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.
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs KHIZAR SHAH and 3 others1985 P Cr. L J 2851 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-05Read full judgment →
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD DAHAR and another vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT1985 PLC (C.S.) 482 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1984-08-28Read full judgment →
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD (Represented By Legal Heirs) And Others vs Dr. A.1985 SCMR 87 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the transfer of an urban shop under settlement laws. The respondent, a non-claimant in possession, initially declined the transfer but subsequently applied for it again before the property was auctioned. The auction-purchaser (petitioner) contended that the respondent's initial refusal was irrevocable and that the subsequent order by an Additional Settlement Commissioner to delete the property from the auction list was incompetent and not properly communicated. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent's initial refusal was not irrevocable, particularly as it had not been acted upon before the respondent renewed the application for transfer. The Court affirmed that the respondent, as a non-claimant in possession, was entitled to the transfer of the shop. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the auction of the property, despite the respondent's pending application for transfer, was without lawful authority, and the failure to communicate the deletion order to the field authorities did not prejudice the respondent's rights.
Questions settled- Is a refusal to accept the transfer of an urban property under settlement laws irrevocable?
- Does an auction of property held despite a pending application for transfer by a non-claimant in possession constitute a valid transfer?
- Does the failure to communicate an order for the deletion of property from an auction list to field authorities invalidate the rights of the party in whose favor the order was passed?
- FAQIR MU H A MMA D vs SETTLEMENT AUTHORITIES and others1985 CLC 2949 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-12Read full judgment →
- FAQIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 434 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around the effect and application of the newly amended Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which altered the competency and requirement of an accused person to give evidence on oath in disproof of charges. The Lahore High Court held that the failure of the trial court to provide the accused an opportunity to give evidence on oath pursuant to the amended Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. constituted an incurable illegality vitiating the trial. The Court laid down the principle that under the amended law, an accused is required to be given the opportunity to give evidence on oath, and upon refusal to take oath or answer permissible questions, may render himself liable under Sections 178 and 179 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while allowing the prosecution to comment and the court to draw adverse inferences, ultimately setting aside the conviction and remanding the case for retrial from the stage of the accused's examination.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of a trial court to afford an accused the opportunity to give evidence on oath under the amended Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a curable irregularity?
- Can an accused person be compelled by the Court to give evidence on oath under the amended Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does an accused render himself liable to punishment under Sections 178 and 179 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for refusing to take an oath or answer questions during trial?
- Whether the prosecution can comment on the failure of an accused to give evidence on oath under the amended provisions?
- FAQIR HUSSAIN vs GHULAM ABBAS and 2 others1985 CLC 2015 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-22Read full judgment →
- FAQIR HUSSAIN SHAH And 2 Others vs Mian BASHIR AHMAD And Another1985 SCMR 1377 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the allotment of 7 Marlas of agricultural land between the petitioners and the respondent. The core legal question was whether the respondent's allotment, which was incorporated into the record of rights and held to be valid by the High Court under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, could be challenged by the petitioners on the grounds of being unauthorized and collusive. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, refusing to grant leave to appeal. The Court held that the allotment of the small area in question was permissible as a marginal adjustment under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that given the long-standing nature of the entries in the record of rights and the respondent's indefeasible entitlement under Section 16 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, it was too late to re-examine the validity or alleged collusive nature of those entries. The principle established is that long-standing entries in the record of rights regarding land allotments, once incorporated, are generally immune to belated challenges regarding their initial procedural validity.
Questions settled- Can an allotment of land made under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme be challenged on the grounds of collusion after it has been incorporated into the record of rights for a significant period?
- Does a person have an indefeasible entitlement to land under Section 16 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 once the allotment is finalized in the record of rights?
- Is a marginal adjustment of land permissible under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme?
