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.

• BASARAT NOOR KHAN vs SHAUKAT ALI ANSARI1985 MLD 436 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-05Read full judgment →
• BASARA And Others vs KHUSHI MUHAMMAD And Other1985 SCMR 449 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-23
  evacuee propertystate landconstitutional jurisdictionconveyance deedrehabilitation settlement schemesettlement commissioner
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had accepted a Constitution Petition and declared an order of the Settlement Commissioner to be without lawful authority. The core legal question involved whether certain state land, in respect of which auction-purchasers had paid the price but migrated before conveyance deeds were executed, could be treated as concealed evacuee property and allotted to respondents. The Supreme Court held that the Provincial Government had no jurisdiction to declare property as evacuee and that 'treating' property as evacuee must be done by a competent authority like the Custodian or Rehabilitation Authority before the cut-off date. Furthermore, since the land was continuously recorded in revenue records as State land and never treated as evacuee property prior to 1st January 1957, the High Court erred in interfering with the Settlement Commissioner's finding of fact. The appeal is allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the Settlement Commissioner's order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Provincial Government has the jurisdiction to declare a property as evacuee property?
  • Can land where a purchase price was paid by evacuees without execution of a conveyance deed be classified as hidden evacuee property without being treated as such by a competent authority before 1st January 1957?
  • Whether a finding of fact recorded by a Settlement Commissioner regarding the status of property can be interfered with in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• BARKAT MASIH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2737 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
• BARKAT and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1276 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
• BARKAT ALI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1481 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
• BARKAT ALI vs THE STATE And Another1985 SCMR 556 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-08-08
  acquittalleave to appealinterested witnessescorroborationcriminal appealmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondent, Umra, by the High Court for an offence under Section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondent was originally tried alongside five others; while four co-accused were convicted, the respondent was acquitted by the High Court, which upheld the convictions of the others based on corroboration of interested eye-witness testimony through medical evidence and motive. The petitioner contended that the respondent also possessed a motive that should have served as sufficient corroboration for the eye-witness testimony against him. The Supreme Court examined the record to determine whether there was evidence to support the petitioner's claim regarding the respondent's motive. Upon review, the Court found that the petitioner failed to point to any evidence on the record substantiating the existence of such motive for the respondent. Consequently, the Court held that there was no basis to interfere with the High Court's acquittal of the respondent, as the necessary corroboration was absent. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the conviction of co-accused be maintained when eye-witnesses are interested but corroborated by medical evidence and motive?
  • Is the absence of evidence regarding motive sufficient grounds to uphold an acquittal where corroboration of interested witnesses is required?
  Read full judgment →
• BARKAT ALI RANDHAWA vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 802 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-02-20Read full judgment →
• BARKA T ALI vs Met SUGHRAN BIBI1985 MLD 307 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-11Read full judgment →
• BAQA MUHAMMAD- vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 476 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-07
  pre-emptionsecond appealamendment of pleadingsapprobate and reprobaterevisional jurisdictionjudicial admissionCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, arose from a suit for possession through pre-emption. The appellant-vendee challenged the decree granted to the respondents-pre-emptors, seeking to introduce a new plea that he possessed superior pre-emption rights because the vendor was his wife. This plea had been rejected by the trial court and subsequently dismissed by the revisional court, which held the appellant bound by his earlier admission of the respondents' superior right. The core legal question was whether the appellant could re-agitate the rejected amendment application in the appeal against the final decree under Section 105, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that the appellant was bound by his unequivocal admission of the respondents' superior right. Furthermore, the Court established that where a revisional court has adjudicated a matter on its merits, that decision is final and cannot be re-agitated in an appeal against the final decree. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that a party cannot approbate and reprobate by contradicting prior admissions or re-litigating settled revisional matters.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party who has made a judicial admission of a superior pre-emption right subsequently amend their pleadings to deny that right?
  • Does a decision by a revisional court on the merits of an interlocutory matter preclude the same issue from being re-agitated in an appeal against the final decree?
  • Under what circumstances can a non-appealable order be challenged in an appeal against the final decree under Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• BANK OF OMAN Ltd. vs Messrs FASAKA INDUSTRIES Ltd. and 4 others1985 MLD 435 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
• BANARAS KHAN AND ANOTHER vs KOH-I-NOOR TEXTILE, MILLS LTD.1985 PLC 833 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-07-24Read full judgment →
• BANANAS and 2 others vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD and 5 others1985 CLC 1194 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
• BALUCHISTAN GLASS Ltd. vs NIAZ MUHAMMAD and another1985 PLC 1072 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-05-31Read full judgment →
• BALLIA And Others vs The STATE1985 SCMR 854 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-20
  ocular testimonychild witnessrecovery evidenceSection 103 CrPCmitigating circumstancescapital punishmentcriminal appealmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the convictions and sentences of the appellants for the murder of five individuals. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony from alleged chance and child witnesses, the admissibility of recovery evidence where public witnesses were not from the locality, and the sufficiency of motive. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions, ruling that the ocular evidence was credible, consistent, and corroborated by medical reports and recoveries. Regarding the admissibility of recoveries, the Court held that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which mandates local witnesses for searches, does not strictly apply to recoveries made at the instance of an accused. The primary requirement is the respectability of the witness rather than their locality. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that while the prosecution's case was proven, the age of one appellant, his lack of a leading role, and the absence of a direct motive constituted mitigating circumstances. Consequently, the Court maintained the convictions but commuted the death sentence of the youngest appellant to life imprisonment, dismissing the remaining appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to recoveries made at the instance of an accused?
  • Can the testimony of a child witness be sufficient to sustain a conviction on a capital charge without strong corroboration?
  • Is the evidence of a police officer regarding recoveries admissible if public witnesses are not produced?
  • Does the age of an accused and the lack of a leading role in a crime constitute mitigating circumstances for sentencing?
  Read full judgment →
• BALAGHAT HUSSAIN vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, GOVERNMENT1985 PLC (C.S.) 1114 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-09-19Read full judgment →
• BAKHTAWAR SHAH And Others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE And Other1985 SCMR 348 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-27
  pre-emptiontenantlesseeBanjar QadeemMartial Law Regulation 115land revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit filed by respondent Fazal Wali to pre-empt the sale of agricultural land on the ground of being a tenant. The revenue authorities and the High Court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, holding him to be a self-cultivating lessee entitled to pre-emption under paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation 115. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to examine whether the portion of the land recorded as Banjar Qadeem was pre-emptible and whether a self-cultivating lessee qualified as a tenant. The Supreme Court held that the appellants could succeed only regarding the portion of land recorded as Banjar Qadeem as the scope of leave was confined thereto, and that a self-cultivating lessee did not qualify as a tenant under the relevant legal framework. The appeal was accordingly allowed in part, reducing the pre-empted area by the Banjar Qadeem portion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a self-cultivating lessee qualifies as a tenant for the purpose of claiming a right of pre-emption under paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation 115?
  • Does the definition of tenant introduced by the Land Reforms (North-West Frontier Province Amendment) Ordinance 1981 operate retrospectively?
  • Whether land recorded as Banjar Qadeem can be pre-empted on the ground of tenancy when not shown to be under the actual cultivation of the tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• BAKHTA And Others vs The STATE1985 SCMR 97 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-12
  bail cancellationsurrender to custodyleave to appealnon-appearancecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioners challenging an order of the High Court, which had cancelled the bail previously granted to them by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, and ordered them to be taken into custody. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a petition for leave to appeal against an order cancelling bail can be entertained or heard when the petitioners have failed to surrender themselves to custody in compliance with the High Court's order. The Supreme Court held that the petition could not be heard because the petitioners had failed to surrender themselves in pursuance of the High Court's order, despite being granted an adjournment on a previous occasion to facilitate their appearance. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that a petitioner seeking relief from the Supreme Court against an order of bail cancellation must first surrender to custody, and the Court will not entertain or adjourn such a petition if the petitioners remain at large and fail to appear before the Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petition for leave to appeal against a bail cancellation order be heard if the petitioners have not surrendered to custody?
  • Is the Supreme Court required to grant adjournments when petitioners fail to appear to surrender in a bail matter?
  Read full judgment →
• BAKHT RAWAN vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER1985 PLC 942 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-16Read full judgment →
• BAKHSHA and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1924 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-21Read full judgment →
• BAKHSH ELAHI vs Qazi WASIF ALI1985 SCMR 291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-11
  summary evictionlandlord and tenantpersonal requirementstatutory interpretationSind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979disqualificationretirement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the interpretation of Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, specifically regarding the summary eviction of a tenant by a retired landlord. The core legal question was whether a landlord, who is a member of the specified class entitled to summary eviction, can invoke this provision if they were previously in occupation of another building owned by them but subsequently vacated or rented it out, or if they argue such other building is unsuitable. The Supreme Court held that the disqualification under Section 14(2) applies if the landlord is in occupation of another building owned by them at the time the right to summary eviction accrues. The Court ruled that the right is exhausted once the landlord comes into occupation of another building or rents out their own building after the right accrues. Consequently, the landlord cannot revive this right by unilaterally parting with possession of other properties. The principle established is that the summary procedure is a special privilege, and if the landlord occupies another building capable of the same use, the statutory bar applies regardless of claims of unsuitability.

