination-in-chief. The key principle laid down is that a landlord seeking ejectment on the ground of personal requirement must disclose the availability of any other alternate premises in his occupation and prove the unsuitability thereof for the claimed need.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord is required to disclose in the ejectment application the possession of another shop or property?
- Does failure to establish the unsuitability of alternate premises in the landlord's possession defeat a claim of personal requirement?
- Whether the non-examination of the son for whose benefit the premises are required affects the proof of personal requirement?
- FIDA HUSSAIN vs Mst. YASMEEN and others1985 MLD 1252 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-09Read full judgment →
- FIDA HUSSAIN vs Messrs M.F.ELAHI & Company Ltd.1985 SCMR 865 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The present petition arises out of a dispute concerning a commercial shop in Islamabad rented out by the respondent-company to the petitioner. The respondent-company instituted a suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent through a representative. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, and the first appellate court partly modified the decree while upholding the eviction. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioner's civil revision in limine. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the suit was instituted without proper legal authority from the company, as the Board of Directors' resolution was not duly proved. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner cannot agitate the issue of the competency of the suit afresh since the relevant issue was not pressed before the trial court, and the resolution authorizing the representative to institute the suit was produced and accepted on record without objection. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent findings against the petitioner.
Questions settled- Can a party agitate the competency of a suit based on lack of authority when the corresponding issue was not pressed before the trial court?
- Whether a resolution authorizing a representative to institute a suit on behalf of a company can be accepted on record if produced without objection during the proceedings?
- FIDA HUSSAIN vs Mat. ANWARI KHATOON1985 MLD 110 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-30Read full judgment →
- FIDA HUSSAIN and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 371 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-27Read full judgment →
- FIAZULLAH AND 15 OTHERS vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN1985 PLC 549 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-01-13Read full judgment →
- FIAZ AHMED vs WAPDA1985 PLC (C.S.) 393 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-11-18Read full judgment →
- FEROZUR REHMAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1573 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-15Read full judgment →
- FEROZE KHAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2467(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-03Read full judgment →
- FEROZE DIN And Others vs EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD, LAHORE And Other1985 SCMR 148 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court dated 15-2-1977, which dismissed a revision petition challenging the District Judge's order dated 27-1-1977 refusing an interim injunction to the petitioners. The core legal question concerns whether the refusal of a temporary injunction by the lower courts, grounded on the failure to establish a prima facie case, warrants interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit as the petitioners failed to make out a prima facie case, and further noted that the underlying suit would likely have been decided by the passage of time, rendering the interim matter moot. Consequently, the court refused leave to appeal, affirming that appellate interference in interlocutory injunction matters is unwarranted where no prima facie case is established and the main proceedings have likely concluded.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings refusing a temporary injunction where no prima facie case is established?
- Does the likely conclusion of the main suit render a petition against an interlocutory injunction order unfit for interference?
- FEROZ vs SHER AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 254 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arose out of a civil suit filed by a co-sharer challenging subsequent mutations of joint land by other co-sharers on the ground that the vendors had already exhausted their entitlement by selling their entire share in an earlier mutation. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the subsequent transfers were ineffective against his rights, or in the alternative, requested pre-emption. The trial court, first appellate court, and High Court all concurrently dismissed the suit, noting that the plaintiff failed to produce the record of the earlier mutation, making it unproven that the vendors had transferred proprietary rights rather than merely their possessory interest as co-sharers in exclusive hissadari possession. The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent findings, holding that a co-sharer in exclusive possession of joint property can lawfully transfer possessory rights or specific plots. The vendee steps into the shoes of the transferor and is entitled to retain possession until formal partition, subject to adjustment of shares upon partition.
Questions settled- What rights are transferred to a vendee when a co-sharer in exclusive possession of joint land alienates that specific portion prior to partition?
- Does the failure of a plaintiff to produce a crucial mutation record preclude a finding that co-sharers alienated proprietary rights in excess of their share?
