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.
- ASHIQ HUSSAIN and others vs KHUDA BAKHSH1985 MLD 1243 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-11Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ ALI And Another vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN And Other1985 SCMR 576 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing an Intra-Court Appeal regarding the transfer of urban property. The property in question was transferred by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to respondents Nos. 2 and 3, who were found to be in possession through their licensee and were claimants for its transfer. The petitioners challenged the transfer through constitutional jurisdiction, raising contentions regarding the indivisibility of the property without conscious application of mind and the maintainability of the findings of fact concerning possession. The High Court's Single Judge and the Intra-Court Appeal Bench repelled both arguments. The core legal question concerned the propriety of interfering with the discretionary exercise of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's power to treat the property as indivisible and the factual findings on possession. The Supreme Court held that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner acted within his discretionary jurisdiction in treating the property as indivisible, and the refusal of the High Court to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction was unexceptionable. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner has the discretionary jurisdiction to treat an urban property as indivisible for transfer?
- Can the High Court interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with the discretionary exercise of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner regarding the indivisibility of property?
- Are concurrent findings of fact with regard to the possession of property maintainable in constitutional jurisdiction?
- ASHFAQ alias ASHFAQA and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 796 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-20Read full judgment →
- ASHFAQ AHMAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER. VEHARI AND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C.S.) 666 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-12-03Read full judgment →
- ASHFAQ AHMAD CHEEMA vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2104 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-22Read full judgment →
- ASHFAQ AHMAD AND ANOTHERs vs THE STATE1985 PLD Federal Shariat Court 126 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-12-03Read full judgment →
- ASGHARALI vs THE STATE1985 PLD Karachi 661 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-24Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR HAYAT and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2638 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-24Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2594 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-14Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB And Another1985 SCMR 644 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged an interim order issued by a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court during the pendency of a writ petition. The interim order, which confirmed a stay in favour of the Forest Department, contained strong observations stating that the petitioner had no right to the land in question, and that the Forest Department was its full owner. The petitioner contended that these observations amounted to a practical acceptance of the writ petition, making further proceedings a mere formality, and thus sought to challenge the interim order. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, holding that the writ petition was still pending and the observations, despite their strong language, were of a tentative nature and did not constitute a final determination of the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as premature, affirming that the High Court still had to finally decide the matter.
Questions settled- Can strong observations made in an interim order be challenged before the final decision of the main case?
- Do observations in an interim order, however strongly worded, constitute a final determination of the case?
- Is a petition challenging an interim order premature if the main writ petition is still pending?
- ASGHAR ALI vs KHUSHI MUHAMMAD1985 P Cr. L J 2440 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-03Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI And Others vs ABDUL GHAFFAR ABDUL REHAN1985 SCMR 1300 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that reversed an eviction order granted by a Rent Controller. The Rent Controller had allowed the landlords' application for eviction on the grounds of bona fide requirement for reconstruction. However, the High Court overturned this decision, reasoning that because the tenant occupied a shop in a commercial building, and the proposed reconstruction was for residential purposes, the tenant was ineligible for the protections afforded under the relevant rent control legislation. The petitioners challenged this interpretation, arguing it conflicted with established Supreme Court precedents regarding the rights of tenants during reconstruction. The Supreme Court, noting a divergence in its own previous rulings on the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions, determined that the issue was of significant general legal importance affecting numerous cases. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to resolve the conflict in judicial opinion. Given the complexity and the need for an authoritative ruling, the Court directed that the appeal be heard by a larger Bench of at least five judges.
Questions settled- Does the conversion of a commercial building to a residential building during reconstruction affect a tenant's rights under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Is a tenant of a shop in a commercial building entitled to protection under Section 13(5B) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 when the landlord seeks eviction for reconstruction?
- ASGHAR ALI AND ANOTHER vs Tilt STATE1985 PLD Lahore 258 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI AND ANOTHER vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAISTAN1985 PLC 654 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI Alias BHOLA And Another vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1040 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence of the petitioners for murder and causing injury. The petitioners were convicted under Sections 302/34 and 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and causing injury to his brother following a dispute over a small service charge. The High Court had previously dismissed their appeals and confirmed the death sentences. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction was sustainable based on the ocular testimony and whether the sentence of death was appropriate given the circumstances of the incident. The Court held that the lower courts correctly appreciated the evidence regarding the guilt of the petitioners, finding no grounds to interfere with the conviction. However, noting that the underlying dispute involved a trivial amount of money and followed an exchange of abuses, the Court granted leave to appeal specifically to consider the appropriateness of the death sentence. The principle established is that while ocular testimony may sufficiently prove guilt, the proportionality of a death sentence may be reviewed when the motive involves a trivial dispute.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal solely to consider the appropriateness of a sentence while upholding a conviction?
- Does a trivial motive for a crime provide grounds for reviewing the imposition of a death sentence?