  Questions settled

  • Does the disqualification under Section 14(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 apply if a landlord was in occupation of another building owned by them at the time the right to summary eviction accrued?
  • Can a landlord revive the right to summary eviction under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 by parting with possession of other buildings after the right has accrued?
  • Is the unsuitability of another building owned by the landlord a valid ground to bypass the statutory disqualification under Section 14(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• BAIDULLAH KHAN and another vs MAHMOOD JAN KHAN and 12 others1985 CLC 821 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-06-27
  inheritancerevision petitioncustomary lawMuhammadan Lawadverse possessionmutationco-sharerlimited estate
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises out of a civil suit seeking possession of land as heirs of the deceased owner. The lower courts dismissed the plaintiffs' suit and appeal, holding that the last full owner died after the enactment of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1935, that the widow and daughter inherited as full owners under Muhammadan Law, and that the suit was barred by time and adverse possession. The Peshawar High Court examined the evidence regarding the date of death and held that if the owner died when custom governed, the limited estate would terminate upon the enforcement of the West Pakistan Shariat Application (Amendment) Act, 1962, rendering possession permissive as co-heirs. Alternatively, if inheritance was governed by Muhammadan Law, the mutation showing equal shares for the widow and daughter was incorrect, and the plaintiffs as residuaries were entitled to their shares. The Court emphasized that mutation does not create title, automatic devolution occurs upon death, and the possession of co-heirs is not adverse without clear proof of ouster. Consequently, the High Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and decreed the plaintiffs' claim for a 3/8 share.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the entry in a death register showing the date of death can be relied upon when conflicting evidence and material cuttings exist?
  • Does the omission of an heir's name from an inheritance mutation deprive them of their legal share in the property?
  • Whether the possession of a co-heir or limited owner becomes adverse to other lawful heirs upon the termination of a limited estate?
  • Does a revenue mutation create or extinguish title to property?
  Read full judgment →
• BAHAWALNAGAR SUGAR MILLS Ltd., BAHAWALNAGAR vs QADEER AHMAD1985 PLC 171 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-07-08Read full judgment →
• BAHAWAL and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2524 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-20Read full judgment →
• BAHAR SHAH and 5 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2453 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-02Read full judgment →
• BAHADUR vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE1985 MLD 1282 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-16Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD vs The STATE1985 SCMR 584 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-03-14
  leave to appealcondonation of delayocular evidencefalse implicationcorroborationmotive as double-edged weaponself-defence pleamurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a jail petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, who was convicted of murder by the Additional Sessions Judge and sentenced to death, a sentence subsequently reduced to life imprisonment by the Lahore High Court. The petition was time-barred by 159 days. The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether it was safe to sustain the conviction based solely on ocular evidence where the eye-witnesses had falsely implicated at least three co-accused who were acquitted, and where there was no recovery and the medical evidence cast substantial doubt on the prosecution case. The Supreme Court held that where eye-witnesses have falsely implicated innocent persons, their tainted testimony requires sufficient corroboration. The Court observed that motive alone, being a double-edged weapon due to mutual hostility, could not suffice as corroboration, and the rejection of a plea of self-defence did not relieve the prosecution from corroborating tainted ocular testimony. Consequently, the Supreme Court condoned the delay and granted leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether it is safe to sustain a conviction based solely on the uncorroborated ocular evidence of eye-witnesses who have falsely implicated several innocent co-accused?
  • Can evidence of motive serve as sufficient corroboration for tainted ocular evidence where mutual hostility makes motive a double-edged weapon?
  • Does the falsity or rejection of an accused's plea of self-defence relieve the court from the requirement of seeking independent corroboration for tainted ocular evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• BAHADUR SHER KHAN vs RIAZ AHMAD AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Lahore 630 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-02Read full judgment →
• BAHADUR KHAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1753 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-28Read full judgment →
• BAHADUR AND ANOTHERs vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Supreme Court 62 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-22
  revisional jurisdictioncancellation of criminal caseSection 173 Cr.P.C.administrative orderjudicial proceedingsMagistrate's powerspolice report
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerned whether a Magistrate, when concurring with a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to discharge an accused and cancel a registered criminal case, acts as a "Court" in judicial proceedings, thereby rendering the order subject to the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate, in such circumstances, does not function as a criminal Court. The Court reasoned that while the Magistrate must act fairly and honestly, there is no lis (controversy) before them, no duty to hear parties, and no finality or irrevocability attached to the order, as the complainant remains free to institute a private complaint on the same facts. Consequently, the act is administrative rather than judicial, and the order is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Sections 435 to 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The impugned High Court order asserting revisional jurisdiction was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Magistrate act as a criminal Court when concurring with a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to cancel a criminal case?
  • Is an order by a Magistrate cancelling a criminal case based on a police report subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the cancellation of a criminal case by a Magistrate under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a final judicial determination that prevents the institution of a private complaint on the same facts?
  Read full judgment →
• BAHADUR ALI vs GULZAR and 3 others1985 P Cr. L J 418 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-17Read full judgment →
• BAGHEREHMAT TRUST vs KHALID RIAZ1985 CLC 3009 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-08Read full judgment →
• BAGGA alias SARDAR KHAN vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR1985 MLD 197 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-22Read full judgment →
• BADRUL HASSAN WASTI And Another vs SHUJAATULLAH And Other1985 SCMR 1309 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-09-23Read full judgment →
• BADRUDDIN AND 10 OTHERS vs CONSOLIDATED SPINNING AND TEXTILE MILLS, LARKANA1985 PLC 971 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-01-23Read full judgment →