- Can a co-sharer lawfully transfer possessory rights in a joint holding subject to final adjustment at the time of partition?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN vs MUHAMMAD NAQI KHAN And Other1985 SCMR 2099 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a service matter appeal by the Federation of Pakistan against a Service Tribunal order granting seniority to a civil servant from an earlier date. The core legal questions were whether the Service Tribunal possessed jurisdiction to grant seniority for a period preceding July 1, 1969, and whether it could interfere with departmental decisions regarding fitness for promotion. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction. The Court determined that under the Service Tribunals Act, the Tribunal lacked authority to review departmental decisions made before July 1, 1969, or to adjudicate upon matters of fitness for promotion. Furthermore, the respondent had been considered and rejected for promotion, not inadvertently omitted, thus failing to qualify for retrospective seniority. The judgment affirms that Service Tribunals cannot exercise jurisdiction over departmental orders predating July 1, 1969, nor can they interfere with departmental determinations regarding a civil servant's fitness for promotion or appointment, as these matters fall outside their statutory mandate.
Questions settled- Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon departmental orders or decisions made prior to July 1, 1969?
- Can a Service Tribunal interfere with a departmental authority's decision regarding a civil servant's fitness for promotion or appointment?
- Does a civil servant who was considered but rejected for promotion qualify for seniority from the date of the original batch under the General Principles of Seniority?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN vs AZAM ALI And Other1985 SCMR 386 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by the Federation of Pakistan and direct recruits challenged a decision of the Service Tribunal regarding the inter se seniority of departmental promotees versus direct recruits to the posts of Assistant Works Managers in the Pakistan Ordnance Factories. The core legal question concerned whether departmental promotees promoted in excess of their reserved quota can claim seniority from the actual date of their promotion or only from the date their promotion is adjusted against the promotion quota under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Supreme Court held that departmental candidates are eligible for promotion only against the quota reserved under the rules, and promotions made in excess of that quota pending direct recruitment constitute ad hoc appointments. Consequently, such promotees cannot count their seniority from the date of actual promotion if it exceeds the prescribed quota. The Court laid down that the General Principles of Seniority circulated in 1970 are consistent with the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and continue to have statutory force under section 25(2) of the Act, governing the adjustment of seniority based on promotional quotas.
Questions settled- Whether the interpretation put by the Service Tribunal on rule 7 of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 is correct?
- Whether the definition of the word 'regular' in the General Principles of Seniority offends the provisions contained in subsection (2) of section 2 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Whether the principle regarding seniority contained in the General Principles of Seniority is repugnant to the provisions of section 8(4) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Whether the General Principles of Seniority are inconsistent with the provisions of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and cease to be applicable after its promulgation?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad vs ASPI DOSSABHOY JAMULA1985 PLC (C.S.) 1041 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-25Read full judgment →
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Through Secretary, Establishment Division vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE1985 SCMR 1773 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Federation of Pakistan sought leave to appeal against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the removal of the respondent, Muhammad Rafique, from his position as Secretary, Food Department, Government of Punjab. The respondent had been charged with misconduct regarding the illegal sanctioning of contracts and unauthorized expenditure, leading to his removal from service. Following a review petition rejection, he appealed to the Service Tribunal, which thoroughly examined the evidence and concluded that none of the charges were established, subsequently ordering his reinstatement with full back benefits. The Supreme Court reviewed the petition for leave to appeal. The Court held that the matter involved only questions of fact that had been comprehensively addressed and resolved by the Service Tribunal in a well-reasoned order. Finding no substantial question of law of public importance, the Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's findings. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not grant leave to appeal under Article 212 of the Constitution where the petition raises only factual disputes already settled by a competent tribunal.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal in service matters involving only questions of fact?
- Is the Supreme Court required to interfere with a well-reasoned order of the Service Tribunal that exonerates a civil servant of misconduct charges?
- What is the threshold for granting leave to appeal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 in service matters?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN And Others vs MUBARIK ALI1985 SCMR 901 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions arising from a conflict of opinion within the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the interpretation of the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules 1973. The core legal question for consideration is whether, under the scheme of the said Rules, it is permissible to designate the same person as both the "Authority" and the "Authorised Officer" under sub-rules (2) and (3) of rule 2. Noting a conflict of judicial opinion within the Tribunal on this question of considerable public importance, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to settle the matter, while ordering the continuation of interim stay orders during the pendency of the proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether it is permissible under the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules 1973 to designate the same person as both the Authority and the Authorised Officer?
