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.
- Capt. I.T. MUKADAM vs M.V.F. HAMOOR1985 MLD 439 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-07Read full judgment →
- Capt. Dr. NABI AHMAD vs THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, MILITARY1985 SCMR 1649 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Medical Officer in the Cantonment General Hospital, challenged his removal from service for misconduct arising from his acceptance of part-time employment as an Assistant Surgeon with the Railway Department without the prior sanction of the Director, Military Lands and Cantonments. The petitioner contended that such employment fell within the permitted scope of private practice and that the disciplinary action was motivated by mala fides. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's dismissal of the constitutional petition, holding that a distinction exists between undertaking private practice—where the practitioner remains master of his own time—and entering into an employment contract under the control and supervision of another employer, which is prohibited under Rule 24 of the Pakistan Cantonments Servants Rules, 1954 without prior sanction. The Court further ruled that allegations of mala fides against public functionaries must be based on specific, conclusive facts and cannot be inferred merely from administrative reversals on appeal. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does taking up part-time employment with another department constitute prohibited employment under Rule 24 of the Pakistan Cantonments Servants Rules, 1954, or is it permissible as private practice?
- What are the essential ingredients of the concept of 'employment' in the context of service rules?
- Are general allegations of personal animus or administrative reversals sufficient to establish mala fides against a public functionary?
- Does a Cantonment servant violate service discipline by subjecting himself to the control and supervision of another employer without the prior sanction of the Director?
- Capt. AZMAT HAYAT KHAN And Others vs YOUSAF MASIH And Other1985 SCMR 1503(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that accepted a constitutional writ petition filed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha. The Chief Settlement Commissioner had dismissed a revision petition filed under Section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 challenging an allotment made in 1960 on the ground that it was not maintainable. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court properly exercised its jurisdiction in declaring the Chief Settlement Commissioner's order without lawful authority without adverting to the preliminary finding regarding the non-maintainability of the revision petition. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this issue, directed security to be deposited, and ordered the maintenance of status quo during the pendency of the appeal. The judgment highlights that the High Court must consider key procedural findings made by lower forums when reviewing their decisions in writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court properly exercises its jurisdiction when declaring an order without lawful authority without considering the lower forum's finding that the underlying proceedings were not maintainable?
- CANNO N PRODUCTS LTD. vs INCOMETAX OFFICER, COMPANIES CIRCLE,1985 PLD Karachi 572 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This common judgment disposes of six writ petitions involving the interpretation and application of the Self-Assessment Scheme for income tax for the year 1983-84, contained in Circular Nos. 8, 11, and 14 of 1983 issued by the Central Board of Revenue under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions revolved around the maintainability of constitutional petitions in tax matters, whether comparisons of income under the scheme should be made before or after depreciation and super-tax adjustments, the admissibility of revised returns under the scheme, whether assessed income or declared income of preceding years forms the basis for comparison, the status of taxpayers not assessed for over four years, the treatment of losses, and whether paragraph 6 of Circular No. 14 of 1983 granting arbitrary power to the Board to select individual cases for scrutiny is ultra vires. The court held that while High Courts will not interfere with factual determinations of tax authorities, they can intervene when actions are without jurisdiction or contrary to the scheme. The court decided several procedural and substantive issues regarding income comparisons and revised returns, and ultimately held that paragraph 6 of Circular No. 14 of 1983, purporting to empower the Board to select individual cases for detailed scrutiny without conditions, is ultra vires the powers of the Board.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can entertain a constitutional petition against actions of tax authorities that are beyond the purview of the Self-Assessment Scheme?
- Whether the figure of income for comparison under the Self-Assessment Scheme should be taken before or after the adjustment of depreciation and super-tax?
- Whether an assessee is entitled to file a revised return under section 57 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 for availing of the Self-Assessment Scheme before the assessment is made?
- Whether for the purpose of comparing income under the Self-Assessment Scheme, the assessed income of preceding years is to be taken as the basis or the declared income?
- Whether paragraph 6 of Circular No. 14 of 1983 empowering the Central Board of Revenue to select individual cases for detailed scrutiny is ultra vires of its powers?
- CANNO N PRODUCTS LTD. vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, COMPANIES CIRCLE,1985 PTD 549 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This common judgment disposes of six constitutional petitions involving the interpretation and application of the Self-Assessment Scheme for the assessment year 1983-84, contained in Circulars Nos. 8, 11, and 14 of 1983 issued by the Central Board of Revenue under the Income Tax Ordinance. The core legal questions relate to the maintainability of writ petitions against tax authorities, whether income comparisons under the scheme should be made before or after depreciation and super-tax adjustments, the admissibility of revised returns prior to assessment or scrutiny, whether assessed income or declared income from preceding years forms the proper baseline for comparison, the treatment of assessed losses, and whether paragraph 6 of Circular No. 14 of 1983—empowering the Board to select individual cases for scrutiny arbitrarily—is ultra vires. The Sindh High Court held that while the High Court will not interfere with factual determinations of tribunals in writ jurisdiction, it may intervene if an action is without jurisdiction or contrary to law. The court held that income comparisons are to be made before depreciation adjustments, that a revised return can be validly filed under section 57 before assessment, that assessed taxable income (not declared income) forms the comparative baseline, that assessed losses count as income under section 2(24), and that paragraph 6 of Circular No. 14 of 1983 is ultra vires the powers of the Board as it permits arbitrary selection of individual cases. Three petitions were dismissed and three were allowed accordingly.