• BADRUDD1N vs MESSRS MADINA TEXTILE MILLS1985 PLC 589 · Labour Court · 1985-05-25Read full judgment →
• BADIUZ ZAMAN KHAN and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2624 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-06-01Read full judgment →
• BADIUL HASAN vs MUNAWWAR HUSSAIN1985 MLD 1530 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-18Read full judgment →
• BADAR-UL-HUDA vs SETTLEMENT DEPARTMENT1985 MLD 298(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-02Read full judgment →
• BADAR-UD-DIN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FOOD1985 PLC (C.S.) 653 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-11-22Read full judgment →
• BACHO (deceased) through legal heirs and 17 others vs BARKAT ALI1985 MLD 1104 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-08Read full judgment →
• BABAR RASHID vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 288 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-18Read full judgment →
• BABAR ISLAM vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2779 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-12
  post-arrest bailnarcotics offenceheroin possessionProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the petitioner, Babar Islam, who was charged under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following his arrest for the alleged possession of 850 grams of heroin. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds that there were no reasonable grounds to believe he committed the offence, that the prosecution intended to rely solely on police witnesses without independent public witnesses, and that his continued detention was unnecessary as the investigation was complete. The State opposed the application. Upon review, the Court observed that the petitioner had been in custody since July 24, 1984, was not a previous convict, and was no longer required for investigative purposes. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case to avoid prejudicing the trial, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail subject to the furnishing of a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with one surety.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the investigation is complete and they are no longer required for further inquiry?
  • Does the absence of public witnesses in a narcotics raid constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• BABAR alias PILLA vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1311 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-27Read full judgment →
• B . K . SHAIKH vs THE STATE And Other1985 SCMR 1291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-09
  attachment of propertyobjection to attachmentjurisdictionproclamation for person abscondingrefusal to exercise jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the attachment of household goods in Karachi pursuant to a warrant issued by a Magistrate in Rawalpindi under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appellant, claiming ownership of the attached moveable property, filed an objection application before the District Magistrate South, Karachi, who endorsed the attachment order. Instead of deciding the application, the District Magistrate directed the appellant to approach the Special Judge Central, Karachi, who subsequently dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction. The High Court also dismissed the appellant's revision petition in limine. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the statutory procedure under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was followed. The Court held that under Section 88(6-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, an objection to an attachment of property endorsed by a District Magistrate can be preferred in the Court of such District Magistrate. Consequently, the District Magistrate was under a legal duty to decide the application, and his failure to do so amounted to a refusal to exercise jurisdiction. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the District Magistrate for decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a District Magistrate who endorses an attachment order has jurisdiction to entertain and decide objections to the attachment under Section 88(6-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a District Magistrate's direction to an objector to seek relief from another court, despite having statutory jurisdiction under Section 88(6-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, constitute a refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested by law?
  Read full judgment →
• AZMAT ALI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2780 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-02-13Read full judgment →
• AZIZUR REHMAN vs L.D.A.1985 CLC 2028 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-22
  remand of caseframing of issuesamendment of plaintprocedural irregularitycivil proceduredevelopment chargesdeclaratory suit
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged a demand by the Lahore Development Authority for payment regarding excess land and development charges, seeking a declaration of ownership and injunction. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the appellant but failed to frame specific issues regarding the development charges, relying instead on a general issue. The appellate court set aside the decree and remanded the case for a fresh trial, citing the absence of proper issues. On appeal, the High Court held that the trial court’s failure to frame distinct issues for each material proposition of law or fact, as mandated by Order XIV, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, resulted in an improper trial and prejudiced both parties. The Court affirmed the remand order, emphasizing that appellate courts possess the authority under Section 107(1)(b) and Order XLI, Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to remand cases where the trial was fundamentally flawed. Furthermore, the Court directed that the appellant be permitted to amend the plaint to incorporate the necessary relief, ensuring the entire controversy is resolved.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court has the jurisdiction to remand a case for fresh trial due to the trial court's failure to frame proper issues?
  • Does the failure to frame distinct issues for each material proposition of law or fact constitute a procedural irregularity that prejudices the parties?
  • Can an appellate court order a remand for fresh trial even if the parties did not request it?
  • Should a trial court allow an amendment to the plaint if it is necessary to resolve the entire controversy between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• AZIZULLAH vs MUHAMMAD ALI And Other1985 SCMR 2036 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-05
  criminal appealacquittalocular testimonywitness credibilitySection 164 statementmiscarriage of justicespecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an acquittal judgment passed by the High Court, which set aside the convictions of two respondents previously found guilty of murder by the Sessions Judge. The respondents had been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Hamzo Khan, based on ocular testimony and circumstantial evidence. The High Court acquitted the respondents, reasoning that the prosecution witnesses were unreliable due to certain omissions in their statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner challenged this acquittal, arguing that the High Court incorrectly treated every omission in the Section 164 statements as a material contradiction, thereby causing a miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court, noting that the incident occurred in broad daylight and was reported promptly, found that the High Court's approach to evaluating witness testimony warranted further examination. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the case required review to determine if the acquittal disregarded established principles of criminal justice administration.