- FALAK SHER vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1604(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-31Read full judgment →
- FALAK SHER vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MULTAN1985 PLC (C.S.) 51 (1) · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-12-21Read full judgment →
- FAKIR MUHAMMAD and 7 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 530 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-11Read full judgment →
- FAIZUL HASAN SHAIKH vs ANZAR AHMAD S1DDIQUI1985 PLD Karachi 43 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an order by the Rent Controller striking off the appellant-tenant's defense for failure to deposit rent arrears and future monthly rent under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions were whether the Rent Controller could mandate the deposit of future rent without a specific application from the landlord and whether a security deposit held by the landlord should be automatically adjusted against rent arrears. The Court held that under Section 16(1) of the Ordinance, the Rent Controller possesses the independent authority to direct the payment of future monthly rent without requiring a formal application from the landlord. Furthermore, the Court determined that the security deposit was not automatically adjustable against rent arrears, particularly because the tenancy agreement stipulated that the deposit was refundable only upon vacating the premises after accounting for potential damages and charges. As the plea for adjustment was not raised before the Rent Controller and the agreement terms did not support immediate set-off, the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the Rent Controller have the power to order the deposit of future monthly rent without a specific application from the landlord under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Is a security deposit held by a landlord automatically adjustable against rent arrears to prevent the striking off of a tenant's defense?
- Can a tenant claim the adjustment of a security deposit against rent arrears if such a plea was not raised before the Rent Controller?
- FAIZ vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2535 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-18Read full judgment →
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD WASSAN and 2 others vs MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND1985 CLC 2077 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD vs SHAISTA KHAN and another1985 CLC 505 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-10-07Read full judgment →
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD YUSUF And Other1985 SCMR 639 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over evacuee agricultural land initially allotted to a displaced person. A Settlement Commissioner determined that while the allottee held excess land, no fraud or misrepresentation occurred, and suggested the land be sold to the allottee. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner prematurely allotted this excess land to an informant. Following protracted litigation, the Chief Settlement Commissioner eventually permitted the sale of the land to the original allottee's successors under the relevant laws. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, the Chief Settlement Commissioner lacked the statutory competence to authorize such a sale. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was precluded from raising this objection at such a late stage, as previous proceedings had proceeded on the accepted premise that the Chief Settlement Commissioner possessed the requisite statutory authority. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the order facilitating the sale, absent any fraud or misrepresentation by the allottee, was equitable and not subject to interference under writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge the statutory competence of an authority after the issue has been litigated up to the Supreme Court on the accepted premise that the authority was competent?
- Is an order directing the sale of excess land to an allottee, where no fraud or misrepresentation was found, considered an equitable order?
- Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner retain the power to sell excess land to a previous allottee following the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MIANWALI and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 44 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-11-17Read full judgment →
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD MATE vs Syed MUHAMMAD ZAFAR HUSSAIN and 2 others1985 CLC 2352 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2132 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-25Read full judgment →
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD alias ALABU vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2332 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-08Read full judgment →
- FAIZ AHMED and 8 others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER LANDS, HYDERABAD1985 CLC 974 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the orders of the Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad, regarding the valuation of agricultural land allotted to the petitioner in 1959. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the valuation benefits for Banjar-e-Jadid and Banjar-e-Qadeem lands as per a 1957 Correction Slip, and a 10% concession for Chahi lands, despite the subsequent withdrawal of that slip in 1962. The Court held that the petitioner’s rights had vested at the time of the 1959 allotment when the Correction Slip was in force. Consequently, the 1962 notification withdrawing the slip could not be applied retrospectively to divest these accrued rights. The Court declared the impugned orders without lawful authority and remanded the case for re-determination of the petitioner's entitlement. The key principle laid down is that executive notifications constituting subordinate legislation cannot have retrospective effect to deprive individuals of vested rights, and the principle of locus poenitentiae prevents the government from rescinding orders once they have taken legal effect and created rights in favor of an individual.
Questions settled- Can an executive notification or subordinate legislation be given retrospective effect to deprive individuals of vested rights?
- Does the principle of locus poenitentiae allow the government to withdraw an order after it has taken legal effect and created rights?
- Is a claimant entitled to the benefit of a correction slip regarding land valuation if the allotment was made while the slip was in force?