Questions settled- Whether the figure of income for the Self-Assessment Scheme should be calculated before or after the adjustment of depreciation and super-tax?
- Can an assessee file a revised return under section 57 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 to avail of the Self-Assessment Scheme before an assessment order is passed?
- Whether the assessed income or the declared income of preceding years should be taken as the basis for comparison under the Self-Assessment Scheme?
- Whether paragraph 6 of Circular No. 14 of 1983, empowering the Central Board of Revenue to select individual cases for detailed scrutiny, is ultra vires its powers?
- Whether an assessed loss can be taken into consideration as income for the purpose of comparing income under the Self-Assessment Scheme?
- Cannon Products Limited, Karachi And Two Other vs Income Tax Officer, Companies Circle-A-8 Central Zone-A, Karachi And OtherPTCL 1985 (CL.) 178 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-20Read full judgment →
- CALTEX OIL (PAKISTAN) LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL), KARACHI , . (1985 PTD 659 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-13Read full judgment →
- CALMIC Ltd. and another vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS and another1985 CLC 2063 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-08Read full judgment →
- BURHANUDDIN SHAIKH and 9 others vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and 581985 CLC 2003 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court challenging the promotions of respondents from Grade III to Senior Vice-President made by the National Bank of Pakistan, on the grounds that they were made in violation of the National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules and Government promotion policy, and in contravention of Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal questions involved the statutory nature of the National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules and whether employees could claim promotions as a matter of right based on seniority and qualifications. The Court held that the rules framed under the bye-laws of the National Bank of Pakistan Ordinance 1949 have the force of law, giving the bank's employees a statutory status, and that promotions to selection posts must be based on merit rather than seniority alone. The Court concluded that the petitioners failed to establish that the promotions were arbitrary or actuated by collateral considerations, and consequently dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether the service rules framed under the bye-laws of the National Bank of Pakistan Ordinance have the force of law?
- Can bank employees of a statutory body invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court regarding terms and conditions of service?
- Whether promotion to higher grades can be claimed as a matter of right based on seniority alone?
- Are selection posts subject to considerations of merit and suitability rather than length of service?
- BUNYAD AHMED KHAN vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, MIRPURKHAS1985 MLD 276 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-25Read full judgment →
- BUNDU SHAH And Others vs WILAYATULLAH1985 SCMR 1305 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against an order dismissing applications for the rehearing of appeals decided ex parte. The core legal question was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to applications for the rehearing of an appeal under Order XLI, Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether notice via a cause list constitutes due notice regarding limitation. The Supreme Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 is inapplicable to applications under Order XLI, Rule 21, as no legislative enactment extends its scope to such proceedings. Furthermore, the Court rejected the contention that appellate proceedings are a mere continuation of the suit to allow the importation of original-side procedures. The Court affirmed that publication in the official cause list constitutes due notice to parties. The key principle laid down is that procedural provisions regarding the condonation of delay are strictly construed and cannot be applied by implication or analogy to proceedings not explicitly covered by the governing statute. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to an application for the rehearing of an appeal heard ex parte under Order XLI, Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does publication of a hearing date in the court's cause list constitute due notice to the parties for the purposes of limitation?
- Can the provisions for setting aside ex parte decrees in original suits be applied to appellate proceedings by analogy?
- BUNDU KHAN vs ABDUL MAJEED1985 CLC 2435 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-25Read full judgment →
- BULANDA vs MUNSHI And 5 Other1985 SCMR 872 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-08-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the allotment of 256 Kanals 3 Marlas of land in village Khola, Tehsil and District Mianwali, between two parties who were both sitting allottees with unsatisfied claims. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner initially allotted the entire land to the respondents, citing the petitioner's failure to file an objection. Upon appeal, the appellate authority ordered a proportionate distribution of the land between the parties, recognizing their equal status as sitting allottees. However, a revisional authority subsequently overturned this decision, reinstating the original allotment solely because the petitioner had failed to object during the initial proceedings. The High Court declined to interfere with this revisional order. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, identifying a core legal question regarding whether the revisional authority was justified in setting aside the appellate order based solely on the lack of an objection, particularly when the petitioner alleged the initial proceedings occurred without proper notice. The Court further questioned whether the High Court erred in refusing to exercise its writ jurisdiction in these circumstances.
Questions settled- Is a revisional authority justified in setting aside an appellate order solely on the ground that no objection was raised during initial proceedings, despite allegations of lack of notice?
- Does the High Court have a duty to interfere in a revisional order that ignores the equal status of sitting allottees in land distribution?
- Can an allotment order be sustained if the proceedings before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner were conducted without notice to the affected party?
- BUKHTAWAR GUL And Another vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1460 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-05-11Read full judgment →
- BUDHO through Legal Representatives vs KARIM BUX and 5 others1985 CLC 1037 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal, converted into a civil revision, concerned a claim of pre-emption over agricultural land. The core legal questions were whether the plaintiff had waived his right of pre-emption through conduct and whether the mandatory legal demands (Talab-e-Mawasibat and Talab-e-Ishhad) were properly performed. The trial and appellate courts had dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiff failed to prove the second demand. The High Court reversed these findings, holding that the plaintiff had not waived his right, noting that the defendant’s act of registering the sale deed at a distant location evidenced an attempt to conceal the transaction. Crucially, the Court laid down the principle that Talab-e-Ishhad is not a separate, mandatory requirement if the Talab-e-Mawasibat is made in the presence of the vendor or vendee, as the two demands can be combined in a single act. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, affirming his right to pre-empt the land.