  Questions settled

  • Does every omission in a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 necessarily constitute a material contradiction?
  • Under what circumstances may the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against an acquittal judgment passed by the High Court?
  • Is the treatment of all omissions in prior statements as contradictions a valid legal principle for assessing the credibility of prosecution witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• AZIZUL HAQ vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND SARGODHA And Another1985 SCMR 895 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-20
  urban settlementauction proceedingsreserve pricewrit jurisdictionproperty disputeremand orderadministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the auction of an urban property initially purchased by the petitioner in 1961. Following the petitioner's application for a price reduction due to the property's dilapidated condition, the property was resumed and subsequently re-auctioned to the respondent at a significantly lower reserve price, which had not been approved by the competent authority. The Settlement Commissioner set aside both auctions, directing a fresh disposal of the property. The High Court, however, interfered with this order, favoring the respondent. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's interference was unwarranted, as the reduction of the reserve price for the second auction was unauthorized and improper. The Court affirmed that the Settlement Commissioner’s decision to set aside the auction was neither without lawful authority nor improper. Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the Settlement Commissioner's order for a fresh disposal of the property, directing that such re-auction be restricted between the original petitioner and the respondent to ensure fairness and avoid third-party involvement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere in the exercise of discretion by a Settlement Commissioner regarding the cancellation of an auction?
  • Can a property be re-auctioned at a reduced reserve price without the approval of the competent authority?
  • Is a re-auction of property valid if conducted while an appeal regarding the property's resumption is pending?
  Read full judgment →
• AZIZUL ALEEM vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2797 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-09Read full judgment →
• AZIZUDDIN vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL And Other1985 SCMR 666 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-09
  evacuee propertycustodian jurisdictionres judicatapartition deedregistrationspecific performanceconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the High Court quashing an order of the Custodian of Evacuee Property which had declared certain agricultural land to be non-evacuee property. The core legal question concerned whether earlier decisions of the High Court operated as res judicata to bar the Custodian from exercising exclusive jurisdiction under section 22 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957 to determine the nature of the property, and whether an unregistered third partition deed relied upon by the appellant was valid. The Supreme Court held that while the Custodian possesses exclusive jurisdiction to determine the nature of property unhindered by findings of civil or settlement authorities, the Custodian's finding in this case was based on legally flawed and factually incorrect assumptions, notably ignoring the compulsory registration requirements under section 17 of the Registration Act 1908. The Court laid down that although settlement authorities cannot conclusively determine property nature, an unregistered partition deed involving immovable property exceeding one hundred rupees is inadmissible to create or extinguish rights without registration, and the Custodian's order was rightly quashed in constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of res judicata bar the Custodian from determining the evacuee or non-evacuee nature of property under section 22 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957 in light of prior High Court decisions?
  • Is an unregistered instrument of partition concerning immovable property compulsorily registrable under section 17 of the Registration Act 1908?
  • Whether settlement authorities or civil courts have the jurisdiction to record a binding determination regarding the evacuee nature of a property.
  • Does an agreement to sell create any right, title, or interest in immovable property under evacuee property laws?
  Read full judgment →
• AZIZ UR REHMAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1282 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
• AZIZ UR REHMAN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other1985 SCMR 1271 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-21
  lacheswrit jurisdictionproperty transfersettlement lawdelay in litigationevacuee property
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had rejected his challenge to a 1960 property transfer on the grounds of laches. The core legal question was whether a petitioner, who had himself initiated the rectification of a property transfer in favour of his father in 1960, could challenge that same transfer twenty-one years later in 1981. The Supreme Court observed that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's 1960 order explicitly stated the rectification was made upon the petitioner's own representation. Consequently, the petitioner had full knowledge of the transfer at the time it occurred. The Court held that the petitioner could not be permitted to challenge an order after such an extensive delay of twenty-one years. The principle laid down is that a party who has personal knowledge of and has actively participated in the procurement of an administrative order is barred by the doctrine of laches from challenging that order after an inordinate and unexplained delay.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner challenge an administrative order after a delay of twenty-one years when they had prior knowledge of the order?
  • Does the doctrine of laches apply to a writ petition challenging a property transfer order that the petitioner themselves facilitated?
  Read full judgment →
• AZIZ DIN vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE and another1985 PLC 504 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
• AZIZ AHMAD vs SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, FINANCE1985 SCMR 368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-08
  civil service seniorityservice tribunal jurisdictionlimitation periodcause of actiondepartmental representationstatutory bar
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding seniority disputes. The petitioner, a civil servant, sought to challenge a departmental decision from 1951 regarding his seniority, which had been rejected at the time. After approximately 30 years, the petitioner renewed his representation, which was again rejected by the department in 1982. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal could entertain an appeal against a departmental decision made prior to July 1, 1969, and whether a fresh representation in 1980 could create a new cause of action to bypass statutory limitations. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that the appeal was barred by the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Court established that a fresh representation regarding a long-settled matter does not create a new cause of action to circumvent statutory time bars, and administrative instructions to departments to waive technical objections are not binding on the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a fresh representation regarding a long-settled departmental decision create a new cause of action?
  • Is the Federal Service Tribunal competent to entertain an appeal against a departmental order passed before 1st July 1969?
  • Are administrative instructions issued by the Establishment Division regarding the waiver of technical objections binding on the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• AZIZ AHMAD RATHORE vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB And Other1985 SCMR 142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-10
  review petitionleave to appeallimitationtime-barredservice mattersterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a review petition filed by the petitioner against an order of the Supreme Court dated 3-11-79, which refused leave to appeal to the opposite party. The petitioner sought review, claiming grievance regarding specific observations made in the concluding paragraph of that order. The petition was filed with a delay of 308 days, for which the petitioner offered the explanation that the original order was passed in his absence. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had valid grounds for review and whether the delay could be condoned. The Court held that the grievance was misconceived, clarifying that when leave to appeal is refused, the underlying order remains intact, and any observations must be read consistently with that intactness. Furthermore, the Court established that a grievance regarding such directions only arises if the Government takes subsequent actions affecting terms and conditions that are legally impermissible. Consequently, the Court dismissed the review petition on the grounds of being time-barred, affirming that the petitioner's concerns were premature and legally unfounded.