- FAIZ AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 MLD 717 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
- FAIZ AHMAD vs Mst. AMIRAN BIBI And Other1985 SCMR 1370 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by an unsuccessful defendant claiming to be a prior vendee of a tenanted land against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding a decree for specific performance of contract in favor of subsequent vendees. The core legal question revolves around whether an oral sale reported to a Patwari prior in time, but whose attestation was delayed and initially repudiated by the vendor, takes precedence over a subsequent registered agreement to sell. The Supreme Court held that unless the sale itself is admitted by the vendor and completed before the Revenue Officer at the relevant time, incidental steps such as entries made by the Patwari or payment of District Council fees cannot substitute for a completed sale. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts and the High Court that the subsequent registered agreement to sell prevails over an incomplete prior transaction, and accordingly refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does an oral sale reported to a Patwari take precedence over a subsequent registered agreement to sell when the vendor initially repudiates the oral sale before the Revenue Officer?
- Can the payment of District Council fees and Patwari entries act as a substitute for a completed sale when the vendor denies the transaction?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the completion date of a sale are unassailable when based on proper evidence.
- FAISAL PATEL vs Messrs HAROON YOUSUF AND BROTHERS1985 PLC 416 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-10-20Read full judgment →
- FAHIM DAD KHAN And Others vs Mst. ZUBEDA BEGUM And Other1985 SCMR 1345 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for review of this Court's order dismissing a civil petition for special leave to appeal, which arose from an evacuee property dispute concerning the division of a house in Sialkot. The core legal question was whether a Letters Patent Appeal that had abated by operation of law prior to the promulgation of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, and whose abatement was set aside in 1980, could be treated as a pending appeal saved under the said Ordinance, or whether the High Court suffered from an inherent lack of jurisdiction in deciding it on merits. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the contentions raised were substantially the same as those urged and repelled during the hearing of the original leave petition, and that no sufficient ground for review was made out. The key principle laid down is that a review petition cannot be used to re-argue points already considered and rejected unless a glaring omission or valid ground is established.
Questions settled- Whether a Letters Patent Appeal that abated by operation of law and whose abatement was subsequently set aside can be deemed a pending appeal saved under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
- Does a review petition lie when the grounds urged in support thereof are substantially the same as those already considered and repelled by the court during the initial hearing?
- Whether an order passed by a Division Bench setting aside an appeal's abatement and deciding it on merits suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction if the appeal was not pending upon the promulgation of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
- FA1ZUL HASSAN vs DISTRICT JUDGE, JHANG AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 813 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
- FA Z AL vs MUHAMMAD ZAMAN1985 CLC 500 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-14Read full judgment →
- F.K. ABBASI vs M.I. MA LI K1985 CLC 1603 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Revision Application challenges the dismissal of a Distress Warrant Application filed under the Provincial Small Causes Court Act for the recovery of rent. The core legal question was whether an owner of property acquired by the government loses title upon the announcement of an acquisition award or only upon the actual taking of possession. The trial court had dismissed the claim, erroneously holding that the award alone divested the applicant of ownership. The High Court, relying on Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and established precedents, held that title to acquired property does not pass to the government merely upon the making of an award. Instead, ownership and the right to collect rent continue until the government takes actual possession of the land. Consequently, the court found the applicant remained the rightful owner during the disputed period and was entitled to the rent. The principle established is that the vesting of property in the government under the Land Acquisition Act is deferred until the physical possession is taken by the competent authority.
Questions settled- Does title to property acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 pass to the government upon the announcement of an award?
- At what stage does property acquired by the government vest absolutely in the state under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Is an owner of property entitled to recover rent for the period between the acquisition award and the actual taking of possession by the government?