Questions settled- Is a separate Talab-e-Ishhad necessary if the Talab-e-Mawasibat is made in the presence of the vendor or vendee?
- Can a second appeal be converted into a civil revision when the valuation of the suit is low?
- Does the registration of a sale deed at a distant location, instead of the local sub-registrar, support an inference of concealment to avoid pre-emption?
- BUDHA KHAN vs GHULAM MUSTAFA1985 CLC 1200 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-26Read full judgment →
- BROOKE BOND WORKERS' UNION (C.B.A.) vs Messrs BROOKE BOND PAKISTAN1985 PLC 435 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-10-21Read full judgment →
- BRITISH INSULATED CeiLLENDARS CABLES LTD., BOMBAY vs THE COMMISSIONER1985 PTD 853 · Bombay High Court · 1982-02-24Read full judgment →
- BRITISH INDIA STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY Ltd., LONDON and others vs NATIONAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd1985 CLC 1720 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-07Read full judgment →
- BRITISH INDIA NAVIGATION COMPANY and another vs NATIONAL SECURITY1985 CLC 1799 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
- Brig. (Retd.) ABDUR RASHID S.I (M.) vs THE SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT1985 PLC (C.S.) 428 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-10-31Read full judgment →
- BOSTAN AND ANOTHERs vs GUL MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHERsPLD 1985 Rev. 181 [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1985-05-14Read full judgment →
- BORE MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2511 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-22Read full judgment →
- BOOTEY KHAN and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2100 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-11Read full judgment →
- BOOTA vs THE STATE and 4 others1985 P Cr. L J 2564 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-27Read full judgment →
- BOMANSHAW BURJORJI GAZDAR And Another vs Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM And Other1985 SCMR 554 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that decreed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The core legal questions were whether the agreement of sale was sufficiently proven and whether the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. It found that the High Court correctly relied on correspondence and the conduct of the parties to establish the existence of the agreement, a finding of fact that was not open to exception. Regarding limitation, the Court affirmed that where no specific date is fixed for the performance of a contract, the limitation period commences only when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. Consequently, the suit was held to be within time, as the refusal occurred upon the petitioners' failure to acknowledge the legal notice served upon them.
Questions settled- When does the period of limitation commence for a suit for specific performance where no date for performance is fixed in the contract?
- Can a finding of fact based on correspondence and the conduct of parties be challenged in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Does the failure to acknowledge a legal notice constitute notice of refusal of performance for the purpose of limitation?
- BOLAN TEXTILE MILLS vs LABOUR UNION BOLAN TEXTILE MILLS1985 PLC 1062 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-06-01Read full judgment →
- BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, LA H ORE vs Syed1985 CLC 657 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision was filed by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, challenging the appellate judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, which reversed the trial court's dismissal and decreed the respondent's suit for damages and declaration with costs. The respondent, a candidate wrongfully shown to have failed the Secondary School Examination in 1963 due to alleged departmental malice against his father, discovered years later that he had passed in the first division. The primary questions concerned whether the suit was barred under Sections 27 and 29 of the West Pakistan (Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore) Ordinance, 1961, whether damages for mental agony and career loss were justified due to mala fides, whether the revisional court could overturn appellate findings of fact, and whether a plea of limitation could be entertained for the first time on appeal. The Lahore High Court held that statutory immunity does not protect actions taken with malice and without good faith. Concurring with the appellate court, it affirmed that factual findings cannot be disturbed under Section 115 CPC absent jurisdictional defect or material irregularity, and that an uncontroverted plea of limitation requiring fresh evidence cannot be introduced belatedly. The revision was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether statutory immunity under Sections 27 and 29 of the West Pakistan (Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore) Ordinance 1961 protects the Board when its actions are proven to be mala fide and not taken in good faith?
- Can the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 interfere with findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court absent any jurisdictional defect, illegality, or material irregularity?
- Can a defendant raise a plea of limitation for the first time at the appellate stage when such plea was not pleaded in the written statement, no issue was framed, and deciding it would require evidence?
- BLUNDA vs MUHAMMAD DIN And Other1985 SCMR 141 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a constitutional petition concerning an urban settlement property dispute. The petitioner, a non-claimant displaced person, had been transferred the property in 1959, but this transfer was later ignored, and the property was auctioned. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's constitutional challenge on the grounds of laches and the lack of revisional jurisdiction by the Settlement Commissioner in 1975 due to the repeal of settlement laws. The petitioner contended that the constitutional petition was filed promptly after the Settlement Commissioner's refusal to exercise jurisdiction, thereby negating laches, and argued that the matter constituted a pending case where the Settlement Commissioner retained authority despite the repeal of the relevant laws. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court correctly applied the principles of laches and whether the Settlement Commissioner possessed the requisite jurisdiction to grant relief in a pending case notwithstanding the repeal of settlement laws.
Questions settled- Does a constitutional petition filed shortly after a Settlement Commissioner's refusal to exercise jurisdiction suffer from laches?
- Does the repeal of settlement laws divest a Settlement Commissioner of the authority to grant relief in a pending case?