  Questions settled

  • Does the refusal of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court render the underlying order intact?
  • When does a cause of action arise for a petitioner aggrieved by observations made in an order refusing leave to appeal?
  • Can a review petition be entertained when it is filed with a significant delay without sufficient justification?
  Read full judgment →
• AZIZ -UD-DIN vs SHAH MUHAMMAD and others1985 MLD 553 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-31Read full judgment →
• AZHAR ALI vs ALTAF HUSSAIN QURESHI and 2 others1985 P Cr. L J 1011 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-01Read full judgment →
• AZHAR AHMAD KHAN AND OTHERSs vs M. v. AZHAR AND 3 OTHERS1985 PLD Quetta 278 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-08-16
  admiralty jurisdictionmaritime lienaction in remship dismantlingseamen's wagesexchange rateAdmiralty Jurisdiction of the High Courts Ordinance 1980
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs, crew members of the vessel "m. v. Ashar," filed admiralty suits for the recovery of unpaid wages. The defendants contended that the vessel, being partially dismantled at Gadani Beach and delisted, ceased to be a "ship" under the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Courts Ordinance, 1980, thereby ousting the court's jurisdiction. The Court held that a maritime lien attaches to the res and remains valid until the total destruction of the vessel; partial dismantling does not extinguish the lien or the court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the suits were maintainable against the vessel and its purchaser. Regarding the merits, the Court rejected claims for "shorthand wages" due to lack of evidence. It determined that the exchange rate for converting U.S. Dollars to Pakistani Rupees should be the rate established by the parties' employment agreement rather than the market rate. The Court decreed the suits for the unpaid wages, calculated up to the date of discharge, while dismissing claims for leave wages where the service period was incomplete.

  Questions settled

  • Does a maritime lien on a vessel survive the partial dismantling of that vessel?
  • Is a vessel that is partially dismantled and delisted still considered a 'ship' for the purposes of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Courts Ordinance, 1980?
  • Can an action in rem be maintained against a vessel in the hands of a purchaser if a maritime lien attached to the vessel prior to the sale?
  • In the absence of specific contractual provisions, what rate of exchange governs the conversion of foreign currency wages into local currency?
  Read full judgment →
• Azad J a KJ ADALAT and others vs NOOR ALAM and others1985 CLC 2344 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-06-07Read full judgment →
• AYUB KHAN vs PUNJAB LOCAL COUNCILS ELECTION AUTHORITY, LAHORE And Other1985 SCMR 642 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-03Read full judgment →
• AWAL GUL vs ZAWAR KHAN AND arHERss1985 PLD Supreme Court 402 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-27
  post-arrest bailabscondencebail cancellationblood feudcriminal procedurefugitive from law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a Peshawar High Court order granting bail to respondents accused of double murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the accused's abscondence disentitled them to the concession of bail. The Supreme Court held that unexplained, noticeable abscondence generally disentitles an accused to bail, as such conduct thwarts investigations and prevents the collection of evidence. The Court emphasized that a fugitive from law loses certain procedural and substantive rights. While the High Court had granted bail based on the nature of the blood feud and lack of specific role attribution, the Supreme Court ruled this was improper given the respondents' abscondence. Consequently, the Court cancelled the bail of four respondents who had absconded for significant periods, while maintaining bail for two others whose abscondence was deemed negligible. The principle laid down is that abscondence is a critical factor in bail adjudication, and an accused cannot seek the reward of bail after evading the law, as custody often provides better protection than remaining at large.