- F A Z ALUDDIN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SIND, KARACHI and 3 others1985 CLC 2060 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-19Read full judgment →
- F A Z AL K ARIM vs MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE and others1985 CLC 64 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-17Read full judgment →
- EXXON CHEMICAL PAKISTAN Ltd. vs THE PROVINCE OF SIND through its1985 MLD 482 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-13Read full judgment →
- EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KOTRI BARRAGE DIVISION vs ISSO and 41 others1985 PLC 5 · Labour Court · 1984-10-07Read full judgment →
- EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HIGHWAYS DIVISION, LAHORE vs MAQBOOL HUSSAIN1985 PLC 519 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-02-16Read full judgment →
- EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY, WAPDA, SHALAMAR, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD ARSHAD1985 SCMR 118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Executive Engineer, WAPDA, against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal reinstating an Assistant Linesman who had been removed from service for alleged unauthorized absence. The core legal question was whether a grievance notice filed under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, could be treated as equivalent to the departmental appeal required under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, to satisfy the condition of exhausting departmental remedies. The Supreme Court declined to adjudicate this specific legal question in the present case. The Court held that because the department failed to challenge the Tribunal's factual findings—specifically that the department had utterly failed to prove the alleged absence and that the removal order was arbitrary and irresponsible—the petition did not warrant interference. The decision emphasizes that where an order of removal is passed without evidence or inquiry, amounting to condemning an employee unheard, the Court will not interfere with reinstatement orders, regardless of procedural technicalities regarding departmental remedies.
Questions settled- Can a grievance notice under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 be treated as equivalent to a departmental appeal under the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- Is an order of removal from service sustainable when the employer fails to substantiate the charge of absence through evidence or inquiry?
- EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD, LAHORE vs RIAZ AHMAD And Another1985 SCMR 1376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which set aside the dismissal of the respondent ordered by the Evacuee Trust Property Board under the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978. The Tribunal interfered with the dismissal on the basis that the Board failed to produce evidence proving the respondent's appointment was made on political considerations. The petitioner challenges this decision, arguing that the Tribunal erred by importing jurisdictional limitations not present in the governing statute. The core legal question is whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by interpreting the law to require evidence of political motivation when the statute itself did not provide for such a ground for action. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that this issue of statutory interpretation is a matter of public importance, particularly given its relevance to similar cases under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Court ordered the appeal to be heard alongside other matters raising similar questions of law.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Service Tribunal exceed its jurisdiction by requiring evidence of political considerations for a dismissal under the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978, when the statute does not explicitly provide for such a ground?
- Is the interpretation of statutory grounds for dismissal under the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978, a question of public importance justifying leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
- EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF1985 SCMR 476 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that affirmed concurrent findings of fact by a Settlement Commissioner regarding the status of a disputed property. The petitioner, the Evacuee Trust Property Board, contended that the property should be classified as Evacuee Trust Property because it was used as a 'Janj Ghar' and sought to introduce additional evidence at the appellate stage. The Supreme Court examined whether the use of a property as a 'Janj Ghar' inherently transforms it into Trust property and whether the denial of additional evidence was legally flawed. The Court held that concurrent findings of fact were free from legal defect and that the mere use of a property as a 'Janj Ghar' does not establish it as Trust property, distinguishing it from the term 'Dharam Sala'. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to present evidence, and the proposed additional evidence would not have altered the factual findings. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the use of a property as a 'Janj Ghar' automatically classify it as Evacuee Trust Property?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower forums be disturbed in the absence of a legal defect?
- Is the refusal to admit additional evidence at the appellate stage justified when the party had sufficient opportunity to present it earlier?
- ESMAIL JAMAL AND COMPANY vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN and 3 others1985 CLC 857 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-29Read full judgment →
- EMMANUAL MASIH vs THE PUNJAB LOCAL COUNCILS ELECTION AUTHORITY1985 SCMR 729 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute concerning the rejection of the appellant's nomination paper for a non-Muslim seat in a municipal committee election on the ground that he was under twenty-five years of age, contrary to his age as recorded in the electoral roll. The core legal question was whether a Returning Officer or the Election Authority could go behind the entry of age in the electoral roll and conduct an independent inquiry to determine the correct age of a candidate during the scrutiny of nomination papers, given the prohibition contained in the proviso to rule 15(3) of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979. The majority of the Court held that the Returning Officer is mandated not to inquire into the correctness or validity of any entry in the electoral roll regarding a candidate's age during scrutiny. The Court ruled that the Returning Officer and the Election Authority must accept the electoral roll entry as correct, thereby setting aside the contrary view and holding that pre-election challenges to candidate qualifications based on going behind electoral roll entries are impermissible.
Questions settled- Whether a Returning Officer can inquire into the correctness or validity of an entry relating to a candidate's age in the electoral roll during the scrutiny of nomination papers?