- Does the designation of the same person as Authority and Authorised Officer violate the scheme of the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules 1973?
- FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION vs SOHRAB KHAN And Other1985 SCMR 1532 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an appeal filed by the Federal Land Commission against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which had set aside the order of the Federal Land Commission declaring certain land alienations void under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was the legality and propriety of the High Court's judgment setting aside the Commission's order, which had invalidated three sale transactions made by the original landowner. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court rightly concluded that the alienations were valid and bona fide transactions supported by adequate consideration and actual transfer of possession. The Court laid down the principle that findings of the Federal Land Commission regarding the invalidity of land alienations cannot be sustained when they are based on mere presumptions rather than evidence on record, and transactions proven to be genuine with transferred possession and paid land revenue must be upheld.
Questions settled- Whether findings of the Federal Land Commission regarding land alienations can be based on mere presumptions rather than evidence?
- Are alienations of land made during the specified period under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 valid when supported by adequate consideration and transfer of possession?
- Did the High Court correctly set aside the order of the Federal Land Commission under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION vs Mst. AZIZ BEGUM And Other1985 SCMR 1533 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court, which had set aside an order passed by the Federal Land Commission regarding the validity of certain land gifts. The respondent, Mst. Aziz Begum, had declared gifts of agricultural land made in 1968 under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. While the Land Commissioner initially validated some gifts, the Federal Land Commission, in suo motu revisional jurisdiction, subsequently declared all alienations invalid. The High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, found the Commission's order was based on surmises and conjectures rather than evidence from the revenue record, and remanded the matter for a fresh decision. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly interfered with the Commission's findings. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the Commission's conclusions were not supported by the record. The key principle laid down is that quasi-judicial authorities must base their findings on concrete evidence rather than conjecture, and appellate courts are justified in remanding cases where such findings are legally deficient.
Questions settled- Whether a quasi-judicial authority can base its findings on surmises and conjectures rather than the revenue record?
- Is it appropriate for the High Court to remand a case to the Federal Land Commission when the original order is found to be based on conjecture?
- Does the Federal Land Commission have the authority to declare land alienations invalid without evidence from the revenue record?
- FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION vs Mat. GHULAM SAFIA And 3 Other1985 SCMR 1099 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Federal Land Commission sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that quashed a decision of the Chairman, Federal Land Commission, declaring a gift of land invalid under Martial Law Regulation No.115 due to the alleged minority of the donee and lack of proper acceptance. The core legal question concerned the validity of the gift's acceptance and whether the High Court erred in not remanding the matter for a fresh decision. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's view on the validity of the gift was unexceptionable, noting that minority alone was not decisive of acceptance and the Chairman relied on extraneous considerations while ignoring attending circumstances. Furthermore, given multiple prior inquiries, the High Court was justified in not remanding the case. The key principle laid down is that the question of minority of a donee is not solely decisive of the validity of a gift's acceptance, and courts exercising constitutional jurisdiction may refuse remand where further inquiry is unjustified.
Questions settled- Whether the minority of a donee is solely decisive of the question of validity of acceptance of a gift?
- When can a High Court in constitutional jurisdiction decline to remand a matter back to the authority for a fresh decision?
- Whether a gift of land can be set aside under Martial Law Regulation No.115 on the ground of improper acceptance without considering the conduct and relationship of the parties?
- FAZLE RAZAQ vs JAN SADIQ And Other1985 SCMR 128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court which dismissed his Constitutional petition against concurrent findings ordering his eviction from a property claimed by the respondents as ancestral property. The matter was initially adjudicated through a Jirga and Tribunal under the Provincially Administered Tribal Area Civil Procedure (Special Provision) Regulation, 1975, resulting in a majority verdict for the respondents, which was upheld in appeal and revision. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that evidence was not recorded in accordance with Article 8 of the Regulation, that a plaintiff failed to appear as a witness, and that admissions by certain brothers of a plaintiff were ignored. The Supreme Court held that questions of fact and appraisement of evidence, including procedural objections not raised before the lower forums, cannot be agitated or determined in Constitutional jurisdiction or in leave to appeal proceedings. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and refused leave to appeal, laying down the principle that factual disputes and evidentiary weight fall outside the scope of constitutional review.