- Is ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
- ASGH AR ALI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 131 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
- ASGH AR ALI vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM and 6 others1985 CLC 526 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-16Read full judgment →
- ASCHAR AL1 vs AHMAD NASEEM and another1985 CLC 2616 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-03Read full judgment →
- ASAD KHAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1676 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-02Read full judgment →
- ASAD ALI SHAH vs DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, GUJRAT and another1985 PLC 59 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- ARSHAD UMAR AND ANOTHERs vs BEGUM NAZRUL ASKARI1985 PLD Supreme Court 38 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-09-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition arises out of a common judgment of the High Court of Sind which set aside the dismissal of rent applications filed by the respondent-landlady for the ejectment of her tenants on the ground of bona fide personal use and occupation. The core legal question was whether the failure of the landlady and her married son to personally appear in the witness-box and subject themselves to cross-examination is fatal to a claim of bona fide personal requirement. The Supreme Court held that the omission of the landlord or the beneficiary child to personally appear and depose is not fatal to the case, provided sufficient evidence is otherwise brought on record to satisfy the Rent Controller. The Court affirmed that the relevant statute prescribes no specific limitations or mandatory nature of evidence required to prove good faith, and the satisfaction of the Rent Controller is to be based on the overall material placed before him by the parties. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of a landlord to personally appear in the witness-box is fatal to a claim of bona fide personal requirement?
- Does section 15(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 prescribe any specific nature of evidence required to prove good faith?
- Can the satisfaction of the Rent Controller regarding personal requirement be established through the testimony of an attorney or family member?
- ARSHAD MAHMOOD vs The STATE1985 SCMR 561 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, whereby the petitioner's conviction under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code was maintained, but his sentence was altered. The core legal question raised was whether an appellate court is legally obliged to appraise the evidence afresh under section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 even when the counsel does not challenge the conviction, and whether the High Court failed to peruse the record before disposing of the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had indeed perused the evidence, as evidenced by its explicit observation that ample evidence connected the appellant to the crime, and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court satisfies its duty to examine the record when it records its assessment that ample evidence supports the conviction, even if the appellant's counsel chooses not to orally challenge the conviction on merits.
Questions settled- Is an appellate court obliged to appraise the evidence afresh under section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the counsel does not challenge the conviction?
- Whether an appellate judgment is illegal if passed without perusing the record or examining the evidence?
- Can a sentence of rigorous imprisonment be altered on the ground of a protracted trial and small amount of illegal gratification?
- ARSHAD MAHMOOD and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1075 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-21Read full judgment →
- ARSHAD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1966(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
- ARSHAD alias ASHRAF vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1728 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-12Read full judgment →
- ARSHAD ALI RANA vs PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT GHAZALI INTER-COLLEGE, JHANG AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 829 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-10-20Read full judgment →
- ARIF HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1352 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-25Read full judgment →
- ARIF H. A. SATTAR vs THE MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. KARACHI1985 PLC 1027 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-03-05Read full judgment →
- ARIF BUTT vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC 869 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-13Read full judgment →
- ARIF and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 69 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
- ARBAB vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1462 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
- ARBAB ALI vs KHAMISO And Other1985 SCMR 195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-09-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Sind High Court granting bail to respondents in a case involving a murderous assault under section 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court correctly evaluated the medical evidence and properly applied the provisions regarding further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure when granting bail. The Supreme Court found that the High Court was under a misapprehension regarding the nature and location of the injuries, notably overlooking a substantial incised wound on the parietal region of the scalp which attracted penal provisions carrying a prohibitory clause. The Court held that bail under the provision for further inquiry requires a definite conclusion that there are no reasonable grounds for believing the accused committed a non-bailable offence. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal while clarifying the legal requirements for bail based on further inquiry and suggesting the petitioner move the High Court for bail cancellation.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be allowed on the ground of further inquiry without a definite conclusion that there are no reasonable grounds for believing the accused committed a non-bailable offence?
- Does a mistake in appreciating the nature and location of injuries by the High Court warrant interference or a remedy for bail cancellation?
- What are the prerequisites for granting bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure when an offence falls within the prohibitory clause?