- Does the Election Authority possess the power under section 17(1) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, to go behind an electoral roll entry regarding a candidate's age during the pre-election stage?
- What is the extent of finality attached to entries in the electoral roll concerning the qualifications of a candidate for local council elections?
- ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, GOVERNMENT OF SIND vs NAWAB KHAN and another1985 PLC 373 · Labour Court · 1985-01-02Read full judgment →
- ELAHI BUX AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD HASHIM AND OTHERSPLD 1985 Rev. 123 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1971-09-13Read full judgment →
- EJAZ SHAH vs THE STATE1985 MLD 48 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-12Read full judgment →
- EJAZ HUSSAIN MALIK vs HABIB BANK LTD.1985 PLC 650 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-10-15Read full judgment →
- EJAZ HUSSAIN HASHMI vs HABIB BANK LTD., KARACHI and another1985 PLC 496 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
- EJAZ AHMAD Alias JAJA And Another vs The STATE1985 SCMR 780 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a murder and attempted murder trial where the appellants, Ejaz Ahmad and Iftikhar Ahmad, were convicted under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving death and life imprisonment sentences respectively, which were upheld by the Lahore High Court. Upon leave being granted by the Supreme Court, the primary question considered was the effect of a compromise reached between the parties. The Supreme Court accepted the compromise submitted by the complainant party, including the deceased's father and widow, who forgave the appellants in the interest of peace and better family relations. Holding that the compromise serves as a mitigating circumstance warranting leniency, the Court maintained Ejaz Ahmad's conviction for murder but reduced his sentence from death to imprisonment for life, granting him the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, while dismissing the appeal of Iftikhar Ahmad as his life imprisonment sentence was already the lesser penalty.
Questions settled- Can a compromise between the parties serve as a mitigating circumstance to reduce a sentence of death to imprisonment for life in a murder case?
- Whether the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be extended to a convict whose death sentence is commuted to imprisonment for life upon a compromise?
- Is a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 maintainable when established by the account of eye-witnesses and a dying declaration?
- EID WALI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 987 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-03-27Read full judgment →
- EHZAR ALI ARHTI vs MUHAMMAD YAQOOB KHAN And Other1985 SCMR 962 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment order against a tenant regarding a shop in Khokha Bazar, Kallur Kot. The petitioner challenged the eviction order, disputing the respondent's title as landlord and denying the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The Rent Controller and the District Judge had previously affirmed the eviction, and the Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing to re-examine the factual findings regarding property identity and the landlord-tenant relationship under its constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller had the jurisdiction to determine these factual questions and that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the findings of fact. The Court ruled that the High Court correctly declined to interfere with these factual determinations. The principle laid down is that where a Rent Controller has properly appraised evidence to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant, such findings of fact are not subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction, though the party may seek civil adjudication regarding title disputes.
Questions settled- Can a High Court interfere with findings of fact regarding the landlord-tenant relationship in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does a Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to determine the identity of property and the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship?
- Is a party permitted to seek civil adjudication of title rights after an adverse finding in rent proceedings?
- EHSANULLAH KHAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1125 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-09Read full judgment →
- EBRAHIM BROTHERS LTD. vs WEALTH TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE III, KARACHI AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Karachi 407 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of three constitutional petitions filed by a private limited company impugning the levy of wealth tax on its building comprising go-downs and offices located at West Wharf, Karachi. The core legal questions involved the retrospective effect of an amendment to the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 based on a printing error in the official Gazette, whether a company's immovable property held for letting out falls within the definition of 'assets' under section 2(e)(ii) of the Act, whether the occupants were tenants or licensees, and how the term 'letting out' should be construed. The court held that a printing mistake in the official Gazette regarding the date of an amending Ordinance does not nullify the original text signed by the President, that the phrases 'construction and sale' and 'letting out' in section 2(e)(ii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 must be read disjunctively, that exclusive possession establishes a tenancy rather than a licence, and that charging sections of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979 cannot be imported to define terms undefined in the Wealth Tax Act. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a printing mistake in the official Gazette regarding the enforcement date of an amending Ordinance nullify the original text signed by the President?