Questions settled- Can a question of fact or procedural irregularity regarding the recording of evidence, not raised before the lower forums, be raised for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether the appraisement of evidence by a tribunal or Jirga can be re-examined in proceedings arising out of constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does the law require all plaintiffs to personally appear as witnesses in civil proceedings?
- FAZIL and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2118 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-08Read full judgment →
- FAZALE HAQUE vs MUHAMMAD SAEED1985 CLC 2398 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
- FAZAL vs DILDAR BAKHSH and another1985 CLC 122 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-08Read full judgment →
- FAZAL SHAH And Others vs EJAZ AHMAD USMAN And Other1985 SCMR 873 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The first respondent filed a suit for pre-emption against the petitioners, which was initially dismissed on the ground that the suit-land was not pre-emptable. After successive appeals and a remand, the suit was ultimately decreed in favor of the plaintiff, with the lower appellate court and the Lahore High Court upholding the decision. In the present petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the trial Court was bound to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to the plaintiff's failure to pay the requisite court-fees. The Supreme Court examined the plea and held that the High Court had correctly applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding court-fees and the rejection of plaints. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent findings and the High Court's application of established jurisprudence.
Questions settled- Whether a plaint must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for non-payment of the requisite court-fees?
- Can a second appeal result in the remand of a case to the trial court for decision on merits?
- FAZAL RAHIM vs THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MARDAN AND OTHERS s1985 PLD Supreme Court 290 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the dismissal of a service appeal by the Service Tribunal regarding the compulsory retirement of a police officer. The appellant, an Additional S.H.O., was compulsorily retired after allegedly offering a bribe to his superior officer, the D.S.P. The core legal question was whether the competent authority violated the N.-W.F.P. Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, by failing to properly conduct disciplinary proceedings or provide a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court held that the authority possesses the discretion to determine whether to initiate summary or general police proceedings based on the circumstances, such as the nature of the allegation and the presence of superior officers. The Court found that the authority’s decision to follow general proceedings was justified given the appellant offered a bribe to his superior. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the requirement for a reasonable opportunity to show cause was satisfied by the issuance of a show-cause notice and the subsequent submission of a written explanation by the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the competent authority have the discretion to choose between summary and general police proceedings under the N.-W.F.P. Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975?
- Is the issuance of a show-cause notice and the submission of a written explanation sufficient to satisfy the requirement of a reasonable opportunity to show cause in disciplinary proceedings?
- What factors should guide the competent authority when deciding whether to conduct a formal inquiry or proceed via show-cause notice in police disciplinary matters?
- FAZAL KARIM vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1506(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Fazal Karim, who was accused alongside three others of causing injuries with hockey sticks to a prosecution witness. A criminal case was registered against the accused persons under sections 326, 325, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. While the petitioner's co-accused had been arrested, the petitioner remained at large and had previously been denied pre-arrest bail by the Lahore High Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the circumstances of the case did not warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail. The Court dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioner could seek bail after arrest if so advised. The judgment reinforces the principle that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy not to be granted as a matter of course, particularly where the petitioner has not yet submitted to the jurisdiction of the court by surrendering to arrest.
Questions settled- Is pre-arrest bail appropriate for an accused who has not yet been apprehended?
- Can a petitioner be granted bail before arrest if the High Court has already refused the same relief?
- Does the failure to surrender to arrest preclude the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- FAZAL KARIM vs THE STATE-1985 MLD 730 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-17Read full judgment →
- FAZAL KARIM vs Messrs RAUS TEXTILE AND PRINTING MILLS' LTD.1985 PLC 429 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-10-14Read full judgment →
- FAZAL KARIM And Another vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Other1985 SCMR 903 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against an order of a High Court Single Judge dated 20-1-1975. The petition was filed with a delay of 437 days. The petitioners sought condonation of this delay, arguing that the time spent pursuing an incompetent Letters Patent Appeal before the High Court should be excluded. The core legal question was whether pursuing an incompetent legal remedy constitutes sufficient ground for condoning a significant delay in filing an appeal. The Supreme Court held that the time spent pursuing an incompetent remedy before a Letters Patent Bench does not constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay, as there was no ambiguity regarding the competency of the appeal. Consequently, the petition was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The principle laid down is that the pursuit of a clearly incompetent legal remedy does not justify the condonation of delay under the law of limitation.