- BIBI JAMAL And 3 Others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE II And Other1985 SCMR 2096 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These four appeals by leave of the Supreme Court arose from a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court dismissing constitutional petitions relating to the disposal of evacuee property under displaced persons laws. The core legal questions involved whether the auction-transfer of evacuee property made in 1960 was a nullity due to pending custodian proceedings at the time of the 1959 acquisition notification, and whether subsequent administrative orders validly protected the auction-purchaser's rights. The Supreme Court held that any initial defect in the 1960 auction transfer was cured by the subsequent acquisition notification issued in 1970, which regularised the transaction in favor of the auction-purchaser, and that the appellants could not acquire rights through orders passed behind the auction-purchaser's back without making him a party. Furthermore, equitable considerations and laches disentitled the appellants from discretionary constitutional relief. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a defect in an auction transfer of evacuee property due to pending custodian proceedings at the time of the 1959 acquisition notification is cured by a subsequent acquisition notification issued in 1970?
- Can an order affecting property rights be passed behind the back of a valid auction-transferee without making him a party to the proceedings?
- Do equity and laches bar the grant of a discretionary constitutional writ against a long-standing property transfer?
- BIBI ABIDA vs THE SIN.D LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Karachi 112 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
- BHOOR MAL and others vs Mst. SAKINA BIBI and others1985 MLD 358 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
- BHAR00 vs CIVIL JUDGE/FAMILY JUDGE and another1985 CLC 806 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
- BHAPOO KHAN vs NOORUDDIN AND OTHERSPLD 1985 Rev. 203 [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
- BHAGMAL vs HIMMAT KHAN and others1985 P Cr. L J 1175 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-15Read full judgment →
- BEHRAM KHAN vs MESSRS NATIONAL MOTORS LTD., KARACHI1985 PLC 1007 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
- Begum ZAHOORUL HAQ And Others vs Ch. MUHAMMAD YOUNUS And Another1985 SCMR 1657 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from eviction proceedings concerning a residential house in Lahore, where the landlord sought ejectment of the tenants on the ground of personal need. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, noting the sufficiency of the landlord's current accommodation, his prior eviction attempts, and his efforts to sell the property with vacant possession. However, the appellate court reversed the dismissal and ordered ejectment, a decision upheld when the High Court summarily dismissed the tenants' constitutional petition. The core legal question addressed was whether the appellate authority failed to properly consider relevant statutory provisions regarding the bona fides of the landlord's personal need. The Supreme Court held that the lower appellate court had indeed evaluated the evidence concerning the landlord's bona fides and need for accommodation, and since the points regarding the proposed sale were not properly urged before the High Court, they could not be entertained. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, granting the appellants four months to vacate the premises.
Questions settled- Whether the appellate court failed to consider the bona fides of the landlord's personal need under the relevant provisions of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Can a contention regarding a proposed sale of the disputed premises be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court when it was not urged before the High Court?
- Whether the landlord established a sufficient and bona fide requirement for the disputed premises under the law?
- Begum MASOODA ABDUL HAQUE vs Messrs SHAN-E-MUSTAFA PRODUCTION1985 CLC 671 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal is directed against an order passed by the Additional District Judge rejecting a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a suit filed under Section 65 of the Copyright Ordinance 1962 for alleged copyright infringement and plagiarism of a cinematographic work. The core legal question is whether a trial court can look beyond the averments in the plaint, such as considering the defence or documents produced, when deciding an application for rejection of a plaint on the ground of disclosing no cause of action. The Lahore High Court held that while considering the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, only the averments contained in the plaint can be examined, and the trial court erred in analyzing the merits and the defence at the inception stage. The court laid down the principle that the power to reject a plaint is an exception to the general rule that suits should be decided on merits after framing issues and recording evidence, and that the merits of the case or the likelihood of success are wholly irrelevant at the stage of determining whether a cause of action is disclosed.
Questions settled- Can a court look beyond the averments in the plaint when deciding an application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is the likelihood of the plaintiff succeeding at trial a relevant consideration for rejecting a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the denial of interim relief provide a legal justification for ordering the rejection of a plaint?
- Before Zia Mahmood Mirza, GHULAM HAIDER and others vs MEMBER, BOARD1985 CLC 2998 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-16Read full judgment →
- Before Sardar Muhammad Dogar, Syed ALEY AHMAD vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others1985 CLC 2642 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
- Before Saleem Akhtar, STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN vs WALI MUHAMMAD AKBARJI and others1985 CLC 2870 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
- Before Saleem Akhtar, Mst. FATIMA NOOR vs SHABBIR and others1985 CLC 2632 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-11Read full judgment →
- Before Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs Messrs ZAFAR1985 CLC 2295 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-18Read full judgment →
- Before Nasir Aslam Zahid, Mst. SITAN and others vs SIRAJ AHMAD KHAN1985 CLC 2475 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-01Read full judgment →
- Before Nasir Aslam Zahid, Mst. AHMADI BEGUM vs ISRAR ALI and another1985 CLC 2335 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-29Read full judgment →
- Before Muhammad Zahoorul Haq, Qazi SHER MUHAMMAD and others vs NAZAR ALI SHAH and others1985 CLC 2883 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-14Read full judgment →
- Before Muhammad Zahoorul Hach J GHULAM HUSSAIN and another vs Haji1985 CLC 2836 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →
- Before Manzoor Hussain Sial, Mst. JAVID SULTANA vs AMANULLAH KHAN and others1985 CLC 2851 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-24Read full judgment →
- BEFORE J AMANAT ALI and others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1419 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-21Read full judgment →
- Before Haider Ali Pirsada, MUHAMMAD MISKEEN vs BUKHTIAR AHMED KHAN1985 CLC 2722 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-05Read full judgment →
- Before GuZ Zarin Kiani, Hafiz ZIAUDDIN vs ANJUMAN JAMIA MASJID1985 CLC 2936 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →
- Before C. A. Rahman, Raja LIAQAT ALI KIIAN vs Mst. PARVEEN AK IITAR1985 CLC 2686 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
- Before Abdul Majeed Mallick, C MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs Mst. MAJEED BEGUM1985 CLC 2626 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-05-02Read full judgment →
- BAZ MUHAMMAD and 3 otherss vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 451 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-09-24Read full judgment →
- BATA (PAKISTAN) Ltd., BATAPUR, LAHORE vs MURAD ALI1985 PLC 88 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-18Read full judgment →
- BATA (PAKISTAN) LTD, vs ANWAR HUSSAIN1985 PLC 773 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
- BASHIRUDDIN QURESHI vs Major (Rtd.) AMINULLAH KHAWAJA1985 CLC 316 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an order dismissing an application under Order IX, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to set aside an ex parte ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller. The core legal questions were whether the substituted service of notice upon the tenant was validly effected under Order V, Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the tenant was in default of rent payment. The Court held that the Rent Controller failed to properly apply his mind to the requirements for substituted service, as there was no evidence the tenant was avoiding service, rendering the ex parte order procedurally flawed. However, upon examining the merits of the ejectment case itself, the Court found the tenant admitted to failing to pay rent in the manner prescribed by law, specifically failing to tender rent via money order or deposit it with the Rent Controller after the landlord's attorney became unavailable. Consequently, while the procedural irregularity was acknowledged, the Court upheld the ejectment on the grounds of admitted default in rent payment, emphasizing that a tenant's obligation to pay rent is strict.