- Should the expressions 'construction and sale' and 'letting out' in section 2(e)(ii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 be read conjunctively or disjunctively?
- What is the criterion to determine whether an occupant of a property is a tenant or a licensee?
- Can the concept of 'letting out' provided in section 19 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979 be pressed into service to interpret the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 when the term is undefined?
- E. O. B. I. EMPLOYEES FEDERATION vs MESSRS EMPLOYEES OLD-AGE BENEFITS1985 PLC 891 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1985-07-02Read full judgment →
- DULLA and 4 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2394 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-30Read full judgment →
- Drilco Ltd. vs Central Board Of Revenue And OtherPTCL 1985 (CL.) 163 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-06Read full judgment →
- Dr.P.N . SETH vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Other1985 SCMR 914 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the application of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965, to Kaycee Industries Limited. The core legal questions involve determining whether the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965, could be applied to the company without first establishing the nature of the enemy interest therein, and whether such application remained valid following a prior High Court decision dated 5-7-1972. Additionally, the Court is tasked with examining the legal effect of the petitioner's continued possession of the disputed property after a 'sale resolution' was passed by the company, specifically in relation to Section 55-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Finally, the Court must decide whether the Government was empowered to recall a reference to arbitration while a stay order from a pending writ petition was in effect. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address these significant questions of law and procedure, requiring the petitioner to furnish security for costs.
Questions settled- Can the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965 be applied to a company without first determining the nature of the enemy interest in that company?
- What is the legal effect of continued possession of property after a sale resolution is passed, under Section 55-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
- Can the Government recall a reference to arbitration while a stay order from a writ petition is in effect?
- Dr. ZAFAR IQBAL vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, OKARA and others1985 CLC 2893 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-25Read full judgment →
- DR. Syed SAJJAD HAIDER vs PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION1985 PLC (C.S.) 1005 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-04Read full judgment →
- DR. SAEED ASGHAR vs CHIEF SECRETARY, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C.S.) 954 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-04-03Read full judgment →
- Dr. RIAZUDDIN AHMAD vs MAHBOOB ILLAHI1985 SCMR 522 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an ejectment proceeding initiated by the landlord-petitioner against the respondent-tenant for the eviction of a shop on the ground of personal good faith requirement for his younger son to run a chemist shop. The core legal question concerns whether the bona fides of a landlord's current personal requirement claim are adversely affected by the compromise or withdrawal of an earlier eviction application regarding a different property. The Supreme Court held that while the mere fact that a landlord was unsuccessful or compromised an earlier eviction application does not automatically negate good faith, the burden rests heavily on the landlord to satisfactorily explain the circumstances of such past withdrawal or compromise when it falls within their exclusive knowledge. The Court laid down the principle that the assessment of a landlord's good faith depends on the facts and circumstances of each individual case, and a failure to provide a cogent explanation for the compromise of prior litigation leaves the concurrent findings of lower appellate courts undisturbed.
Questions settled- Does the compromise or withdrawal of an earlier eviction application automatically negate the good faith of a landlord in a subsequent ejectment application?
- Where a landlord files a personal requirement eviction application after previously compromising an earlier one, upon whom does the burden lie to explain the circumstances of the prior compromise?
- Can a landlord seek possession of more than one shop for the use of multiple sons under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- DR. MUNIR-UD-DIN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB HEALTH1985 PLC (C.S.) 599 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-01-08Read full judgment →
- Dr. MUHAMMD IQBAL vs . THE DIRECTOR, CANTONMENT, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, RAWALPINDI and others1985 MLD 1207 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Dr. MUHAMMAD YUSUF vs Mst. ZAKIA BIBI And Other1985 SCMR 1390 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a husband against the dismissal of his review application by the Lahore High Court concerning an order of maintenance. The Chairman, Arbitration Council initially ordered maintenance payments against the petitioner. A revision filed before the Collector was dismissed as time-barred. A subsequent constitutional petition and a later review petition before the High Court were also dismissed in limine. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of the belated revision before the Collector and whether the High Court erred in refusing review jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the petition for leave to appeal was itself barred by seventy-six days without an application for condonation of delay, and that the petitioner failed to establish any error apparent on the record or grounds necessary for review. The Supreme Court dismissed the leave to appeal, affirming that review jurisdiction is not a substitute for appellate jurisdiction and that factual determinations regarding limitation cannot be raised for the first time without proper foundation.