Questions settled- Does the time spent pursuing an incompetent Letters Patent Appeal constitute sufficient ground for condoning delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal?
- Can a delay of 437 days be condoned based solely on the erroneous legal advice of counsel?
- FAZAL KARIM alias KARIMA vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2360 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-27Read full judgment →
- FAZAL HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1039 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-02Read full judgment →
- FAZAL HUSSAIN vs SAWAR and 36 others1985 CLC 1157 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-12-20Read full judgment →
- FAZAL HUSSAIN vs GHULAM HUSSAIN And Another1985 SCMR 1210 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an unsuccessful defendant vendee, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 20 June 1979, which dismissed his regular second appeal arising from pre-emption suits filed over a sale of land that took place on 10 August 1972. The trial court had decreed the suits in equal shares in favour of the plaintiffs, and both the first and second appeals had failed. The core legal questions involved whether the denial of evidence amounted to a breach of natural justice, whether the plaints suffered from partial pre-emption, and whether the petitioner possessed a superior right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner's counsel had explicitly stated in the trial court that the present witnesses were not to be examined, no injustice or violation of natural justice occurred. Furthermore, the remaining grounds had been correctly dealt with by the lower courts. The Supreme Court concluded that no question of law requiring further examination arose, and accordingly refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does the closure of evidence amount to a violation of natural justice when a party's counsel voluntarily states that the present witnesses are not to be examined?
- Can a defendant vendee claim a superior right of pre-emption as a grandson of the vendor and owner of land in an adjoining village after concurrent findings against him?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the lower courts have concurrently dismissed a regular second appeal in pre-emption proceedings.
- FAZAL HUSSAIN and others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 658 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
- FAZAL HAQ AND ANOTHERs vs MUHAMMAD LATIF AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 294 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition concerns the scope of Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding disputes over immovable property. The petitioners sought proceedings under Section 145 after being allegedly dispossessed from a factory. The Magistrate initially attached the property but subsequently dismissed the application, finding no likelihood of a breach of the peace. An Additional Sessions Judge reversed this, ordering the restoration of possession. The High Court quashed the appellate order, restoring the Magistrate’s decision. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate retains jurisdiction to adjudicate possession under Section 145(4) after determining that no breach of the peace exists. The Court held that the existence of a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace is a fundamental pre-condition for invoking Section 145. If a Magistrate finds no such breach of the peace exists, they are mandated by Section 145(5) to cancel the preliminary order and stay all proceedings. The section is intended to maintain public peace, not to settle private title or possession rights.
Questions settled- Does a Magistrate have jurisdiction to determine possession under Section 145(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if they find no likelihood of a breach of the peace?
- What is the mandatory course of action for a Magistrate under Section 145(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when no breach of peace exists?
- Is the summary procedure under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 intended to settle private rights of title or possession?
- FAZAL HAMID And Others vs ZARSHAD And Another1985 SCMR 119 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which had cancelled the bail previously granted to four accused persons charged with murder. The deceased, a business partner of the accused, was found dead in a premises belonging to one of the petitioners, Abdur Rashid. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the discretion exercised by the Additional Sessions Judge, who had initially granted bail on the basis that the case rested on circumstantial evidence requiring further inquiry. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court's interference was unjustified regarding the other petitioners, it was correct concerning Abdur Rashid. The Court established the principle that where bail is granted by a lower court based on a reasonable assessment of circumstantial evidence, the High Court should not interfere unless there is obvious misdirection or error. However, the Court distinguished the case of Abdur Rashid, noting that the dead body was recovered from premises under his effective possession and control, thereby justifying the cancellation of his bail.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances should the High Court interfere with an order of bail granted by a lower court in a case based on circumstantial evidence?
- Does the recovery of a dead body from premises under the effective possession and control of an accused justify the cancellation of bail?
- Is it appropriate for the High Court to cancel bail simply because a different view of the evidence is possible?