Questions settled- Is a Rent Controller required to record a specific finding that a tenant is avoiding service before ordering substituted service under Order V, Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the failure of a tenant to pay rent because the landlord's agent stopped collecting it constitute a valid defense against an ejectment application?
- Can an appellate court decide a matter on its merits rather than remanding it to the Rent Controller after setting aside an ex parte order?
- Does the bar in Section 19(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 against rescinding an ex parte order apply where the tenant was never properly served?
- BASHIRUD DIN AND OTHERS vs THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 220 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from a rent matter where the petitioners, tenants of a shop, sought to challenge the concurrent findings of the lower forums directing their eviction on the grounds of subletting and personal requirement. The core legal question was whether a subsequent ejectment application filed by a landlord is barred under section 14 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, when an earlier ejectment application had been dismissed. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the principle of res judicata embodied in section 14 does not bar a subsequent ejectment application where a fresh cause of action has arisen or where circumstances have substantially changed after the disposal of the previous proceedings, such as an increase in the landlord's family or needs with the passage of time. Furthermore, the court held that fresh grounds, such as subletting not raised in the earlier petition, are not barred. The key principle laid down is that section 14 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, does not preclude subsequent ejectment applications grounded on fresh causes of action or substantially changed circumstances.
Questions settled- Does section 14 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 bar a subsequent ejectment application when a fresh cause of action has arisen?
- Whether the principle of res judicata applies to rent restriction proceedings when circumstances have substantially changed since the previous application?
- Can a landlord file a second ejectment application on grounds not raised in the earlier dismissed petition?
- BASHIR vs THE STATE1985 MLD 867 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
- BASHIR UD DIN AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD SHAKIL And Other1985 SCMR 150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which allowed a Constitution Petition relating to a settlement dispute over land. The core legal question concerns whether land declared as a building site by the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 2 (3) of the Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act, 1958, could be validly allotted as urban agricultural land prior to the issuance of a subsequent notification, notwithstanding that the statute only required a declaration. The Supreme Court held that the law merely required a declaration by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, and the subsequent issuance of a notification—even if done voluntarily—did not dilute or postpone the legal effect of the earlier valid declaration. Consequently, the subsequent allotment of the land as agricultural land was without lawful authority, and the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The key principle established is that where a statute prescribes a 'declaration' for categorizing property, the absence of a statutory requirement for a notification does not render the prior declaration ineffective upon the issuance of such a notification.
Questions settled- Whether land declared as a building site under section 2(3) of the Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act, 1958 can be allotted as agricultural land?
- Does a subsequent notification regarding a building site dilute the effect of an earlier declaration made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner?
- Is a notification legally required for a declaration made under section 2(3) of the Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act, 1958 to take effect?
- BASHIR and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2575 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-05Read full judgment →
- BASHIR ALI SHAH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 515 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED vs Mst. SHAHZADI BEGUM1985 SCMR 1335 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment affirming a decree for specific performance of a property sale agreement. The core legal question was whether the petitioner (vendor) or the respondent (vendee) breached the contract. The petitioner argued that the respondent failed to pay the balance price and that the contract was cancelled due to the respondent's requests for extensions. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was responsible for the breach, as he failed to obtain necessary tax clearances within the stipulated period. The Court found that the respondent had acted promptly and remained ready and willing to perform. The subsequent change in law regarding tax certificates did not excuse the petitioner's prior failure to perform. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting that the petitioner's claims of oral requests for extensions were unsubstantiated and that he failed to demonstrate bona fides. The principle established is that a party in default of their own contractual obligations cannot unilaterally rescind the contract or blame the other party for non-performance.
Questions settled- Can a vendor unilaterally cancel a contract for the sale of property when they have failed to perform their own obligations within the stipulated time?
- Does a subsequent change in law regarding tax clearance certificates absolve a vendor of their failure to perform contractual obligations during the period when such certificates were required?