Questions settled- Whether review jurisdiction can be used as a substitute for appellate jurisdiction?
- Can a question of limitation involving factual determination be raised for the first time without prior adjudication below?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when it is barred by time and lacks an application for condonation of delay?
- DR. MUHAMMAD KHAN BABAR vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB,HEALTH DEPARTMENT LAHORE1985 PLC (C.S.) 648 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Dr. MUHAMMAD AMIN vs ABU ZAHID1985 MLD 1183 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-27Read full judgment →
- DR. MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE, MIRPUR DEVELOPMENT1985 PLD SC (A J & K) 113 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Dr. M. SULEMAN vs IBRAHIM1985 CLC 2103 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-16Read full judgment →
- DR. KHALID SAIFULLAH KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs MALIK KHIZAR HAYAT AND 41985 PLD Lahore 601 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-23Read full judgment →
- Dr. GHULAM AHMAD vs Moghul ABDUL SHAKOOR through his Legal Heirs1985 MLD 335 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-27Read full judgment →
- DR. CAPT. MUNA WAR TAHIR HUSSAIN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER,1985 PLC (C.S.) 978 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Dr. BULAND IQBAL vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2845 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
- DR. BASHIR AHMED vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, HEALTH1985 PLC (C.S.) 928 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1985-04-24Read full judgment →
- Dr. B.M. ANKELSARIA vs AZIMUDDIN NAJMI1985 SCMR 1901 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-01Read full judgment →
- Dr. ABDUL SHAKOOR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2477 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-25Read full judgment →
- Dr. ABDUL GHANI vs Dr. MUHAMMAD YOUNUS and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 593 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-03Read full judgment →
- Dr . MU H A MMA D RAFIQ vs MUHAMMAD RAUF and 4 others1985 CLC 471 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-10-13Read full judgment →
- DOST MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1592 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-29Read full judgment →
- DOST MUHAMMAD vs Mst. MAQSOODAN BIBI AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Lahore 340 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-15Read full judgment →
- DOST MUHAMMAD vs Messrs NATIONAL CONTAINERS LTD.1985 PLC 471 · Labour Court · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
- DOST MUHAMMAD vs MESSRS NATIONAL CONTAINERS LTD., KARACHI1985 PLC 991 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-05-06Read full judgment →
- DOST MUHAMMAD and others vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1985 CLC 2718 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-16Read full judgment →
- DOST ALI SHAH vs PAKISTAN TOBACCO Co. Ltd.1985 PLC 389 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-16Read full judgment →
- DOST ALI alias ALI DOST vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1769 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-27Read full judgment →
- DOSA and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2021 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-22Read full judgment →
- DORAN KHAN vs THE STATE1985 PLD Quetta 188 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, by an Additional Sessions Judge, Quetta, following an initial charge under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions were whether the Sessions Judge possessed jurisdiction to convict the appellant for an offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, given the applicability of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968, in the area, and determining the appropriate appellate forum. The Court held that the Sessions Judge lacked jurisdiction, as the offence was a scheduled offence exclusively triable by a tribunal under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968. Consequently, the conviction was declared void, and the matter was referred to the Deputy Commissioner for de novo proceedings. The judgment establishes that a Sessions Court lacks original jurisdiction over offences not assigned to it by law and must stay proceedings upon identifying a scheduled offence under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968. Additionally, appellate jurisdiction is determined by the law under which the conviction is actually recorded, not the initial charge.
Questions settled- Does a Sessions Judge have the jurisdiction to convict an accused under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the offence is a scheduled offence under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968?
- Is a conviction void if the trial court lacks jurisdiction over the specific offence for which the accused was convicted?
- Does an appeal lie to the Federal Shariat Court or the High Court when an accused is charged under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, but convicted under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- What is the duty of a court when it discovers that an offence before it is a scheduled offence under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968?
- DIWAN KEVALRAM vs NOOR MUHAMMAD And Another1985 SCMR 2042 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning property originally declared as non-evacuee property belonging to the petitioner, which was subsequently alleged to be encroached upon and transferred under rehabilitation laws. The petitioner filed a civil suit for possession and mesne profits against the trespasser and a subsequent allottee whose transfer documents were later cancelled. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit in the petitioner's favour. However, the High Court partly allowed the second appeal filed by the defendants, holding that one of the respondents was in possession of a part of the property and the lower courts' decrees were not binding on her. The core legal question involves the scope of challenge available in a second appeal when certain issues were conceded in the first appellate court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding the limitations of challenging findings in second appeal merit consideration.
Questions settled- Whether respondents who conceded issues before the first appellate court can challenge those findings in a second appeal?
- Can a civil suit for possession and mesne profits be maintained against a person who claims through a cancelled transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- DIWAN And Others vs MUHAMMAD YUNIS1985 SCMR 1280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petitions concerning a land settlement dispute. The core legal question involved the competing entitlement of sitting allottees—specifically, big landlords versus small claim holders—to a small parcel of available land in a village. The Supreme Court held that where all competing parties are sitting allottees in the village, and the disputed land is of a small size only capable of satisfying small claims, the refusal of the High Court to interfere in its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction against a non-arbitrary order passed with jurisdiction does not warrant interference by the apex court. The key principle laid down is that discretionary constitutional jurisdiction will not be exercised to interfere with an order passed by a competent authority having jurisdiction, especially where the impugned decision is neither arbitrary nor in contravention of mandatory legal provisions.
Questions settled- Whether erroneous decisions passed by an authority having jurisdiction are liable to challenge in writ jurisdiction?
- Does a sitting allottee with a large number of unsatisfied units have a preferential right over small claim holders for a small piece of disputed land?
- Is the Supreme Court bound to interfere with the refusal of a High Court to grant relief in its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction under the circumstances?
- DIVISIONAL SUPERRINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, QUETTA And Another vs Syed ZAFAR YAR ALI And Another1985 SCMR 1982 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from civil appeals filed by the Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Quetta, challenging a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which upheld the orders of the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal granting the respondent railway employees the difference in traveling allowance rates for performing duties in Iranian territory on the Mirjawa-Zahidan section between April 1965 and January 1968. The core legal question was whether the respondents, as running staff governed by rules 221 and 509 of the Pakistan Railways Establishment Code, Volume I, were entitled to higher traveling allowance rates under a Ministry of Finance Office Memorandum of 1959, and whether those administrative letters were inconsistent with the statutory rules. The Supreme Court held that there is no inconsistency between the statutory rules and the administrative instructions, as they address different situations, and therefore the rules do not bar the respondents from receiving the higher allowance. The appeals were consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether railway running staff performing duties outside their normal beats in foreign territory are entitled to traveling allowance at higher rates prescribed for visiting that region?
- Do rules 221 and 509 of the Pakistan Railways Establishment Code, Volume I, debar railway servants from claiming benefits admissible under the Ministry of Finance Office Memorandum of 1959?
- Whether administrative instructions regarding traveling allowances are inconsistent with the statutory provisions of the Pakistan Railways Establishment Code?
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD MURAD AND ANOTHER , ,1985 PLC 973 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-05-29Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI vs LIAQ-UZ-1985 PLC 44 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI vs IFTIKHAR1985 PLC 185 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI vs GHULAM1985 PLC 186 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI DIVISION, RAWALPINDI vs KHAN MUHAMMAD CHAUHAN and another1985 PLC 224 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN vs NASIR BAKHSH1985 PLC 173 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-17Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN vs MUHAMMAD1985 PLC 19 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN vs MUHAMMAD1985 PLC 638 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN vs FAQIR1985 PLC 578 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN vs ANWARUL HAQ1985 PLC 81 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN vs AHMAD HASAN1985 PLC 205 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN vs ABDUL MAJID1985 PLC 647 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN vs ABDUL AZIZ1985 PLC 131 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-17Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD1985 PLC 136 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD1985 PLC 776 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs MAQSOOD1985 PLC 609 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-16Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs EJAZ HUSSAIN , .1985 PLC 602 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-10-29Read full judgment →