- FAZAL ELLAHI and 2 others vs THE STATE and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 268 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-14Read full judgment →
- FAZAL DIN vs MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE and 3 others1985 CLC 1509 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-15Read full judgment →
- FAZAL DIN and others vs JIWA and others1985 MLD 314 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-06Read full judgment →
- FAZAL DIN And Another vs GHULAM QADIR And Other1985 SCMR 104 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the abatement of a Regular Second Appeal following the death of one of two joint appellants. The petitioners, claiming ownership of property through a Will and an oral gift, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, which was dismissed by the trial court and the first appellate court. During the pendency of the subsequent Regular Second Appeal in the High Court, one appellant died, and his legal representatives were not brought on record. The High Court held that the appeal abated in its entirety, reasoning that the appellants' interests were indivisible and that proceeding would risk inconsistent decrees. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the correctness of this finding. The core legal question is whether the death of one co-appellant, without substitution of legal heirs, necessitates the total abatement of an appeal involving a joint claim, or if the appeal can proceed on merits. The Court found the petitioners' contentions regarding the divisibility of the transaction and the absence of risk of inconsistent decrees sufficient to warrant further judicial review.
Questions settled- Does the death of one of two joint appellants, without bringing legal representatives on record, cause the entire appeal to abate?
- Is a claim based on a joint gift and Will considered an indivisible interest for the purposes of appeal abatement?
- Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal as having abated in toto if the interests of the appellants are separable?
- FAZAL DAD vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,SARGODHA and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 270 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-10-01Read full judgment →
- GHULAM JILANI and another vs THE STATE1985 MLD 17 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-26Read full judgment →
- FAZAL DAD vs SAGHIR AHMAD and others1985 P Cr. L J 2903 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-25Read full judgment →
- FAZAL DAD And Others vs Mst. ZAINAB BIBI And Other Through L.Rs.1985 SCMR 1196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing their Letters Patent Appeal. The respondents initially filed an eviction petition in the revenue court, which the petitioners resisted by claiming ownership. Consequently, the respondents withdrew the revenue proceedings and instituted a civil suit based on title and denial thereof by the petitioners. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, but the District Judge allowed the petitioners' appeal, holding that the civil court lacked jurisdiction under section 77(3) proviso 1 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. The High Court, in second appeal and subsequently in a Letters Patent Appeal, set aside the District Judge's order and remanded the matter for decision on merits. The Supreme Court held that the initial assumption of jurisdiction is determined by the averments in the plaint, and the antecedent conduct of the defendants justified the civil proceedings. The Supreme Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- What determines the initial assumption of jurisdiction in a suit?
- Does a defendant's denial of title in prior revenue proceedings justify the institution of a civil suit?
- Whether a civil court's jurisdiction is ousted solely by a plea taken in defence by the defendant?
- FAZAL DAD And Others vs ABDUL KARIM And Other1985 SCMR 1858 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a revision application by the Peshawar High Court regarding a suit for possession through pre-emption over agricultural land in District Abbottabad. The core legal question concerns the interpretation and application of section 17(1) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, specifically whether a subsequent transfer by a vendee to a person having an equal or superior right of pre-emption must occur within the limitation period for filing the pre-emption suit to bar the suit, or simply prior to the actual institution of the suit. The Supreme Court held that the High Court misapplied precedent and incorrectly imported limitation considerations into section 17(1); the sole crucial factor under this provision is whether the transfer took place prior to the actual institution of the suit for pre-emption, irrespective of whether it occurred within the limitation period. The Court laid down the principle that the legal embargo under section 17(1) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act is attracted if the transfer to a person with equal or superior pre-emption rights is made before the date of the institution of the suit, and the limitation period for filing the suit is irrelevant to this specific inquiry.
Questions settled- Whether a transfer of property by a vendee to a person having an equal or superior right of pre-emption must be effected within the limitation period for a pre-emption suit to bar the suit under section 17(1) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act?
- Does section 17(1) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act apply when the transfer in favor of a co-sharer takes place prior to the actual institution of the suit for pre-emption?
- What is the relevance of the period of limitation for filing a pre-emption suit when determining the effect of a secondary transfer under section 17(1) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act?