  Questions settled

  • Does unexplained abscondence by an accused person disentitle them to the concession of bail?
  • Can abscondence be treated as a piece of evidence for corroboration of eye-witnesses at trial?
  • Is the fear of retaliation a valid justification for abscondence in bail proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• AVARI HOTELS LTD vs HILTON INTERNATIONAL COMPANY1985 PLD Karachi 425 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-09
  arbitration stayallegations of fraudmanagement agreementmanaging agencyadditional evidence on appealinterim injunctionhotel management
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Sindh High Court arises from two consolidated High Court Appeals challenging an interlocutory order passed in a civil suit concerning the management of the Hilton Hotel in Lahore. The plaintiff, Avari Hotels Limited, had invested substantially in the hotel and entered into a management agreement with Hilton International Company. Avari subsequently rescinded the agreement, alleging fraud, misrepresentation, and violation of the Companies (Managing Agency and Election of Directors) Order 1972, and filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions, accounts, and damages. The trial court had stayed the suit under section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 based on the agreement's arbitration clause. Upon appeal, the High Court held that the arbitration clause governed by International Chamber of Commerce rules fell outside the Arbitration Act 1940, and that serious allegations of fraud and the presence of complex legal and constitutional questions rendered arbitration inappropriate. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the stay of the suit, left the issue of the agreement's validity under the Presidential Order for trial, and modified the interim injunctions to safeguard the owner's financial interests while permitting Hilton to continue operating the hotel.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1940 apply to an arbitration agreement providing for arbitration under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce?
  • Does an allegation of fraud or misrepresentation vitiating the inception of a contract displace the application of section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • Under what circumstances may an appellate court permit the production of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in an appeal from an interlocutory order?
  • Whether a management agreement conferring wide operational discretion constitutes a prohibited managing agency under the Companies (Managing Agency and Election of Directors) Order 1972?
  Read full judgment →
• AU Shah, Haji ABDUS SATTAR vs Mst. SHIRIN BAI and others1985 CLC 2489 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-04Read full judgment →
• ATTAULLAH KHAN vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM and 5 others1985 P Cr. L J 2409 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-21
  quashment of proceedingsinherent jurisdictionrevisional jurisdictionremoval of nuisanceconcurrent jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of proceedings under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nazimabad Sub-Division, Karachi. The core legal question is whether an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is competent when the aggrieved party has already invoked and exhausted the concurrent revisional jurisdiction before the Sessions Court under Section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether Section 561-A applies to proceedings that have already concluded with a final order. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, holding that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A cannot be utilized as an additional or alternative remedy after exhausting the revisional jurisdiction, particularly when the proceedings have already terminated in a final order rather than remaining pending.

  Questions settled

  • Is an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 competent after exhausting revisional jurisdiction before the Sessions Court?
  • Can the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used as an additional or alternative remedy?
  • Does Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to proceedings that have already concluded with a final order rather than remaining pending?
  Read full judgment →
• ATTA MUHAMMAD ZAFAR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2818 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-02Read full judgment →
• ATTA MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 197 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-05-15Read full judgment →
• ATTA MUHAMMAD vs S. H. O. POLICE STATION SAHUKA AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 210 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-18Read full judgment →
• ATTA MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others1985 MLD 1535 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →
• ATTA MUHAMMAD vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL and others1985 CLC 2956 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-27Read full judgment →
• ATTA MUHAMMAD vs CHUTTA And Other1985 SCMR 833 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-04
  pending appealjurisdictionKalat Statemerger of statestransfer of casesexecution of decreeright of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a long-standing land dispute initiated in 1925 in the former Kalat State. After a decree was passed in favor of the appellant, execution difficulties arose, leading the Wazir-e-Muarif to dismiss the appellant's suit on April 1, 1953. The appellant filed an appeal against this dismissal before the Ruler/Wazir-e-Azam of Kalat on May 3, 1953, under the Dasturul Amal Diwani of Kalat State. Following the merger of Kalat into West Pakistan, the appellant's efforts to seek a hearing on the merits were repeatedly dismissed by the High Court on the mistaken assumption that no such appeal was pending. The Supreme Court examined the original record and found that the appeal dated May 3, 1953, was indeed filed and remained undisposed of. Under Section 7(5) of the Establishment of West Pakistan Act 1955, pending appeals stood transferred to the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was entitled to at least one statutory appeal on the merits, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan to expeditiously dispose of the pending 1953 appeal on its merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal properly filed before the Wazir-e-Azam of the former Kalat State stands transferred to the High Court upon the merger of the State under the Establishment of West Pakistan Act 1955?
  • Can a litigant be deprived of their statutory right of appeal on the merits due to administrative confusion or incorrect factual findings regarding the pendency of the appeal?
  • Does the filing of an incompetent appeal before an unauthorized forum affect the pendency of a validly filed appeal before the competent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• ATTA MUHAMMAD vs CHIRAGH and two others1985 CLC 10 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-08Read full judgment →
• ATTA MUHAMMAD And Others vs Mst. MEHTAB BXBI And Another1985 SCMR 144 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-03
  power of attorneysub-registrarattestationpardanashin ladiesfraud and misrepresentationburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding a disputed power-of-attorney. The core legal question was whether a power-of-attorney executed before and duly attested by the Sub-Registrar must be given conclusive effect in all circumstances. The Supreme Court held that the statutory attestation by a Sub-Registrar is rebuttable, and it must be determined from the facts of each case whether such attestation can be implicitly acted upon. The Court found that where Pardanashin ladies reposed trust in their brother for property management through a special power-of-attorney, the brother abused that trust to create a general power-of-attorney for selling the land without their knowledge or consent, rendering the Sub-Registrar's attestation inconclusive. The key principle laid down is that the evidentiary value of a Sub-Registrar's attestation of a power-of-attorney is rebuttable and open to judicial scrutiny based on surrounding circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a power-of-attorney executed before and attested by the Sub-Registrar must be given conclusive effect in all circumstances?
  • Is the attestation of a power-of-attorney by a Sub-Registrar rebuttable under the law?
  • Can a special power-of-attorney executed by Pardanashin ladies for management be converted into a general power-of-attorney to sell land without their knowledge and consent?
  Read full judgment →
• ATTA MUHAMMAD and another vs The OWNER/OCCUPIER, MALIK COTTON1985 PLC 8 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• ATTA HUSSAIN KHAN and 2 others vs GHULAM RASOOL KHAN1985 MLD 1130 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
• ATOOMAL vs ALLAH BUX1985 PLD Karachi 650 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-27
  rent restrictionpersonal bona fide requirementejectmentreconstructionlandlord and tenantsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and the District Judge directing the ejectment of the appellant-tenant on grounds of personal requirement and reconstruction. The core legal questions were whether the landlord’s simultaneous filing of multiple ejectment applications against different tenants for personal requirement negated his bona fide intent, and whether the ground of reconstruction remained sustainable when linked to a failed claim of personal requirement. The High Court held that the landlord failed to establish personal requirement, noting that filing multiple applications and subsequently compromising one by increasing rent cast doubt on his bona fide intent, especially given the landlord's age and the lack of evidence regarding his specific business needs. Furthermore, the Court held that while reconstruction is an independent ground, it must be proven bona fide. Mere possession of a reconstruction sanction is insufficient; the landlord must demonstrate that the requirement to rebuild is reasonable and bona fide. Consequently, the Court set aside the ejectment orders, ruling that the landlord failed to substantiate either ground.