- AQI KHAN and another vs Haji SHAH MUHAMMAD and another1985 CLC 1107 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-01-01Read full judgment →
- Applicant: Mustafa R.C.C. Pipe Works vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax.PTCL 1985 (CL) 98 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
- Appellate Tribunal PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs MAHMOOD-UL-1995 PLC 813 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
- Appellate Tribunal PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs ALLAH YAR1984 PLC 660 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-04Read full judgment →
- Appellate Tribunal OBAIDULLAH vs MESSRS ULBRIGHT'S (PAKISTAN) LTD.1985 PLC 665 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-01-07Read full judgment →
- Appellate Tribunal MUHAMMAD YOUSAF RATHORE vs DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, TELEGRAPHS, RAWALPINDI AND ANOTHER1985 PLC 794 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-02-16Read full judgment →
- Appellate Tribunal Mian MUHAMMAD ASGHAR vs WAPDA1985 PLC 31 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-16Read full judgment →
- Appellate Tribunal GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, MULTAN vs NOOR1985 PLC 216 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-08-12Read full judgment →
- ANWARUL HAQ vs INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN1985 PLC 363 · Labour Court · 1984-04-25Read full judgment →
- ANWAR vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1417 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-22Read full judgment →
- ANWAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others1985 CLC 2798 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-26Read full judgment →
- Anwar Textile Mills Limited. vs Central Board Of Revenue, Etc.PTCL 1985 (CL) 149 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-26Read full judgment →
- ANWAR MUHAMMAD KHAN vs Messrs NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION Ltd.1985 PLC 395 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-15Read full judgment →
- ANWAR MAQBOOL vs Mian ABDUL QADIR and another1985 MLD 1047 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-02Read full judgment →
- ANWAR And Others vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan examines the nature of the offence committed in a double murder case arising from a sudden dispute over the turn of canal water (Warabandi). The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in convicting the appellants under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, given the evidence of a sudden fight in the heat of passion without premeditation. The Supreme Court held that the parties engaged in a sudden mutual fight upon a sudden quarrel where both sides were armed and sustained injuries, and the prosecution witnesses had minimized their role. Consequently, the Court held that the case fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The key legal principle laid down is that where a homicide is committed during a sudden fight without premeditation in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and the accused do not act in a cruel manner or take undue advantage, the conviction is properly altered from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I.
Questions settled- Whether a fight arising suddenly over a water dispute without premeditation attracts Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 be altered to Section 304 Part I when injuries were inflicted from both sides during a close fight?
- Whether the absence of premeditation and the presence of a sudden quarrel negate the finding of premeditated murder?
- ANWAR and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1626 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-13Read full judgment →
- ANJUMAN INTIZAMIA, JAMIA MASJID KALAN Through Haji Noor Ahmad Its1985 SCMR 1203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the form of appeals involving the Anjuman Intizamia, Jamia Masjid Kalan. The core legal question presented to the Court was whether the pending appeals could be resolved through a mutual compromise reached between the contesting parties. Upon review, the Court examined the terms of the compromise agreement, which was duly signed by the respective counsel and other relevant parties. Finding the terms of the settlement to be reasonable and acceptable, the Court exercised its discretion to dispose of the appeals in accordance with the terms of the compromise. The Court held that the litigation should be concluded based on the agreement reached by the parties, thereby settling the dispute without further adjudication on the merits. No order as to costs was issued. The principle laid down is that the Supreme Court may dispose of appeals in terms of a reasonable compromise agreement voluntarily entered into and signed by the contesting parties.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court dispose of appeals in terms of a compromise agreement signed by the contesting parties?
- Is a compromise agreement signed by counsel and parties a valid basis for the disposal of pending appeals?
- ANWAR ALI SHAH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2686 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
- ANIL STARCH PRODUCTS LTD. vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, COMPANIES CIRCLE-II, AHMEDABAD1985 PTD 677 · Gujarat High Court · 1980-02-19Read full judgment →
- AMJAD SAEED alias MAHAM and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 3013 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-07Read full judgment →
- AMJAD RASHID KHAN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1394 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
- AMJAD PARVEZ vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB And Other1985 SCMR 1018 (2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute regarding admission to medical colleges in Punjab against reserved seats for the Dera Ghazi Khan district. The appellant, a Second Division F.Sc. candidate, was denied admission despite obtaining an aggregate score of 617 marks after adding 20 statutory marks for completing National Cadet Corps (NCC) training under the National Guards Act 1973. The selection authorities, relying on the college prospectus, argued that the addition of NCC marks could not alter a candidate's division to allow them to compete with First Divisioners. The Supreme Court resolved a conflict of decisions between the Lahore and Sind High Courts, holding that a college prospectus lacks statutory force and cannot override or whittle down the clear statutory concessions granted under Section 29(c) of the National Guards Act 1973. Consequently, adjusted marks must be treated as entitling a candidate to compete in the higher division. However, on equitable grounds, the Court declined to dislodge already admitted students and directed the creation of additional seats to be offered to higher-merit candidates first, with the appellant as a beneficiary in case of forfeiture.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of a medical college prospectus can override or limit the statutory concessions granted under the National Guards Act 1973?
- Does the addition of twenty marks for National Cadet Corps training under the National Guards Act 1973 allow a Second Division candidate to compete alongside First Division candidates if their adjusted score reaches the First Division threshold?
- Can a court direct the creation of additional academic seats as an equitable remedy for a candidate wrongfully deprived of admission due to an incorrect interpretation of rules?