- FAZAL BEGUM And Others vs Sh. IJAZ AHMAD And Other1985 SCMR 1928 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners' predecessors-in-interest filed a civil suit for declaration of joint ownership and permanent injunction regarding certain land against the respondents, alongside an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeking an interim injunction against raising construction. The trial court dismissed the injunction application, but the Additional District Judge subsequently granted it on appeal. The High Court accepted a revision petition, setting aside the appellate order and vacating the stay. Upon a petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan heard the matter and found no ground for interference with the High Court's order. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition while observing that any construction raised by the respondents on the disputed land during the pendency of the suit or subsequent proceedings would be strictly at their own risk and cost. The key principle laid down is that appellate interference with High Court orders in interlocutory injunction matters requires valid legal grounds, and pendency construction remains subject to the final outcome at the litigant's own risk.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court order vacating an interim injunction where no legal ground is made out?
- At whose risk and cost is construction raised during the pendency of a civil suit?
- Can an appellate court's grant of interim injunction be successfully assailed in revision before the High Court?
- FAZAL AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD JAVED And Other1985 SCMR 200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court judgment that acquitted two co-accused and altered the conviction of two others from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The complainant challenged the acquittal and the reduction of sentences, arguing that the same evidence used to convict the two respondents should have been applied to the acquitted co-accused, and that the original murder convictions should be restored. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the evidence, particularly given the accused's judicial confession and the specific circumstances of the crime. The Court held that the High Court's decision was justified, noting that the two convicted respondents had a clear motive and admitted to the killing in their own home, while the large number of injuries indicated a crime committed in a fit of violent rage. The Court affirmed that the acquittal of the co-accused and the modification of the conviction to culpable homicide were appropriate, and consequently dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be altered from murder to culpable homicide when the accused admits to killing the deceased in a fit of rage upon finding them in a compromising position?
- Is the acquittal of co-accused justified when the primary accused confess to the crime and exonerate the co-accused, despite the presence of blood-stained weapons recovered from all parties?
- Does the presence of a large number of injuries on a deceased person support the plea of a crime committed in a fit of violent rage?
- FAZAL AHMAD vs BOARD OF REVENUE and others1985 MLD 376 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-25Read full judgment →
- FAZAL AHMAD vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others1985 CLC 1915 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-26Read full judgment →
- FAYYAZ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 854 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-22Read full judgment →
- FAYYAZ BUTT And Another vs Mst. AZIZ BEGUM1985 SCMR 518 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which ordered the eviction of the tenant petitioners from a residential premises on the ground of default in payment of rent, reversing the concurrent findings of the lower fora. The core legal questions concern whether the institution of an ejectment application can serve as a substitute for the mandatory notice of transfer under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, the admissibility of photostat copies of notices and postal envelopes placed on record, the competency of the Rent Controller to inquire into the validity of a landlord's title upon which the tenancy is based, and the permissibility of interfering with concurrent findings of fact in second appeal without establishing misreading or omission of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the points raised by the petitioners are of a substantial nature requiring consideration and granted leave to appeal, while continuing the stay subject to conditions regarding the deposit of rent and furnishing security. The key principle laid down is that substantial questions regarding statutory notice requirements, evidentiary admissibility, and the scope of inquiry into title by a Rent Controller warrant a full hearing by the appellate court.
Questions settled- Can the institution of an ejectment application substitute for the notice of transfer required under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Is a Rent Controller competent to inquire into the validity of the title of a landlord when the tenant disputes the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the non-existence of a landlord-tenant relationship be interfered with in second appeal without proof of misreading or omission of evidence?
- Are photostat copies of notices and postal envelopes admissible in evidence to prove service of notice under rent restriction laws?
- FAUJI POLYPROPYLENE PRODUCTS vs Khawaja MASROOR AHMED1985 PLC 1080 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-05-31Read full judgment →
- FAUJI FOUNDATION vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others1985 CLC 2728 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
- FAUJI FOUNDATION and others vs YOUSUF1985 CLC 2799 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court ordering the filing of an agreement for arbitration and appointing a sole arbitrator in a dispute arising from four contracts for the sale of cotton. The appellant contended that the application under the Arbitration Act was not maintainable before the High Court at Karachi due to the corporate domicile of the appellant, that the arbitration clause did not cover the dispute, and that a security deposit claim could not be the subject matter of arbitration. The core legal questions involved territorial jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure in relation to corporations, the applicability of specific provisions to the High Court in its original civil jurisdiction, and the scope of matters referable to arbitration. The court held that by virtue of section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure, section 20 does not apply to the High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction, and since part of the cause of action accrued at Karachi, the application was competently filed. The appeal was dismissed with the modification of appointing a new arbitrator due to the demise of the originally appointed arbitrator.
Questions settled- Whether an application under the Arbitration Act against a corporation can be filed in the High Court exercising original civil jurisdiction when part of the cause of action arises within its territorial limits?
- Does section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure exclude the application of section 20 of the Code to the High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction?
- Can a suit or application regarding a breach of contract be filed at a place where the contract was to be performed in whole or in part?
- FAUJI FERTILIZER COMPANY LTD., RAWALPINDI vs MAZHAR ALI KHAN1985 PLC 509 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
- FATEH SHER vs THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, PAKISTAN TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES AND OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 564 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-02-24Read full judgment →
- FATEH SHER vs S.H.O. POLICE STATION,SUKHEKE and 5 others1985 P Cr. L J 151 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-09Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD' vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1966(1) · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD SHAFT1985 SCMR 539 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a review application concerning an urban settlement dispute. The core legal question involved whether the High Court could interfere with the administrative division of a property that had been treated as a single building for transfer purposes, despite previous separate numbering of its component units. The petitioner, a transferee of a substantial portion of the building, challenged the division methodology, arguing for a different site plan interpretation. The Supreme Court examined the relevant documents and the site plan but found no legal error or contravention of established principles in the lower court's decision. The Court held that the division of the property by competent authorities did not warrant interference under the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that courts will not exercise constitutional jurisdiction to re-evaluate factual determinations or administrative divisions of property made by competent authorities absent a clear violation of law or legal principle.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with the administrative division of property under its constitutional jurisdiction in the absence of a violation of law?
- Is a site plan's interpretation sufficient grounds for the Supreme Court to overturn a property division made by competent authorities?
- FATEH MUHAMMAD vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others1985 MLD 1270 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD and others vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM1985 CLC 2846 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-23Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD AND 5 OTHERS vs Mst. NAZIR BEGUM1985 PLD Lahore 85 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-02Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD and 4 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 878 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS vs ABDUL MAJEED AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Lahore 630 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-17Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD alias FATTA vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1071(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-15Read full judgment →
- FATEH KHAN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1017 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-12Read full judgment →
- FATEH KHAN vs Syed AKBAR SHAFTPLD 1985 Rev. 110 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1972-02-14Read full judgment →
- FAROOQUE AHMED vs SHAH NAWAZ1985 SCMR 1303 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Sind, which had set aside an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller against a tenant. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in exercising its discretion to relieve the tenant from the consequences of non-payment of rent, given the landlord's alleged refusal to accept rent due to a prior dispute over amenities. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the tenant had not committed wilful default. The Court held that where a landlord deliberately refuses to accept rent due to ongoing disputes, the tenant's failure to pay is not necessarily wilful default. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere with the discretionary exercise of power by a High Court in rent matters unless it is demonstrated that such discretion was exercised capriciously or on non-judicial principles. Finding no such error, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's discretionary order in a rent matter if the discretion was not exercised capriciously?
- Does a landlord's refusal to accept rent due to a dispute over amenities constitute wilful default by the tenant?
- Is a tenant's application to deposit rent in court relevant in determining whether there was wilful default in payment of rent?
- Farooq International vs Chief Controller Of Imports And Exports And 4 OtherPTCL 1985 (CL.) 353 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- FAROOQ AZAM vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1600 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-25Read full judgment →
- FAROOQ ALI vs BANQU E INDOSUEZ and 3 others1985 CLC 630 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-17Read full judgment →
- FARID RIZVI vs S. T. AOUN ALLAH AND 3 OTHERS1985 PLD Quetta 115 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-04-16Read full judgment →
- FARID MUHAMMAD vs SECRETARY, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CONSERVATION1985 PLC (C.S.) 398 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
- FARID KHAN vs GULZAR KHAN AND 10 OTHERS1985 PLD SC (A J & K) 74 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-12-21Read full judgment →
- FAREED AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1326 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-06Read full judgment →
- FAQIR ULLAH vs DIRECTOR, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT1985 PLC (C.S.) 309 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-05-23Read full judgment →
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2500 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-12Read full judgment →