  Questions settled

  • Does the simultaneous filing of multiple ejectment applications against different tenants for personal requirement adversely affect the bona fide of the landlord?
  • Can a landlord maintain an ejectment application for reconstruction if the accompanying claim for personal requirement is found to be lacking in bona fides?
  • Is the mere production of a sanction for reconstruction from a competent authority sufficient to prove the bona fide requirement for reconstruction under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• ATA ULLAH KHAN vs MUHAMMAD SHAFT And Other1985 SCMR 478 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-21
  land settlementdisplaced personsagricultural landurban propertyfinding of factwrit petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition concerning the transfer of land comprising various Khasra numbers situated in village Mian Mir, Lahore. The petitioner had moved an application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, contending that the disputed property was urban land rather than agricultural land. The settlement authorities examined the revenue records and found the property to be agricultural. The High Court declined to interfere with this concurrent finding of fact. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in declining to interfere with a finding of fact. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having already received an allotment of specific Khasra numbers under Scheme No. VI, could not lay claim to the transfer of other portions of the land upon the assertion that they were urban plots. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in declining to interfere with a concurrent finding of fact recorded by settlement authorities regarding the nature of land?
  • Can a person who has already received an allotment of land under Scheme No. VI lay claim to the transfer of other portions of land upon an assertion that they are urban plots?
  • Whether an application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 can succeed when revenue records establish the land to be agricultural?
  Read full judgment →
• ATA MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 873 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-09Read full judgment →
• ATA MUHAMMAD And 6 Others vs The STATE1985 SCMR 181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-11
  murderprevious judgmentrelevancy of judgmentscorroborative piece of evidencefirearm recoveryballistic matchcommutation of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's appeal in a murder case. The appellant, Ata Muhammad, was convicted along with another under sections 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of Salehoon and sentenced to death, which the High Court maintained while acquitting his co-accused. The core legal question was whether a subsidiary finding of fact in a previous judgment involving the same accused—specifically, rejecting the recovery and forensic matching of a gun—acts as a bar or is conclusive in a subsequent criminal trial relating to a different murder. The Supreme Court held that under sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act 1872, previous judgments are generally irrelevant unless their existence is a fact in issue or relevant under other provisions; subsidiary findings of fact in prior judgments are not conclusive and do not bind the court in a subsequent trial, as each case must be decided on its own evidence. However, noting that it could not be proven whose specific shot caused the death, the Court dismissed the appeal regarding the conviction under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, while enhancing the fine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a subsidiary finding of fact recorded in a previous criminal judgment regarding the recovery of a weapon is binding or conclusive in a subsequent trial of the same accused?
  • Are previous judgments and their findings of fact relevant under section 43 of the Evidence Act 1872 to prove the truth of facts decided therein in a separate trial?
  • Can a court in a subsequent criminal case rely on evidence of weapon recovery and forensic matching that was discarded in an earlier trial due to a lack of prosecution evidence?
  • Whether the capital sentence for murder should be commuted to imprisonment for life when it cannot be determined whose specific shot caused the fatal injury among multiple armed assailants?
  Read full judgment →
• ASSOCIATED SALES AGENCIES, KARACHI vs The STANDARD INSURANCE1985 CLC 2419 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-27
  ejectmentbona fide personal requirementlandlord and tenantvariance in pleading and proofsublettingrented premises
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from an ejectment application filed by the respondent-landlord against the appellant-tenant on the grounds of default, subletting, and bona fide personal requirement. The Rent Controller had ordered ejectment solely on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. On appeal, the High Court of Sindh examined whether the respondent had established a genuine need. The respondent's pleadings stated that the premises were required to accommodate their expanding Head Office, which was operating from rented premises. However, the respondent's witness testified that the premises were needed to cluster and accommodate several branch offices currently located in different parts of the city. The High Court held that there was a material variance between the pleadings and the proof. It observed that clustering branch offices in one building defeats the purpose of having branches, and no evidence of expansion of the Head Office was produced. Consequently, the court ruled that bona fide requirement was not established and allowed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord obtain an ejectment order on the ground of personal requirement if there is a material variance between the pleadings in the application and the evidence produced on oath?
  • Does the mere fact that a landlord occupies rented premises automatically entitle them to eject a tenant from their own property without proving bona fide requirement?
  • Does the presence of signboards of sister concerns on the leased premises, used solely for receiving mail without physical occupation or rent payment, constitute subletting?
  Read full judgment →
• ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTORS LTD. MAHNATKASH UNION vs ASSOCIATED1985 PLC 963 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
• Assessee vs Income Tax DepartmentPTCL 1985 (CL) 266 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-15Read full judgment →
• Assessee vs DepartmentPTCL 1985 (CL) 150 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-17Read full judgment →
• ASPRO NICHOLAS EMPLOYEES' UNION vs MESSRS ASPRO NICHOLAS1985 PLC 987 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-05-14Read full judgment →
• ASLAM vs The STATE1985 P Cr. L J 656 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-18Read full judgment →
• ASIF SHAH vs The STATE1985 SCMR 850 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-30
  murderdying declarationenhancement of sentencedeath penaltymedical evidencepremeditationocular testimonycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a direct appeal by the convict against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which accepted the complainant's revision and enhanced the appellant's sentence from imprisonment for life to death for the murder of Ghulam Muhammad. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the dying declaration, particularly regarding a thumb-impression instead of a signature, medical opinion on survivability and consciousness, and the presence of premeditation. The Supreme Court held that the dying declaration was authentic and voluntary, that expert medical opinion cannot override positive ocular and circumstantial evidence with mathematical precision, and that the presence of the armed accused at the dead of night near the victim's house established premeditation and malice aforethought. The court affirmed the conviction and the sentence of death, ruling that the normal penalty of death was well-deserved in cases of calculated and cold-blooded murder.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a dying declaration is rendered unreliable merely because it bears a thumb-impression instead of the signature of a literate declarant?
  • Can expert medical testimony regarding the time and onset of unconsciousness override direct ocular and circumstantial evidence?
  • Whether the presence of an armed accused at the dead of night near the victim's house establishes premeditation for the purpose of sentencing?
  • Under what circumstances is the enhancement of a sentence from imprisonment for life to death justified?
  Read full judgment →
• ASIF ALI KHAN vs MANAGING DIRECTOR (POWER), WAPDA, LAHORE and 21985 PLC (C.S.) 415 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-08-07Read full judgment →
• ASIAN TRADERS vs Messrs LAKHANY BROTHERS1985 CLC 21 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
• Asian Food Industries Ltd., And Other vs Pakistan And OtherPTCL 1985 (CL.) 483 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-03
  customs tariffliquid glucoseclassificationP.C.T. headingad valorem dutychemical examiner reportestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants, confectionary manufacturers, challenged a Sind High Court judgment dismissing their constitutional petitions regarding the proper customs tariff classification of imported liquid glucose. The customs authorities had reclassified the imported liquid glucose from Pakistan Customs Tariff (P.C.T.) Heading 17.02-A ('chemically pure glucose' taxed at 25% ad valorem) to Heading 17.02-B ('other' taxed at 62-1/2% ad valorem) based on chemical examiner reports distinguishing commercial glucose from dextrose. The Supreme Court examined the P.C.T. headings, Chapter Notes, Brussels Nomenclature Explanatory Notes, and technical dictionary definitions. The Court held that the imported liquid glucose qualifies under P.C.T. Heading 17.02-A for the lower rate of duty, noting that the departmental reclassification based on shifting expert reports was untenable and that the commodity fell squarely within the scope of the glucose heading. The appeals were accordingly accepted with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether liquid glucose imported in drums is properly classifiable under P.C.T. Heading 17.02-A as chemically pure glucose or under Heading 17.02-B as other sugars?
  • Does a long-standing departmental practice prevent customs authorities from re-evaluating the chemical composition and classification of an imported commodity based on expert reports?
  • Whether commercial glucose composed of dextrose, maltose, and dextrin is synonymous with D-glucose chemically pure under the Pakistan Customs Tariff?
  Read full judgment →
• ASIAN FOOD INDUSTRIES Ltd. And Others vs PAKISTAN And Other1985 SCMR 1753 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-04
  Pakistan Customs Tariffcustoms dutyclassification of goodsdepartmental practicepromissory estoppelchemically pure glucoseliquid glucose
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from four civil appeals by special leave challenging a Sind High Court judgment that dismissed constitutional petitions filed by confectionery manufacturers. The appellants challenged the reclassification of imported liquid glucose from Pakistan Customs Tariff (P.C.T.) Heading 17.02-A ('chemically pure glucose' at 25% ad valorem) to Heading 17.02-B ('other' at 62.5% ad valorem). The core legal questions were whether a long-standing departmental practice estopped customs authorities from reclassifying the commodity, and whether commercial liquid glucose qualified as 'chemically pure glucose' under Heading 17.02-A. The Supreme Court held that while estoppel does not control a technical expert in bona fide analyzing a chemical, the department's reclassification was legally untenable. The Court analyzed P.C.T. Chapter 17 notes and dictionary definitions, determining that Chapter 17 governs sugar confectionery products rather than pharmaceutical products, and that liquid glucose properly falls under Heading 17.02-A. The Supreme Court accepted all four appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and declared the appellants liable to customs duty under P.C.T. Heading 17.02-A.