- Is a party required to pay the balance of the consideration before the execution of the sale deed if the contract does not explicitly mandate it?
- BASHIR AHMED SIDDIQUI vs NAJEEBUDDIN1985 MLD 343 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-19Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED and another vs ZAFAR1985 MLD 652 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs ZAHOOR AHMAD And Another1985 SCMR 1247 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which allowed a constitutional petition filed by the respondent challenging an urban settlement proceeding. The core legal question concerns the legality of re-auctioning a transferred property without first properly cancelling and resuming the original transfer in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The Supreme Court held that the initial cancellation of the transfer in favour of the respondent was without lawful authority and that the subsequent attempts by the Settlement Authorities to correct the error and regularise the auction were futile because the property was not available for re-transfer while the earlier transfer remained intact. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a property cannot be validly re-auctioned without lawful cancellation and resumption of the subsisting earlier transfer, and subsequent administrative corrections cannot retrospectively validate an unlawful auction.
Questions settled- Whether a property can be put to re-auction without lawful cancellation and resumption of an earlier transfer?
- Can subsequent administrative attempts by Settlement Authorities to correct procedural errors retrospectively validate an unlawful auction?
- Does a property remain available for re-transfer when a prior transfer order in favour of another party is still intact?
- BASHIR AHMAD vs The PERSONNEL MANAGER, PACKAGES LIMITED,LAHORE1985 PLC 62 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs THE DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHIWAL and 3 others1985 MLD 98 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-14Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, LOWER CHENAB CANAL, EAST CIRCLE, FAISALABAD and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 153 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs SHAFI And Other1985 SCMR 469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave was directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's constitutional petition against the Rent Controller's order. The appellant had obtained an ex parte eviction order against the respondents under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. Subsequently, the Rent Controller set aside the ex parte eviction order upon finding that service had not been duly effected and ordered restitution of possession to the respondents. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether a Rent Controller has jurisdiction to recall an ex parte eviction order passed without service, and whether a Rent Controller possesses the power to order restitution of possession. The Supreme Court held that an ex parte eviction order passed without service is a nullity, which the Rent Controller is competent to set aside to revive the eviction application. Furthermore, while executing an ejectment order, the Rent Controller acts in the capacity of a civil court and is competent to deal with questions of restitution of possession.
Questions settled- Does a Rent Controller have jurisdiction to recall and set aside an ex parte eviction order passed without due service of process?
- Whether an ex parte eviction order passed without service of process constitutes a legal nullity?
- Does a Rent Controller have the power to order restitution of possession while executing an order of ejectment?
- BASHIR AHMAD vs SAUDAGAR KHAN1985 MLD 569 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-09Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs SARFRAZ ARSHAD1985 SCMR 83 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Bashir Ahmad against a High Court order dismissing his writ petition in a rent dispute. The respondent-landlords sought the tenant's ejectment from a shop in Okara on the ground of personal requirement. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment, but the appellate court reversed it, holding that the landlords failed to prove their bona fides. The High Court subsequently accepted the landlords' writ petition, relying on section 13(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance as providing sufficient safeguard to establish bona fides. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that personal requirement cases are distinguishable from reconstruction cases, as the statutory penalties differ, and therefore positive evidence of bona fides is required for personal need. The core legal question concerns whether the statutory safeguard under section 13(4) alone establishes a landlord's bona fides in personal requirement cases. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the contentions, suspended the operation of the impugned order, and directed the appeal to be heard on the same record.
Questions settled- Does the statutory safeguard under section 13(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 alone establish a landlord's bona fides in a case of personal requirement?
- Is positive evidence of a landlord's bona fides required in ejectment cases based on personal need as opposed to reconstruction?
- BASHIR AHMAD vs RENT CONTROLLER And Other1985 SCMR 540 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge regarding an ejectment application. The landlord, a British national of Pakistani origin, sought the eviction of the tenant from a shop in Rawalpindi, citing personal bona fide requirement. The lower courts had dismissed the application, doubting the landlord's intent to settle in Pakistan given his foreign residency and family status. The High Court, however, allowed the landlord's constitutional petition, reasoning that his foreign nationality and employment did not disqualify him from seeking possession, and that the statutory protection under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, provided sufficient safeguards against misuse. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the High Court correctly re-appraised the evidence and did not rely on conjectures. The Court affirmed that the High Court possesses the authority to interfere with concurrent findings when they are based on an improper reading of evidence, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does the acquisition of foreign nationality disqualify a landlord from seeking eviction on the grounds of personal bona fide requirement?
- Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in rent matters?
- Does the statutory provision for restoring possession to a tenant if a landlord fails to occupy premises serve as a sufficient safeguard against mala fide ejectment claims?
- BASHIR AHMAD vs QASIM ALI and 3 others1985 MLD 382 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-24Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD1985 PLD Lahore 112 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from a suit filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that an agreement deed showing the mortgage of his house in favour of the respondent was void, illegal, and procured by fraud, alongside a permanent injunction. The trial court directed the petitioner to pay court-fee based on the mortgage money mentioned in the deed, relying on clause (iv-A) of section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, introduced by the Punjab Finance Act, 1973. The core legal question was whether a suit challenging a mortgage deed falls under clause (iv-A) of section 7 requiring court-fee according to the property value, or under sub-clause (c) of clause (iv). The Lahore High Court held that clause (iv-A) applies only when the plaintiff's claim is based on an alleged sale, gift, exchange, or mortgage. Where a plaintiff challenges a mortgage set up by the defendant and bases their suit on their own title rather than the mortgage, the suit falls under sub-clause (c) of clause (iv). The revision was accepted and the trial court's order was set aside.
Questions settled- Does a suit for a declaratory decree challenging a mortgage deed attract the provisions of clause (iv-A) of section 7 of the Court Fees Act 1870?
- When is a plaintiff required to pay court-fee according to the value of immovable property under section 7 of the Court Fees Act 1870?
- Does a plaintiff challenging a mortgage set up by the defendant have the liberty to value the relief sought under sub-clause (c) of clause (iv) of section 7 of the Court Fees Act 1870?
- BASHIR AHMAD vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, FAISALABAD and others1985 CLC 2379 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-03Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD JALIL and others1985 CLC 2482 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs MESSRS SANDOZ (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI1985 PLC 543 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-01-12Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs Malik KHYZAR HAYAT And Other1985 SCMR 990 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a civil servant, sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding his promotion to the post of Civil Nazir. The core legal question was whether a promotion made by the Senior Civil Judge without the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) constituted a regular appointment under the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974. The Supreme Court held that since the appointment was made without DPC consultation, it could not be considered a regular promotion under the prescribed rules. However, the absence of a DPC did not negate the appointing authority's power; rather, it rendered the appointment ad hoc. The Court further affirmed that the District Judge acted within jurisdiction in entertaining the grievance, as Section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 allows for representation where no formal right of appeal exists. The Court directed that the petitioner continue as an ad hoc employee until a regular appointment is made in accordance with the law, thereby ensuring the appointment process is regularized.
Questions settled- Does an appointment made without the recommendation of a Departmental Promotion Committee constitute a regular promotion under the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974?
- What is the legal status of an appointment made by an appointing authority in the absence of a constituted Departmental Promotion Committee?
- Does a District Judge have the jurisdiction to entertain a grievance against a promotion order made by a Senior Civil Judge when no formal right of appeal exists?
- BASHIR AHMAD vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB And Other1985 SCMR 333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a civil servant's appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the Punjab Service Tribunal's refusal to condone a four-day delay in filing an appeal under section 8 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The appellant's constitutional petition in the High Court had abated automatically upon the establishment of the Service Tribunal, giving him ninety days to file an appeal before the Tribunal. The core legal question concerned whether the Service Tribunal's refusal to condone the minor delay caused by counsel's failure to keep informed warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that statutory abatement is automatic, that the Tribunal possesses exclusive jurisdiction to exercise discretion regarding the condonation of delay, and that gross negligence or ignorance of law on the part of counsel does not automatically furnish a sufficient ground for condonation of delay against the opposing party. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the abatement of a constitutional petition upon the establishment of a service tribunal is automatic or requires a formal court order?
- Does gross negligence or ignorance of law on the part of a counsel provide a sufficient ground for the condonation of delay in filing an appeal?
- Is the exercise of discretion by the Service Tribunal in condoning or refusing to condone delay within its exclusive jurisdiction?
- BASHIR AHMAD vs DISTRICT JUDGE, MALAKAND And Other1985 SCMR 533 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Peshawar High Court dated 30-9-1984, which set aside the appellate order of the District Judge and remanded the ejectment matter for re-examination of the landlord's personal need. The petitioner, a tenant of a shop, faced an ejectment application filed jointly by the original owner and his son, to whom the shop was transferred via a partition deed. While the Rent Controller ordered ejectment on the ground of personal need, the District Judge reversed it, holding the transfer to be a device. The High Court interfered in writ jurisdiction and remanded the matter. The core legal question concerns whether the validity of a property transfer between a father and son impacts the ground of personal need for ejectment, and the effect of the landlord's non-appearance before the Rent Controller. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's interference was justified as the District Judge misdirected himself regarding the relevance of the property transfer, affirming the remand to examine personal need and permitting the examination of the landlord.
Questions settled- Whether the validity of a property transfer from a father to a son is relevant to the ground of personal need for ejectment?
- Can a father seek ejectment of a tenant on the ground of the personal need of his son without transferring the property to him?
- Does the non-appearance and failure of the landlord to personally testify before the Rent Controller affect the proof of personal need?
- BASHIR AHMAD vs DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, PUNJAB LAHORE and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 518 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-10-26Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs D.C., SIALKOT and others1985 PLC (C.S.) 1067 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-18Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, BAHAWALPUR ZONE, BAHAWALPUR and 10 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 319 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-12-24Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs BARKAT ALI and others1985 CLC 2651 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs AMIR AHMAD1985 MLD 968 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-08Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs AHMAD UL HAQ SIDDIQUI1985 SCMR 1232 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-09-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sind dismissing the petitioner's intra-court appeal and affirming the decree for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 23-12-1972 executed in favour of the respondent concerning a commercial plot. The core legal question revolves around the effect of a subsequent written endorsement dated 9-1-1973 providing for the rescission of the contract upon the return of advance money or, alternatively, the acceptance of the balance consideration, and whether the High Court was justified in refusing an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to lead additional evidence at the appellate stage. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing additional evidence, as Order XLI Rule 27 does not permit a party to fill up lacunae or patch up weaker parts of its case on appeal. The petition was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether additional evidence can be allowed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to enable a party to fill up lacunae or patch up a weaker part of its case?
- Is a party entitled to specific performance of a contract for sale when the vendor fails to establish his willingness and ability to rescind the contract under a subsequent supplementary writing?
- Whether the refusal of an appellate court to permit additional evidence at the appellate stage warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
- BASHIR AHMAD vs ADDITONAL DISTRIC JUDGE GHJRANWALA And Other1985 SCMR 955 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a tenant, sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing his constitutional petition against an ejectment order. The landlord had sought eviction based on rent default, unauthorized alterations, and personal bona fide need. The Rent Controller ordered eviction based on the bona fide need of the landlords' sons, a finding affirmed by the appellate court and the High Court. The petitioner contended that the premises were used for industrial purposes, thus falling outside the Rent Restriction Ordinance, and challenged the shift in the landlords' stated need from themselves to their sons during evidence. The Supreme Court held that the premises fell within the statutory definition of a non-residential building used for business or trade, confirming the Rent Controller's jurisdiction. Regarding the shift in the stated need, the Court found that the bona fide need of the successors (the sons) was established and caused no prejudice to the petitioner. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions.
Questions settled- Does a premises used for business or trade fall within the definition of a non-residential building under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Can a landlord's ejectment application based on personal need be sustained if the evidence establishes the bona fide need of the landlord's successors?
- BASHIR AHMAD vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRAT and 2 others1985 CLC 2485 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from an ejectment proceeding initiated by the landlord, Bashir Ahmad, against his tenant for default in rent, personal requirement, and damage to the property. The Rent Controller ordered eviction solely on the ground of default, ruling against the landlord on personal requirement and damage. The tenant's appeal was accepted by the Additional District Judge, who dismissed the eviction petition and held that the landlord's solitary statement was insufficient to prove personal need. The Lahore High Court examined the matter in its constitutional jurisdiction and held that the appellate judge misread the record by ignoring other witnesses produced by the landlord, and erred in law by holding that a landlord's solitary statement is insufficient to prove bona fide personal need. The Court ruled that a party who succeeds substantially on the final order may support the judgment on issues decided against him without filing a cross-objection or separate appeal, as cross-objections are co-related to the right of appeal. The writ petition was allowed, the appellate judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded to the lower appellate court for a fresh decision.
Questions settled- Whether the solitary statement of a landlord is sufficient in law to prove bona fide personal requirement for the eviction of a tenant?
- Can a respondent support a trial court's order on issues decided against him in an appeal filed by the opposite party without filing cross-objections or a separate appeal?
- What is the scope and duty of the first appellate court regarding the independent re-examination and weighing of evidence in rent proceedings?
- Whether findings of fact recorded by courts below can be examined in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- BASHIR AHMAD through Legal Heirs vs Shaikh MUHAMMAD RAFIQ, SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and 10 others1985 MLD 448 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD MALIK vs THE STATE And Another1985 SCMR 684 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed an application for the quashment of criminal proceedings. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings, initiated as a counterblast to a civil suit regarding property inheritance, should be quashed when the parties have demonstrated an intent to resolve their disputes and the complainant has shown no interest in pursuing the criminal case. The Supreme Court observed that the parties were litigating primarily to harass one another and that the criminal case was filed as a retaliatory measure against a pending civil suit. Given that the complainant failed to appear despite notice and the parties expressed a willingness to withdraw their respective litigations, the Court held that continuing the criminal trial would be an exercise in futility. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and ordered the quashment of the criminal proceedings. The judgment reinforces the principle that criminal courts should intervene to prevent the abuse of process where criminal litigation is clearly used as a tool for harassment in civil disputes.
Questions settled- Can criminal proceedings be quashed when they are initiated as a counterblast to a civil suit for the purpose of harassment?
- Is the absence of a complainant in appellate proceedings a relevant factor in determining whether to quash criminal proceedings?
- Does the court have the authority to quash criminal proceedings if continuing them would be an exercise in futility?
- BASHIR AHMAD FAROOQI and others vs CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY1985 CLC 689 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-05-16Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1575 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-28Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD AND OTHERS vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER B. S. FEEDER DIVISION, KASHMORE AND OTHERS1985 PLC 1001 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2397 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-12Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD and another vs THE STATE1985 MLD 877 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER vs HYDERABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1985 PLC 915 · Labour Court · 1985-05-21Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHM AD KHAN vs CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY, MUZAFFARABAD1985 PLD Azad J & K 61 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-04-27Read full judgment →
- BASEERAT NAWAZ vs Kh. M. MANSOOR ANWAR1985 PLC 43 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-09Read full judgment →
- BASEER AHMED SIDDIQUI vs SHAMA AFROZE1985 CLC 1711 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale concerning an open plot of land. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the buyer failed to prove she was vigilant and that the seller had validly repudiated the contract. In the first appeal, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding that the seller was in breach of contract and had failed to prove that he fulfilled conditions precedent or notified the buyer of the same. The petitioner-seller challenged this appellate decision through a revision, raising a technical objection that the first appeal was incompetent under Order XLI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 because a copy of the decree was not appended to the memo of appeal. The High Court held that procedural rules should serve as stepping stones rather than stumbling blocks, that there was substantial compliance with the law since the original decree-sheet formed part of the summoned record, and that the appellant was not at fault where the decree had not been prepared at the time of filing. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal filed without a copy of the decree-sheet is inherently incompetent under Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the failure to append a certified copy of the decree-sheet to the memorandum of appeal warrant automatic dismissal of the appeal when the delay is attributable to the court's failure to draw up the decree?
- Whether substantial compliance with procedural requirements is sufficient to sustain an appeal where the original decree forms part of the record before the appellate court hears the matter?