- AMJAD and another vs THE STATE1985 MLD 848 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-01Read full judgment →
- AMJAD ALI alias KALOO vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 428 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged his conviction and death sentence for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arguing he was a juvenile at the time of the offense and thus protected under the Sind Children Act, 1955. The core legal questions concerned the determination of the appellant's age and the legality of his trial and sentencing under the general criminal law. The Court held that, based on the principle that the interpretation most favorable to the accused must be adopted, the Medical Board's report indicating the appellant was fifteen years old at the time of the incident should prevail over conflicting medical evidence. While the Court affirmed that the Sessions Court had jurisdiction to try the case, it ruled that the death sentence violated the express prohibition in Section 68(1) of the Sind Children Act, 1955. Consequently, the Court set aside the death sentence and referred the matter to the Provincial Government under Section 68(2) of the Act for appropriate orders, directing the appellant be held in the Juvenile Offenders' Jail pending such determination.
Questions settled- Can a court prefer a medical report favorable to the accused when conflicting medical evidence regarding age exists?
- Does the Sind Children Act, 1955 prohibit a Sessions Court from trying a juvenile offender for a murder charge?
- Is a death sentence passed against a juvenile offender legal under the Sind Children Act, 1955?
- Does an error in the mode of trial regarding juvenile status necessarily vitiate the entire proceedings under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- AMIRA and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2864 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-26Read full judgment →
- AMIR ZAMAN vs MAHBOOB And Other1985 SCMR 685 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was filed by the complainant against the judgment of the Lahore High Court acquitting two respondents of murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal for the reappraisal of evidence regarding the respondents. The prosecution asserted that the respondents shot the deceased from a distance of about 100 feet following a motive rooted in prior civil litigation testimony. Upon reviewing the record, the Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's findings that the eye-witnesses were interested or chance witnesses whose accounts contained material improvements and clear suppressions. Crucially, the medical evidence contradicted the ocular testimony, as autopsy revealed three firearm entry wounds with scorching, indicating close-range shots rather than two long-distance shots. Furthermore, injuries sustained by the accused party and women on their side supported the defence plea of a mutual fight rather than unprovoked aggression. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether conflict between medical evidence indicating close-range firing and ocular testimony claiming long-distance shots justifies an acquittal?
- Whether the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused party undermines the credibility of prosecution eye-witnesses?
- Can an order of acquittal be set aside when the eye-witnesses are related, make material improvements, and contradict medical findings?
- AMIR SULTAN and 9 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1834 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
- AMIR SULAIMAN vs MANAGER, MILITARY FARM, BANNU AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 1014 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-07-05Read full judgment →
- AMIR MUHAMMAD vs FATEH SHERPLD 1985 Rev. 56 [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1984-08-12Read full judgment →
- AMIR KHAN vs Mst. GOHRAN And Another1985 SCMR 1847 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which granted bail to a respondent accused of conspiring with others to murder her husband. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court’s exercise of discretion in granting bail, specifically invoking the proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was legally flawed or perverse. The Supreme Court, upon review, determined that the High Court’s order was neither illegal nor perverse. The Court held that the grant of bail was a discretionary exercise by the High Court, and in the absence of compelling reasons to suggest the order was improper, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the decision. Consequently, the bail granted to the respondent was maintained. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court will generally refrain from interfering with a discretionary bail order passed by a High Court unless such an order is demonstrated to be legally unsustainable or perverse, particularly when the accused's circumstances align with the statutory provisions for bail.
Questions settled- Is the Supreme Court empowered to interfere with a discretionary bail order passed by the High Court if the order is neither illegal nor perverse?
- Does the proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to cases involving conspiracy to murder?
- Can a bail order be challenged in the Supreme Court solely on the basis of the sufficiency of evidence regarding conspiracy?
- AMIR KHAN AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 18 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Attock, whereby four appellants were convicted of the triple murder of Mst. Nur Begum and her two daughters, and sentenced to death along with fine and compensation. The Lahore High Court examined the evidence, noting that the complainant had repeatedly changed his version of the occurrence and the motive, ultimately failing to maintain his status as an eye-witness. The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of two minor child witnesses, whose statements were recorded belatedly after fourteen days and suffered from tutoring and material contradictions. Furthermore, the medical evidence and alleged recoveries of weapons and a lantern failed to provide credible corroboration linking the appellants to the crime. The Court held that in criminal cases, a conviction cannot be sustained unless the guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Finding the prosecution evidence unreliable, contradictory, and lacking sufficient corroboration, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the convictions and death sentences, rejected the murder reference, and acquitted the appellants.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of minor child witnesses can form the sole basis for a capital conviction without reliable corroboration?
- What is the evidentiary value of delayed police statements of child witnesses recorded weeks after the occurrence?
- Does the shifting stance of a complainant regarding the identity of the assailants and the motive vitiate the prosecution's case?
- Are recoveries of weapons from open houses nearly two months after the incident sufficient to corroborate ocular testimony when forensic reports are negative?
- AMIR HUSAIN vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and 2 others1985 P Cr. L J 108 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-27Read full judgment →
- AMIR BUX vs NAWAB MUKHTAR AHMED1985 CLC 13 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
- AMIR BUX and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2323 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-09Read full judgment →
- AMIR BUKHSH vs THE SECRETARYGENERAL, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR1985 PLD Karachi 610 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-28Read full judgment →
- AMIR BAKHSH And Others vs SANWAL KHAN And Another1985 SCMR 2010 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a dispute over agricultural land measuring approximately 72 acres, concerning rival agreements to sell executed by the owner in favour of the first purchaser and subsequent purchasers (petitioners). The first purchaser filed a suit for specific performance of contract, which was decreed by the trial Court after finding that the subsequent purchasers had prior notice of the earlier transaction. The High Court dismissed the subsequent purchasers' first appeal. Upon a petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the lower courts misread the evidence regarding their knowledge at the time of the initial agreement and erred in holding that the first agreement was superseded by a novation. The Supreme Court held that prima facie there was no clear admission in the testimony of the witness establishing the petitioners' knowledge at the relevant time, and that important questions regarding notice and novation required consideration. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal while recording an undertaking from the respondent not to alienate or encumber the land pending the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether subsequent purchasers had notice of a prior agreement to sell at the time of entering into their own agreement?
- Whether a subsequent agreement can operate as a novation superseding an earlier agreement to sell?
- Whether the concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the knowledge of a prior transaction are sustainable on the evidence on record?
- AMIR BAKHSH and others vs FATEH MUHAMMAD and 11 others1985 MLD 1471 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-20Read full judgment →
- AMIR And Others vs MAHLLA1985 SCMR 1487 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a revision petition against an appellate judgment of the Additional District Judge, Sargodha. The lower appellate court had affirmed a trial court decree ordering the petitioners to surrender possession of certain Kothas (structures) to the respondent. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the respondent's ownership of the land upon which the Kothas were constructed, and the subsequent entitlement to possession, warranted interference by the apex court. The Supreme Court held that the respondent had successfully established ownership of the land, and the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below were sound. Finding no legal error or sufficient grounds to disturb these factual determinations, the Court dismissed the petition. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the Supreme Court will generally decline to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless a compelling legal ground or misappreciation of evidence is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding land ownership in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Is a landowner entitled to the possession of structures built upon their land when ownership is established?
- AMIR And Another vs SARDAR AHMAD1985 SCMR 1223(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the High Court dismissing the petitioners' civil revision. The respondent had filed a suit for possession of a piece of land on the ground of encroachment. During the trial, the defendants failed to produce their evidence on the designated date, whereupon their defence was closed by the trial court under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and the suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff. The petitioners' subsequent appeal before the District Judge and civil revision before the High Court were both dismissed. The Supreme Court considered the record and heard the petitioners' counsel, finding no flaw in the impugned judgment. The Court held that the High Court was fully justified in dismissing the civil revision where the defendants failed to adduce evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal as being without merit, affirming the principle that failure to produce evidence warrants the closure of defence under the applicable procedural rules.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court is justified in closing the defence of defendants who fail to produce evidence on the fixed date?
- Can a civil revision be maintained against concurrent findings of lower courts where no legal flaw is shown in the impugned judgment?
- AMIR ALI vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Amir Ali against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding his conviction under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the criminal misappropriation of a judicial file while serving as an Ahlmad. The core legal question concerned the sustainability of the conviction based on the appreciation of evidence by the courts below. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that no question of law requiring decision had been raised and declining to reappraise the evidence, as the concurrent findings of the lower courts were sound. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily reappraise evidence in a criminal petition for leave to appeal where no substantial question of law is involved.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will reappraise evidence in a criminal petition when no question of law is raised?
- Does the misappropriation of a judicial file by an Ahlmad constitute an offence under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- AMIR ALI vs THE STATE And Other1985 SCMR 1820 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal case involving the murder of Gul Sher and injuries sustained by the petitioner following a dispute over cattle trespass. The trial court convicted the accused, Ali Dino and Lal Dino, under sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act 1871, imposing sentences of death and life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court acquitted Ali Dino of the murder charge, finding no vicarious liability under section 34, and altered his conviction to section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court also reduced Lal Dino's death sentence to life imprisonment and acquitted him of the charge under section 307. The petitioner challenged these acquittals and the sentence reduction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court's re-appraisal of evidence was sound and did not violate established legal principles. The Court affirmed that the application of section 34 requires specific evidence of common intention, which was absent regarding the murder charge against Ali Dino.
Questions settled- Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime automatically attract the application of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the re-appraisal of evidence by the High Court if the findings are in accordance with well-settled principles?
- Is vicarious liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applicable where common intention is not established by the evidence?
- AMIR ALI vs GUL SHAKER AND 10 OTHERS1985 PLD Karachi 365 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court Appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 challenged the judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing an administration suit involving the estate of late Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah. The primary dispute concerned whether the deceased adhered to the Sunni/Hanafi or Shia/Asna Ashri sect of Islam, which dictated the applicable personal law of inheritance. The appellants contended that she followed Sunni law or Quranic principles under which agnates inherit as residuaries, while respondents claimed she was governed by Shia law as an Asna Ashri Shia. The High Court analyzed oral declarations, conduct, and evidence regarding her public and private life. The court held that where a Muslim declares adherence to Islam without alignment with any specific sect, their personal law cannot be presumed to be strictly Shia or Sunni based merely on scattered circumstantial evidence. Setting aside the Single Judge's finding, the High Court held that the estate ought to be governed by general Quranic principles of Islamic law and remanded the suit for determination of remaining issues.
Questions settled- Whether a Muslim who rejects sectarian divisions is governed by general Quranic principles of inheritance rather than a specific sectarian law?
- Does the mere attendance of private religious gatherings or rituals establish conversion or adherence to a specific sect for inheritance purposes?
- Can a presumption of sectarian faith be drawn solely from the mode of funeral prayers conducted for a deceased person?
- AMIR ALI And Others vs Mst. ANJUM SEHRA And Other1985 SCMR 1254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 29-7-1980, which dismissed a constitutional writ petition arising out of a land settlement case. The core legal question revolves around whether a party can challenge the cancellation of a land allotment after previously admitting before the Settlement Authorities that the allotment was obtained without his knowledge and based on misrepresentation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner is bound by his own admission and cannot subsequently escape its legal consequences. The court affirmed the High Court's decision and dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that a litigant cannot approbate and reprobate by disclaiming an allotment before administrative authorities and later challenging its cancellation in writ proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner challenge the cancellation of a land allotment after having categorically admitted before the Settlement Authorities that the allotment was obtained without his knowledge and through misrepresentation?
- Is a party bound by admissions made before administrative authorities during land settlement proceedings?
- AMIR AHMAD and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2094 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-26Read full judgment →
- AMIN MASIH and another vs CHAIRMAN, TOWN COMMITTEE, RABWAH1985 PLC 494 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-10-29Read full judgment →
- AMIN JAN vs DIRECTORGENERAL, T & T AND OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 81 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by an Assistant Engineer in the T & T Department seeking a writ of mandamus for the implementation of a promotion order issued by the Secretary Establishment, Government of Pakistan, which was contested by the Director-General of the Pakistan Telegraph and Telephone Department. The core legal question involved the propriety of invoking writ jurisdiction to resolve inter-departmental disputes and the mandatory requirement of consulting the Law Division under the Rules of Business. The Lahore High Court held that courts should exercise judicial restraint and avoid interfering in inter-departmental affairs that ought to be resolved administratively, deprecating the practice of government functionaries bringing internal disputes to court. The Court laid down the principle that mandatory rules such as the Rules of Business must be strictly observed by government ministries to ensure harmonious functioning and avoid unnecessary litigation, and accordingly adjourned the matter to enable the Deputy Attorney-General to facilitate an inter-departmental settlement.
Questions settled- Whether a High Court should interfere in inter-departmental disputes through its writ jurisdiction?
- Is consultation with the Law Division mandatory under the Rules of Business for government divisions?
- What is the effect of non-observance of the Rules of Business by Federal Government departments?
- AMIN FABRICS LTD. vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC 764 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH KHAN vs Hafiz ABDUL GHAFFAR1985 PLD Karachi 7 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an order of the Rent Controller allowing an ejectment application filed by the landlord against the tenant on the ground of personal bona fide need for the landlord and his son to restart their ancestral shoe-making business. The core legal questions involved whether a previous dismissal of an ejectment application operates as res judicata to bar a subsequent application under changed circumstances, whether the landlord successfully proved bona fide personal need, and how comparative hardship between the landlord and tenant should be evaluated. The court held that changed circumstances, such as the landlord's son coming of age and completing his education to join the family business, remove the bar of res judicata, and that the landlord sufficiently established his bona fide requirement. Furthermore, the court held that both parties must adduce evidence regarding relative hardship, and the landlord's long deprivation of his property outweighed the tenant's continued occupation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with a two-month grace period granted to the tenant to vacate the premises.
Questions settled- Does the dismissal of a previous ejectment application operate as res judicata to bar a subsequent ejectment application filed under changed circumstances?
- What constitutes sufficient cause for the restoration of an appeal dismissed for default of appearance?
- How should the relative hardship of the landlord and tenant be weighed when deciding an ejectment application on the ground of personal requirement?
- Is the unshakeable oral testimony of a landlord regarding personal requirement sufficient to prove bona fide need if consistent with pleadings?
- AMANUL HAQ vs SAEED HUSS AIN BOKHARI And Other1985 SCMR 649 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant against an order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's Second Appeal from Order (S.A.O.) in a rent matter. The respondents-landlords had previously initiated ejectment proceedings against the petitioner on the grounds of property reconstruction, which were successful before the Rent Controller and upheld through subsequent appellate stages. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged the eviction order solely on the contention that, based on the site plan submitted by the landlords, the specific room occupied by the petitioner would remain unaffected by the proposed reconstruction. Upon reviewing the site plan and examining the relevant evidence presented in the lower courts, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petitioner's argument. Consequently, the Court held that the concurrent findings regarding the necessity of reconstruction were sound and that the petitioner's specific objection regarding the site plan was factually unsubstantiated. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a tenant challenge an eviction order on the ground that the proposed reconstruction does not affect their specific portion of the premises?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in rent matters regarding reconstruction?
- AMANAT ALI and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1430 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-10Read full judgment →
- AMAN ULLAH vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 270 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-05Read full judgment →
- ALTAFUR REHMAN vs Mst. NUSRAT RASHID and 3 others1985 MLD 225 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-15Read full judgment →
- ALTAF HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1482 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-22Read full judgment →
- ALTAF HUSSAIN vs ALLAH YAR and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 1095 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-01Read full judgment →
- Altaf Hussain And One Other vs The StatePTCL 1985 (CL.) 242 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-31Read full judgment →
- ALTAF AHMAD vs THE GUARDIAN JUDGE, SIALKOT AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 440 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the orders of the Guardian Judge directing the arrest and detention of the petitioner in civil prison for defying court orders regarding the production of a minor in a guardianship matter. The core legal question concerned whether a person who contumaciously defies interim orders of a court regarding the custody and production of a minor is entitled to discretionary constitutional or appellate relief. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having acted in deliberate defiance of judicial directions and with unclean hands, was rightly denied discretionary relief, and accordingly refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that discretionary jurisdiction, whether under constitutional writ remedies or appellate leave to appeal, will be withheld from litigants who act in contumacious defiance of lawful judicial orders.
Questions settled- Is a petitioner who contumaciously defies interim orders of a Guardian Judge entitled to discretionary relief in writ jurisdiction?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the dismissal of a constitutional petition where the appellant has approached the court with unclean hands?
- Can failure to produce a minor in compliance with interim orders under the Guardians and Wards Act justify committal to civil prison?
- ALLOO vs SHER KHAN AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal involves a dispute over the title to agricultural land in District Lasbella, Baluchistan, where respondents claimed ownership by inheritance from the original owner, while the appellant asserted ancestral possession and ownership, claiming to be merely a cultivator (Buzgar). The trial Court (Qazi) decreed the suit in favour of the respondents, but the first appellate forum (Majlis-e-Shoora) set aside the decree and dismissed the suit. Upon a second appeal, the High Court reversed the Majlis-e-Shoora's judgment and restored the Qazi's decree. The core legal question was whether the High Court exceeded its powers under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by reappraising evidence and interfering with findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court without properly comparing the conflicting reasoning of the lower forums. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to adhere to the established principles governing second appeals involving conflicting findings of fact between the trial court and the first appellate court. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the matter for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with findings of fact in a second appeal when the findings of the trial court and the first appellate court are at variance?
- What are the principles applicable to a second appeal when the first appellate court reverses the judgment and decree of the trial court?
- Whether a second appellate court is required to compare the reasoning of both the trial court and the first appellate court before setting aside the lower appellate court's findings?
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN vs MESSRS FAIZ AHMADMANZOOR AHMAD AND OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 188 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a suit for the recovery of Rs. 21,26,560 instituted by Allied Bank of Pakistan against a firm and its partners under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, based on credit facilities, pledge of goods, and mortgages of immovable property. The core legal question is whether the defendants disclosed a plausible or bona fide defence sufficient to entitle them to leave to appear and defend the summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Lahore High Court held that the defendants failed to raise any triable issue or substantiate their vague allegations regarding unauthorized transfers, incorrect insurance debits, or bank non-co-operation, and noted that the existence of a mortgage does not automatically warrant granting leave to defend. Consequently, the application for leave to defend was dismissed and the suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff bank. The key principle laid down is that under summary banking recovery proceedings, leave to defend is not a matter of right and will be refused unless the defendant establishes a genuine, plausible defence giving rise to triable issues rather than sham or illusory pleas.
Questions settled- Whether the existence of a mortgage of property valued higher than the bank's claim entitles a defendant to unconditional leave to defend a recovery suit?
- What constitutes a sufficient plausible defence to warrant the grant of leave to appear and defend a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- Whether a defendant can claim leave to defend based on vague and unsubstantiated allegations of unauthorized debit entries and bank non-co-operation?
- Does the statutory presumption of correctness attached to a statement of accounts certified under the Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891, place the burden on the defendant to specifically disprove entries?
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN Ltd. vs Messrs SAINJI RESTAURANT AND HOTEL and 2 others1985 CLC 2131 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-30Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs Messrs SAINJEES RESTAURANT AND HOTEL1985 CLC 391 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff bank filed a suit against the defendants for the recovery of Rs. 10,33,450, representing an outstanding balance on an overdraft facility, and sought a mortgage decree against properties allegedly encumbered by an equitable mortgage. The core legal question was whether the documents deposited by the defendants—specifically extracts from the Property Register—constituted valid documents of title sufficient to create an equitable mortgage under the law. The Court held that while the plaintiff successfully proved the debt and was entitled to a money decree, it could not grant a mortgage decree. The Court reasoned that extracts from the Property Register, Jamabandi, and similar fiscal or revenue records are not documents of title, as they are merely presumptive evidence and do not confer property rights upon transfer. Consequently, the deposit of such documents does not satisfy the requirements for creating an equitable mortgage. The key principle laid down is that for the creation of a valid equitable mortgage, the documents deposited must be genuine documents of title, and mere extracts from government revenue or fiscal records are insufficient for this purpose.
Questions settled- Can an equitable mortgage be created by depositing extracts from a Property Register?
- Are revenue or fiscal records, such as Jamabandi or Property Register extracts, considered documents of title for the purpose of creating an equitable mortgage?
- Is a decree under Order XXXIV, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 maintainable if the underlying mortgage is found to be invalid?
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs MESSRS KOHINOOR COTTON MILLS LTD. AND 3 OTHERS Defendants1985 PLD Lahore 89 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-26Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN Ltd. vs ABDUL MAJEED (Deceased) through his1985 CLC 1518 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an ejectment application filed by a landlord against his tenant bank seeking possession of a shop on the ground of personal bona fide need to establish his unemployed son in a laundry business, alongside an allegation of rent default. The Rent Controller framed issues regarding default and personal need, answering the former in the negative and the latter in the affirmative, which led to cross-appeals by both parties. The core legal question concerned whether the landlord's bona fide personal need was disproved by an isolated inadvertent utterance of the word residential during cross-examination. The court dismissed the tenant's appeal, holding that a single stray expression by an uneducated litigant cannot override the consistent, detailed pleadings and evidence establishing a genuine personal requirement. The key principle laid down is that a landlord's assertion on oath regarding personal need should be accepted as bona fide when consistent with pleadings and not genuinely shaken, and an accidental slip of the tongue during cross-examination must be evaluated in the context of the entire evidence rather than read to the landlord's prejudice.
Questions settled- Whether an accidental or inadvertent slip of the tongue by a landlord during cross-examination can negate a consistent and detailed claim of personal bona fide need?
- Should the assertion on oath by a landlord that he requires the premises for his own or his son's use be accepted as bona fide when consistent with his averments?
- Can a solitary word uttered by an uneducated litigant under cross-examination be treated as a positive admission against his entire pleadings?
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs ABDUL AZIZ QURESHI1985 PLC 585 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-16Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. And Another vs IJAZ AHMED ABBASI1985 SCMR 1786 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute concerning the termination of the respondent's service by the petitioner Bank. Initially, the respondent filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, after a prior writ petition was dismissed on the ground that his remedy lay before a Labour Court. While the Bank contested the application on limitation grounds, it did not deny the respondent's status as a workman. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement, but the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal reversed this, finding the respondent was not a workman. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, noting the Bank had previously conceded the respondent's status as a workman. The Supreme Court held that the Bank could not be permitted to raise a contention contrary to its own pleadings. However, because the Appellate Tribunal had not decided the case on its merits, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and directed that the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal be deemed pending for a decision on merits.
Questions settled- Can a party be permitted to raise a contention in legal proceedings that is contrary to its own previous pleadings?
- Should a High Court remand a case to an Appellate Tribunal when the Tribunal has set aside an order solely on a preliminary point without deciding the merits of the case?
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD vs Syed WAHID HUSAIN1985 MLD 594 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN EMPLOYEESUNION vs REGIONAL MANAGER, ALLIED1985 PLC 1111 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-08-14Read full judgment →
- ALLAHDAD And Others vs THE STATE And Other1985 SCMR 1173 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment arises from cross-appeals: one by the complainant for enhancement of sentence and the other by the convicts against their conviction and sentence for murder and attempt to commit murder under sections 302 and 307 read with sections 149 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions involved the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the presence of motive, and whether medical evidence contradicted the ocular account. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the testimony of the injured eyewitness, corroborated by natural witnesses and medical evidence, was creditworthy, and the mere relationship of witnesses to the deceased did not render them interested or untruthful. The Court dismissed the convicts' appeal against conviction, upheld the life imprisonment sentence with modifications to the fine and compensation awarded, and partially allowed the complainant's appeal regarding the enhancement of fine and compensation to the heirs of the deceased and the injured witness.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of an injured eyewitness can be relied upon without independent corroboration?
- Does the close relationship of eyewitnesses to the deceased render their testimony untruthful?
- Whether medical evidence contradicting minor aspects of an eyewitness account is sufficient to discard the entire prosecution case?
- Can a sentence of fine be enhanced along with an order for compensation to the heirs of the deceased under the Pakistan Penal Code?
- ALLAH YAR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2777(1) · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-14Read full judgment →