  Questions settled

  • Does a change in a chemical examiner's report justify the reclassification of an imported commodity under the Pakistan Customs Tariff?
  • Whether long-standing departmental practice estops customs authorities from reclassifying an imported commodity under a different tariff heading?
  • Does imported commercial liquid glucose qualify as chemically pure glucose under Heading 17.02-A of the Pakistan Customs Tariff?
  Read full judgment →
• ASHRAF MASIH and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1229 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-25Read full judgment →
• ASHRAF MAHMOOD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1349 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-08Read full judgment →
• ASHRAF BUTT vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1467 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-15Read full judgment →
• ASHIQ SHAH vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1225 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-22Read full judgment →
• ASHIQ MASIH and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2470 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-31Read full judgment →
• ASHIQ IRSHAD alias Maqsood vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 44 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
• ASHIQ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1447 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
• ASHIQ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE And Other1985 SCMR 2059 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-14
  leave to appealacquittalinjured witnessreappraisal of evidencemurdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against a High Court judgment that acquitted five respondents of murder charges. The incident involved a fatal attack on the deceased, Shakuruddin, and injuries to his son, Ashiq Hussain, allegedly committed by neighbors following a minor dispute. The trial court had convicted the respondents under sections 302/149 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relying on the testimony of injured witnesses and medical evidence. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in acquitting the respondents despite the testimony of an injured eyewitness and the lack of prior enmity between the parties. The Supreme Court held that the submissions regarding the credibility of the injured witness and the absence of prior hostility carried sufficient force, particularly concerning the respondent Muhammad Bashir, who was alleged to have inflicted the fatal hatchet blow. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to reappraise the evidence specifically regarding Muhammad Bashir, while dismissing the petition against the other respondents, thereby upholding their acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of an injured eyewitness be considered sufficient for conviction without corroboration when there is no previous enmity between the parties?
  • Is the Supreme Court justified in granting leave to appeal against an acquittal if there is a prima facie case regarding the credibility of an injured witness?
  • Does the absence of prior hostility between neighbors increase the reliability of eyewitness testimony in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• ASHIQ HUSSAIN vs THE PROJECT DIRECTOR SCARP (N)1985 PLC 93 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →
• ASHIQ HUSSAIN vs CHIEF ENGINEER, NORTH ZONE, HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 33 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-02-02Read full judgment →
• ASHIQ HUSSAIN vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED through Senior Vice-1985 PLC 175 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →