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.
- ALLAH YAR KHAN vs Mst. NASIM AKHTAR and another1985 CLC 1277 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-13Read full judgment →
- ALLAH YAR KHAN And Others vs Mst. SAHIB KHATUN And Other1985 SCMR 590 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition challenging revenue authorities' refusal to implement a 1951 High Court decree. The core legal question was whether a 1951 appellate judgment, which allowed an appeal filed jointly by the sisters of the deceased (Nawab Khan) and a third party (Muhammad Sher), effectively validated Muhammad Sher's claim of adverse possession over part of the estate, despite the trial court having explicitly rejected that claim. The Supreme Court held that the 1951 judgment, which focused solely on the sisters' inheritance rights regarding non-ancestral property, did not adjudicate or uphold Muhammad Sher's adverse possession claim. The Court reasoned that merely joining an appeal with successful parties does not automatically confer the benefits of that judgment upon a co-appellant whose specific claim was not addressed or accepted by the appellate court. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal, establishing that a joint appeal does not imply a concession or judicial recognition of a co-appellant's independent claim in the absence of explicit findings.
Questions settled- Does a joint appeal filed by multiple parties imply that the appellate court's decision in favor of one party automatically validates the claims of all co-appellants?
- Can a party claim the benefit of an appellate judgment if that judgment contains no discussion or finding regarding their specific claim of adverse possession?
- Is a court's discretionary writ jurisdiction exercisable to enforce a decree based on a technical interpretation of a prior appellate judgment that did not address the petitioner's claim?
- ALLAH YAR And Others vs Mst. FOZIA BATOOL And Other1985 SCMR 1720 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that allowed a constitutional petition filed by the respondents concerning the transfer of a rural plot under Settlement Scheme No. VII. The petitioners and the respondents' predecessor-in-interest had both occupied the property, which included a built-up Kotha and unbuilt portions. Lower settlement authorities had previously divided the property, transferring the built-up portion to the respondents and the unbuilt portion to the petitioners. The High Court set this aside, transferring the entire property to the respondents. The core legal question was whether the property could be validly divided between the claimants under Settlement Scheme No. VII. The Supreme Court held that Settlement Scheme No. VII governs rural buildings and includes land appurtenant to the built-up portion, and does not envisage an arbitrary division of the plot and the built-up structure. Consequently, the Court dismissed the leave petition, affirming the transfer of the entire property to the respondents.
Questions settled- Whether Settlement Scheme No. VII provides for the independent transfer of open plots or building sites apart from rural buildings?
- Does the definition of a rural building under Settlement Scheme No. VII include the land appurtenant to the built-up portion?
- Can a rural property comprising a built-up structure and open land be arbitrarily divided between competing claimants under Settlement Scheme No. VII?
- ALLAH YAR AND 9 OTHERS vs FAZAL KARIM AND 5 OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 438 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners-vendees' civil revision challenging the trial court's permission allowing the respondent-plaintiff to correct the particulars of a defendant in the plaint. The core legal question concerned whether the correction of a defendant's name in the plaint, where a clerical mistake resulted in a wrong name being assigned to the intended person, constitutes a permissible amendment or an improper addition of a party. The Supreme Court held that the mistake was merely a clerical error in describing the correct person rather than an omission to implead a necessary party, and upheld the amendment. The key principle laid down is that correcting a misdescription or clerical error in the name of an intended defendant already sought to be impleaded is permissible and distinct from impleading a wrong person or omitting a necessary party.
Questions settled- Whether the correction of a defendant's name in a plaint due to a clerical mistake constitutes an improper addition of a party?
- Is the correction of a misdescribed name of an intended defendant permissible under procedural law?
- ALLAH YAR and 3 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2441 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-27Read full judgment →
- ALLAH WASAYO vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER KHAIRPUR DIVISIONPLD 1985 Rev. 188 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1975-02-25Read full judgment →
- ALLAH WASAYA vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1420 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-14Read full judgment →
- ALLAH WASAYA and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1034 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-22Read full judgment →
- ALLAH WARAYO vs THE STATE1985 PLD Karachi 724 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-20Read full judgment →
- ALLAH RAKHIO vs THE STATE1985 MLD 862 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-17Read full judgment →
- ALLAH RAKHIO vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, REVENUE1985 PLC (C.S.) 345 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
- ALLAH RAKHA vs The STATE1985 SCMR 453 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a murder conviction where the appellant, Allah Rakha, was sentenced to death. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained solely on the recovery of a revolver, given that the ocular evidence was provided by interested witnesses due to deep-seated family enmity, and the integrity of the investigation was challenged. The Supreme Court held that in cases of intense enmity, the testimony of interested witnesses requires independent, reliable corroboration. The Court found the prosecution's evidence regarding the recovery of the weapon and the crime empties implausible and unreliable, noting that the recovery witness was biased and the Investigating Officer’s credibility was compromised by the planting of other evidence. Consequently, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to provide the necessary corroboration to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that where deep-seated enmity exists between parties, the testimony of interested witnesses cannot be relied upon without strong, independent corroboration, and the recovery of incriminating evidence must be scrutinized for credibility when the investigation process itself is suspect.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of interested witnesses be relied upon in a criminal case without independent corroboration?
- Does the recovery of a weapon constitute sufficient corroboration when the recovery witness is biased and the investigation is suspect?
- Should a conviction be set aside when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable corroborative evidence?
- ALLAH RAKHA vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LAHORE CITY and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 285 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-07-20Read full judgment →
- ALLAH RAKHA SULEHRIA vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 907 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs ZUBAIR ASSOCIATES Ltd.1985 PLC 378 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1363 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-07Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs THE PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER s1985 PLD Lahore 407 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which reversed a Labour Court's decision reinstating the petitioners. The core legal question was whether a written termination order is effective without communication to the employee, and whether the Appellate Tribunal could ignore a finding of fact regarding the fabrication of termination documents. The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal acted without lawful authority. The Court ruled that a termination order must be communicated to the employee to be effective; otherwise, the statutory right to seek redress under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, would be rendered nugatory. Furthermore, the Tribunal erred by failing to address the Labour Court's finding that the termination orders and postal receipts were fabricated. The Court established the principle that legal provisions must be interpreted reasonably to give effect to their purpose; an uncommunicated termination order is ineffective, as the law requires termination to be a transparent process allowing the aggrieved workman to seek legal remedy.
Questions settled- Is a written order of termination effective if it is never communicated to the employee?
- Does the failure of an appellate tribunal to address a finding of fact regarding fabricated documents constitute an error of law?
- Can an employer terminate an employee's services without serving the termination order?
- ALLAH DITTA vs MUHAMMAD ZIAUL HAQ and others1985 CLC 2020 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-02Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs MUHAMMAD AKBAR and others1985 P Cr. L J 3002 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-16Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 24 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-29Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA and 4 others vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LAHORE1985 PLC 332 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-05-29Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1067 · Lahore High Court · 1985-08-18Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DINA vs KHAIR MUHAMMAD and others1985 CLC 1377 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-21Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1914 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-12Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DAD vs PUNJAB LOCAL COUNCILS ELECTION AUTHORITY and others1985 CLC 2810 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-15Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DAD vs HAZUR BAKHSH And Other1985 SCMR 942 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby an allegedly abducted minor female, Mst. Kalsoom, was ordered to be restored to the custody of her father, Hazur Bakhsh. The petitioner, Allah Dad, who had allegedly abducted the girl and performed a Nikah with her, contended that the girl was 16 to 17 years old according to a medical examination and wished to reside with him. The core legal questions involved the determination of the minor's age and whether her consent and Nikah while under the petitioner's influence justified denying her custody to her father. The Supreme Court held that authentic documentary evidence, such as birth entries, took precedence over medical opinion regarding age, establishing that the girl was a minor under 15 years of age at the time of the alleged incident. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision that statements made while under continuous influence are not voluntary, laying down the principle that the welfare of the minor is paramount in habeas corpus proceedings and that custody of a minor abductee should be restored to the natural guardian rather than an alleged husband where consent is tainted by coercion or fraud.
Questions settled- Whether medical opinion regarding age should be given preference over authentic documentary birth entries in determining the minority of an abductee?
- Can the custody of an allegedly abducted minor female be restored to her father notwithstanding an alleged Nikah with the abductor?
- Whether statements made by a detenue under the continuous influence of the abductor can be considered voluntary?
- What is the paramount consideration for a court while exercising discretion under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the custody of a minor?
- ALLAH DAD and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1557 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BUX and others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 865 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-18Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BUX and others vs MUHAMMAD HABIBULLAH KHAN1985 MLD 1493 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2152 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD AND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C.S.) 545 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-10-12Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs Mst. SHAMSHAD ZOHRA And Other1985 SCMR 959 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner husband sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment remanding a family court matter for a fresh decision. The petitioner had filed for restitution of conjugal rights, while the respondent wife sought dissolution of marriage. The Family Court decreed the husband's suit and dismissed the wife's suit, which was upheld by the appellate authority, partly on the ground that only a single appeal was filed against a common judgment. The High Court set aside these decisions in a constitutional petition, holding that the lower courts misdirected themselves in refusing Khula on improper grounds and ignoring material evidence. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order of remand, holding that provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 other than sections 10 and 11 are inapplicable to family proceedings, and therefore a technical objection regarding the filing of a single appeal against a consolidated judgment does not bar adjudication on merits. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the technical objection of filing a single appeal against a consolidated judgment stand in the way of adjudication in family court matters?
- Can Khula be refused on the ground that the wife has been married once too often?
- Are provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 other than sections 10 and 11 applicable to Family Court proceedings?
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE and 3 others1985 CLC 2254 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-04Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs ABDUL RASHID1985 SCMR 811 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning the ejectment of a tenant from a shop in Sahiwal town, ordered by the Rent Controller and upheld through successive appeals by the High Court due to a default in depositing rent for the month of July 1978. The core legal question was whether a tenant can raise a belated factual plea regarding late issuance of a rent challan by the Rent Controller to justify a delay in rent deposition when such a plea was never raised before the Rent Controller or the first appellate court. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts were fully justified in rejecting the belated and unsubstantiated plea, as the tenant failed to raise it in his written reply or seek condonation of delay during the trial proceedings. The ratio established is that a party cannot introduce a factual defense for the first time in higher appellate forums without having pleaded and substantiated it before the trial court.
Questions settled- Can a tenant raise a factual plea regarding delay in depositing rent for the first time before the Supreme Court without having raised it before the Rent Controller?
- Whether the High Court is justified in dismissing an appeal where the tenant failed to seek condonation of delay in depositing rent during the trial proceedings?
- ALLAH BAKHSH and others vs LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR and others1985 CLC 2677 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-10Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH and 7 others vs KHUDA BAKHSH1985 MLD 1233 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-12Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BACHAYO vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1758 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-07Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BACHAYO and 6 others vs THE FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION and 31985 MLD 238 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-06Read full judgment →
- ALIMUDDIN and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2711 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-20Read full judgment →
- ALI-UR-RAHMAN vs POSTMASTER-GENERAL and 2 others1985 PLC 365 · Labour Court · 1984-05-09Read full judgment →
- ALI ZAMAN vs GOVERNMENT OF N. W. F. P.1985 SCMR 500 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the dismissal of the appellant's service appeal by the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal on merits as well as limitation. The appellant challenged his placement on Promotion List 'F' with effect from 20-5-1975 rather than an earlier date, and his subsequent ranking in the seniority list published on 20-10-1977. The core legal question was whether the appellant's appeal before the Service Tribunal was barred by limitation under Section 4 of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, having been filed after the statutory limitation period from the date of the adverse notification. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was fully justified in holding the appeal to be barred by limitation, as the appellant was aggrieved by and ought to have timely challenged the notification dated 2-6-1975 which directly affected his seniority. The key principle laid down is that a civil servant must challenge an adverse administrative order or notification affecting seniority within the prescribed limitation period from the date of its communication or knowledge, rather than waiting for subsequent cascading listings.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal is barred by limitation when the aggrieved civil servant fails to challenge the foundational notification affecting his seniority within time?
- Does the publication of a subsequent seniority list extend the time to challenge an earlier promotion notification that was already known to the civil servant?
- ALI SHER vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2555 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-08Read full judgment →
- ALI SHER And Others vs MASKEEN And Other1985 SCMR 534 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order dismissing a constitutional petition regarding the allotment of evacuee agricultural land. The core legal questions concerned whether the appeal against the allotment was time-barred, whether the allotment was void ab initio due to a misleading note by a Patwari, and whether the petitioners held a superior claim as sitting allottees. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the appeal was indeed time-barred as no cogent explanation for the delay was provided. The Court further ruled that an incorrect administrative note does not render an allotment void ab initio, as the relevant scheme establishes priority categories rather than strict legal pre-conditions. Additionally, the Court found that the petitioner had already received land exceeding his verified claim, negating any equitable entitlement. The judgment establishes that administrative errors do not automatically invalidate allotments and that factual findings regarding claim satisfaction are generally immune from interference in writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does an incorrect note recorded by a Patwari render an allotment of evacuee land void ab initio?
- Can a High Court interfere with factual findings regarding the satisfaction of land claims in writ jurisdiction?
- Do paragraphs 68 and 68-A of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme create an absolute legal pre-condition for land allotment?
- ALI REHMAN vs ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT and 2 others1985 P Cr. L J 445 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-09-17Read full judgment →
- ALI NAWAZ vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 589 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-15Read full judgment →
- ALI NAWAZ vs ABDUL JABBARPLD 1985 Rev. 89 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1973-11-27Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs WALI MUHAMMAD and 4 others1985 CLC 1332 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1948 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR and others1985 MLD 929 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-21Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs KHALIL AHMED ALLAHWALA and 2 others1985 CLC 1297 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a First Rent Appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1970 challenging an order of the Rent Controller striking off the appellant-tenant's defence and directing eviction for non-compliance with a tentative rent order. The core legal questions involve whether a tenant who has regularly deposited rent in court pursuant to section 10 of the Ordinance can be held in default for arrears, and whether non-compliance with an illegal or without-jurisdiction tentative rent order warrants striking off defence and eviction. The Sindh High Court held that since the tenant had duly deposited the rent in court after the landlord refused to accept it, no arrears were due at the time the ejectment application was filed, rendering the tentative rent order bad in law. The Court established the principle that a tenant is not liable to be evicted for non-compliance with a defective or illegal tentative rent order, and an interlocutory order can be challenged in an appeal against the final order. The appeal was allowed and the case remanded.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant can be considered in default of rent when rent has been regularly deposited in court under section 10 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 following refusal by the landlord?
- Can a tenant challenge the legality of a tentative rent order in an appeal against the final order when no appeal lies against the interlocutory order itself?
- Does non-compliance with an illegal or without-jurisdiction tentative rent order passed under section 16 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 legally warrant striking off the tenant's defence?
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs KHAIRO AND ANoTHERsPLD 1985 Rev. 93 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1971-11-09Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION and another1985 CLC 1730 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff, a registered contractor, filed a suit against the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (K.M.C.) for the recovery of money for materials supplied and services rendered for the erection of a stage and railing for a public meeting at Nishtar Park upon the instructions of K.M.C. officials. The defendants resisted the suit, contending that the claim was barred under section 42 of the Sind Local Government Ordinance, 1972 and rule 5 of the Municipal Committee (Contract) Rules, 1960 as there was no validly executed contract. The core legal questions involved whether a contract not complying with statutory execution formalities is binding, and whether compensation can be awarded under sections 65 and 70 of the Contract Act for benefits received under a void agreement. The court held that the statutory requirements for contracts are mandatory and non-compliance renders the agreement void and unenforceable, precluding a claim on the contract itself. However, the court established that under section 65 of the Contract Act, a party who has received a tangible advantage or appropriated goods under a void agreement is bound to restore them or make compensation. The court decreed the suit in part, awarding compensation solely for the value of the materials actually appropriated by the Corporation.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions regarding the execution of contracts under the Sind Local Government Ordinance and Municipal Committee Rules are mandatory or directory?
- Can a contractor recover dues based on a contract with a municipal corporation that failed to comply with mandatory statutory formalities?
- Does section 65 of the Contract Act apply to agreements that are void ab initio due to non-compliance with statutory execution requirements?
- Is a municipal corporation liable to pay compensation under section 65 of the Contract Act for goods and materials appropriated by it under an unenforceable agreement?
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER (W), PAKISTAN1985 PLC 223 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs ALLAH DIT TA and others1985 CLC 2817 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a regular second appeal, treated as a revision, challenging the dismissal of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding the allotment of an Ihata. The core legal question was whether the Collector’s allotment of the disputed Ihata to the respondent was valid, and whether the Civil Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality of this administrative order. The High Court held that the Collector’s order was void, as it was obtained through the suppression of material facts regarding the appellant’s pre-existing, long-term possession and prior allotment. The Court ruled that the Civil Court’s jurisdiction is not barred when an administrative order is void or based on fraud. Furthermore, the Court established that the rights of a party cannot be defeated merely by the misplacement or destruction of official records when secondary evidence confirms the existence of prior rights. Additionally, the Court emphasized that existing government policy protecting long-term occupants must be respected, and an allotment cannot be made to a new party without the lawful cancellation of a previous, valid allotment.
Questions settled- Does the Civil Court have jurisdiction to challenge an allotment order passed by a Collector under the Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912?
- Can an allotment order be sustained if it is based on the suppression of material facts regarding the prior possession of the land?
- Can a party's rights be defeated solely due to the misplacement or destruction of official records when secondary evidence is available?
- Is a new allotment of land valid if a previous allotment has not been lawfully cancelled?
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and another1985 MLD 1622(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-28Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD KASSAM vs FATEH MUHAMMAD And Another1985 SCMR 1059 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-09-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises out of an ejectment application filed by the respondents against the petitioner on the grounds of default in payment of rent, personal requirement, and damage to the property. The Rent Controller dismissed the application on all grounds, but the High Court reversed the finding regarding default and ordered the petitioner's ejectment. The core legal question is whether the payment of rent to the landlords' advocate, who had previously issued a notice to collect rent and admitted to receiving the same without a written authority after the notice period, constitutes a valid discharge of the tenant's obligation when the landlords never informed the tenant to pay directly to them. The Supreme Court held that the point raised requires consideration and granted leave to appeal, while staying the execution of the ejectment order subject to the deposit of rent in accordance with law. The key principle laid down is that payment of rent to an authorized agent or advocate acting on behalf of the landlords, in the absence of a subsequent notice revoking such authority or directing direct payment, may constitute a valid discharge of the tenant's rental obligations.
Questions settled- Does the payment of rent to an advocate who was previously authorized to collect rent constitute a valid discharge of the tenant's obligation?
- Can a tenant be held in default of rent when payments were continuously made to the landlords' advocate without any intervening notice from the landlords to pay directly to them?
- Whether the lack of written authority for an agent vitiates the rent payments made to him when his agency and receipt of rent are admitted by the agent.
- ALI MUHAMMAD And Others vs THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER1985 SCMR 1128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, by leave of the Supreme Court, is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition challenging an order regarding the cancellation of excess land allotted to a displaced person. The core legal question concerns the validity of the cancellation of land allotted in excess of entitlement and the scope of review powers of settlement authorities under the relevant displaced persons legislation. The Supreme Court held that settlement authorities possess the inherent or statutory power to withdraw land allotted in excess of a claimant's entitlement, even on grounds other than fraud or misrepresentation. The Court found that the concurrent findings of fact established the original allottee had indeed received land in excess of his entitlement, and no error was shown in the revisional order upholding the cancellation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Do settlement authorities have the power to withdraw land allotted to a claimant in excess of his entitlement on grounds other than fraud and misrepresentation?
- Can an order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner reviewing a previous order be considered valid if it falls outside the ambit of the applicable statutory review provisions?
- Whether an order of the Settlement Commissioner holding that an allottee obtained land in excess of entitlement can be assailed in writ jurisdiction when based on correct concurrent findings?
- ALI MUHAMMAD And Others vs MUHAMMAD HANIF And Other1985 SCMR 138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a dispute over a parcel of agricultural land forming part of Khasra No. 860 in village Kamahan, Tehsil and District Lahore, which was allotted and confirmed in favour of the petitioners. Respondents challenged the allotment on the ground that the land was recorded as Ghair Mumkin Abadi containing their residential houses and was deemed transferred to them under Scheme No. VII. The High Court accepted the respondents' writ petition, holding the allotment in favour of the petitioners to be void ab initio as the land was not available for transfer as agricultural land. The core legal question addressed was whether land recorded as Ghair Mumkin Abadi and occupied by residential houses was available for allotment as agricultural land. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact by the tribunals and the High Court regarding the nature and occupation of the land were unexceptionable. The key principle laid down is that land classified as Ghair Mumkin Abadi containing residential houses in actual occupation is not available for transfer as agricultural land.
Questions settled- Whether land recorded as Ghair Mumkin Abadi and occupied by residential houses is available for transfer as agricultural land?
- Can an allotment of land be held void ab initio if it was not available for transfer under the relevant scheme?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature and occupation of disputed land?
- ALI MUHAMMAD And Another And GHULAM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE THE STATE1985 SCMR 1834 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court affirming the conviction of the appellants under Section 396 read with Sections 149 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for a daylight dacoity and murder of a watchman during cash transit. Leave to appeal was granted to re-examine the evidence, specifically regarding the defence plea of false implication, the reliability and corroboration of approvers' testimony, the identification parades conducted after a considerable delay, and the credibility of recoveries including marked currency notes. The Supreme Court evaluated the extensive testimonies of eye-witnesses and approvers, alongside corroborative material comprising recoveries of looted money and weapons. The Court held that the approvers' testimonies successfully passed the twin tests of reliability and material corroboration, supported by reliable eye-witness accounts, identification parades, and incriminating recoveries establishing the guilt of each convict. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the convictions and sentences.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of an approver requires corroboration in material particulars qua each convict to sustain a conviction?
- Does a delay in holding an identification parade per se render the identification evidence valueless?
- Whether the recovery of marked currency notes in original bank wrappings constitutes valid corroboration in a dacoity case?
- Can the uncorroborated discrepancies in the roles assigned by approvers vitiate concurrent findings of fact by the courts below?
- ALI JAN vs SHUJAUDDIN1985 PLD Karachi 698 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 arose from an order of the Rent Controller striking off the tenant's defence under Section 16(2) of the Ordinance for non-compliance with a rent deposit order. The Controller had directed the tenant to deposit arrears of rent after adjusting amounts previously deposited in a miscellaneous application, leaving the final calculation to the tenant, and also directed the regular deposit of future monthly rent. The High Court observed that an order for arrears must approximately determine the amount and not leave calculations to the parties; leaving the determination of arrears to the tenant was illegal and non-compliance with that specific direction could not entail eviction. However, the Court held that the directions for arrears and future rent are independent and separate. Since the direction for future rent was valid and the tenant defaulted on it, the tenant remained liable to eviction. The appeal was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a Rent Controller's order leaving the calculation and adjustment of rent arrears to the tenant is legally valid?
- Does a defect in the Rent Controller's direction to deposit arrears of rent invalidate an independent direction in the same order to deposit future monthly rent?
- Can a tenant's defence be struck off for non-compliance with a direction to deposit future rent if the accompanying direction for arrears of rent is legally defective?
- ALI HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1347 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
- ALI HASSAN AND ANOTHERs vs THE STATE1985 PLD Quetta 133 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-12-09Read full judgment →
- ALI GOHAR vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND and 58 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 70 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1984-08-29Read full judgment →
- ALI BUX vs KIFAYAT ALI1985 MLD 175 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-25Read full judgment →
- ALI BUX and others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 697 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-15Read full judgment →
- ALI ASGHAR and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2997 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
- ALI ANWAR SHAH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2736(2) · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-02Read full judgment →
- ALI ANWAR GHANGRO vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, LABOUR AND CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, KARACHI AND 8 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 748 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
- ALI AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2546 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-01Read full judgment →
- ALI AHMAD vs THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL, MANDI BAHAUDDIN and 4 others1985 CLC 2909 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-14Read full judgment →
- ALI AHMAD SABIR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2542 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
- ALI AHMAD and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1382 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-09-26Read full judgment →
- ALI AFSAR vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED1985 PLC 99 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →
- ALI ABBAS vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OKARA AND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C,S) 804 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
- Alhaj ALI HUSSAIN vs Messrs EASTERN FILM STUDIO LIMITED1985 MLD 1505 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
- ALAM SHER And Others vs THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES) And Other1985 SCMR 1933 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the Board of Revenue's decision to eject the petitioners from land measuring 560 Kanals. The land was originally granted to the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, Haji Fateh Khan, as compensation for land acquired by the Thal Development Authority. While a previous High Court judgment in 1967 had granted a mandatory injunction in favor of the petitioners, declaring them bona fide purchasers and preventing the Authority from resiling from its commitment, the Board of Revenue subsequently ordered their ejectment. The High Court dismissed the subsequent writ petition, reasoning that the petitioners could not assert rights against the Government based on the exchange effected by the Authority. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the matter required further examination regarding the binding nature of the Authority's commitments and the Government's subsequent stance. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and directed that the status quo regarding the land possession be maintained pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
Questions settled- Is the Government bound by the commitments made by the Thal Development Authority regarding land exchange?
- Can a party be ejected from land after a previous court judgment has declared them a bona fide purchaser and granted a mandatory injunction?
- ALBERT MASIH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2731 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-28Read full judgment →
- ALAM and others vs MUHAMMAD DIN1985 CLC 2567 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
- ALAM and others vs MEMBER,BOARD OF REVENUE-1985 CLC 2690 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-25Read full judgment →
- AL-BADAR MAZDOOR UNION, G.T.S.,SIALKOT vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, GUJRANWALA ZONE, GUJRANWALA and another1985 PLC 183 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- AKHTARI BEGUM And Others vs RENT CONTROLLER And Other1985 SCMR 2102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arising from two seemingly inconsistent decisions of the Lahore High Court concerning the same property and the same parties. The core legal question addresses the conflict between a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell granted to the respondents' predecessor-in-interest and a concurrent ejectment order against the same parties regarding a portion of the same property. The petitioners, successors-in-interest to the original owner, challenge the High Court's reversal of concurrent findings by lower courts regarding specific performance. Conversely, the occupants challenge the validity of the ejectment order in light of their possession of a decree for specific performance. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the soundness of these conflicting judicial determinations and the legal implications of holding a decree for specific performance while facing an ejectment order. The Court ordered the maintenance of the status quo pending the final adjudication of the appeals, thereby suspending the execution of the conflicting orders until the matter is resolved.
Questions settled- Can a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell coexist with an ejectment order against the same party for the same property?
- Does a High Court have the authority to reverse concurrent findings of lower courts in a second appeal regarding specific performance?
- What is the legal effect of conflicting judicial decisions between the same parties regarding the same property?
- AKHTARGUL Alias AKHTARI vs The STATE1985 SCMR 233 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court maintaining the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for a murder committed in Peshawar Cantt. The core legal question concerns the reliability of ocular testimony in the absence of corroboration, specifically where medical evidence and the alleged motive contradict the prosecution's narrative of the incident. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting discrepancies between the FIR and medical evidence regarding the direction of firing, the lack of blood at the scene, an unexplained fight prior to the shooting, and an unconvincing motive. The Court laid down the principle that uncorroborated interested witnesses cannot sustain a capital conviction when contradicted by material medical and circumstantial evidence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Whether an uncorroborated eyewitness testimony is sufficient for a capital conviction when contradicted by medical evidence?
- Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish the motive and the exact place of occurrence?
- Does a discrepancy between the eyewitness account of firing from the front and medical evidence showing a shot from the side undermine the prosecution's case?
- AKHTAR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1118 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-12-25Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR HUSSAIN ZAIDI vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 662 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashment of criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner under Sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant alleged that the petitioner and his co-accused dishonestly induced him and his relatives to invest Rs. 12,17,000 in a business expansion, which was never carried out, and subsequently issued dishonoured cheques. The petitioner contended that the dispute was essentially a civil transaction, as evidenced by a pending civil recovery suit, and that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a single transaction can give rise to both civil and criminal liabilities, and there is no inflexible rule requiring the quashment of criminal proceedings merely because a civil suit is pending. The Court ruled that whether the transaction constitutes a criminal act of cheating or a mere civil liability is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court after examining the evidence, making the quashment petition premature.
Questions settled- Whether the pendency of a civil suit is an absolute bar to the continuation of criminal proceedings arising out of the same transaction?
- Can criminal proceedings for cheating be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the trial court has appraised the evidence regarding dishonest inducement?
- Does a single transaction giving rise to civil liability preclude the aggrieved party from seeking a remedy under criminal law?
- AKHTAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2387 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-05Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR HUSSAIN And Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other1985 SCMR 520 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition concerning the transfer of evacuee property. The core legal question was whether a transfer of property executed by an attorney, acting under a power-of-attorney, could be challenged by the principal after the transaction had been approved by the Settlement Department and the principal had allegedly received consideration. The Supreme Court held that the petition must be dismissed. The Court observed that the power-of-attorney explicitly authorized the agent to sell or transfer the property, and the transaction was duly approved by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. Furthermore, the Court noted that the High Court had correctly identified a factual controversy regarding the principal's own receipt of funds, evidenced by a thumb-impression that appeared genuine upon comparison. Consequently, the Court affirmed that factual disputes of this nature, once adjudicated by the High Court, cannot be reopened in appeal, particularly where the agent acted within the scope of authority and the transaction was finalized by the relevant settlement authorities.
Questions settled- Can a principal challenge a property transfer executed by an attorney when the power-of-attorney explicitly authorized the agent to sell or transfer the property?
- Is a factual finding by the High Court regarding the genuineness of a thumb-impression subject to re-examination in a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Does the approval of a property transfer by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner preclude a subsequent challenge by the principal based on allegations of fraud by the agent?
- AKHTAR ALI vs AZHAR ALI SHAH And Other1985 SCMR 1166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arises from an order of the Sind High Court refusing to recall bail granted to the respondent, who stands accused of murdering his father. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting post-arrest bail to an accused who allegedly remained an absconder for a significant period, suppressed material facts regarding prior bail rejections, and contributed to trial delays. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court erred in granting bail, noting that the respondent's prolonged abscondence and subsequent conduct contributing to trial delays disqualified him from receiving bail. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and cancelled the bail granted to the respondent, establishing the principle that abscondence and conduct causing trial delays are critical factors that weigh heavily against the grant of bail, and suppression of material facts vitiates discretionary relief.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be cancelled when an accused has remained an absconder for a long period and contributed to trial delays?
- Does the suppression of material facts regarding prior bail rejections justify the recall of bail?
- What is the effect of an accused person's conduct on the consideration for post-arrest bail?
- AKHTAR ALI vs AZHAR ALI SHAH And Another1985 SCMR 1091 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, who is the complainant in a criminal case registered under sections 364/34 and subsequently altered to 302/201/220 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought leave to appeal against the Sind High Court's order dismissing an application for the recall of bail granted to the respondent-accused. The respondent had obtained bail from the High Court by allegedly suppressing the fact that his previous bail application had been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge just days prior, and relied on the statutory delay provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court considered contentions regarding the suppression of material facts, the conduct of the respondent in delaying the trial, and the equities involved in granting bail. The Court granted leave to appeal and issued notice to the respondent to show cause why the bail application should not be re-heard due to the suppression of material facts.
Questions settled- Does the suppression of the recent rejection of a bail application disentitle an accused from seeking equitable relief regarding bail?
- Whether bail granted on the statutory ground of delayed trial can be reconsidered if material facts were suppressed before the court granting bail?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against an order of the High Court declining to cancel bail?
- AKHTAR ALAM vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC 570 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his grievance application under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, which had been upheld by the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner, a technical assistant, was dismissed for misconduct after delivering an inflammatory speech criticizing the employer and the government during a lunch event attended by foreign delegates. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s conduct constituted "misconduct" under clause (h) of paragraph 3 of Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968, specifically whether the phrase "riotous or disorderly behaviour" and "any act subversive of discipline" should be read conjunctively or disjunctively. The Court held that the term "or" is disjunctive, meaning an act subversive of discipline need not be riotous or disorderly. Furthermore, the Court determined that the incident occurred during working hours at the establishment. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the petitioner's conduct was subversive of discipline and justified dismissal, regardless of the absence of a verbatim transcript of the speech.
Questions settled- Does the term 'or' in clause (h) of paragraph 3 of Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 create a disjunctive list of misconduct categories?
- Must an 'act subversive of discipline' necessarily involve riotous or disorderly behaviour to constitute misconduct under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Does a lunch break during a work event constitute 'working hours at the establishment' for the purpose of defining misconduct?
- Is a verbatim transcript of an employee's speech required to prove an act of misconduct involving subversive speech?
- AKHON ZADA vs MANAGER, RE-ROLLING DEPARTMENT, QUALITY STEEL WORKS1985 PLC 473 · Labour Court · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
- AKBAR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2222 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-16Read full judgment →
- AKBAR KHAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2695 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
- AKBAR and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 275 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-19Read full judgment →
- AKBAR ALI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1261 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
- AKBAR ALI vs RAHMAN And Another1985 SCMR 1929 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from civil petitions for leave to appeal filed by a landlord seeking ejectment of tenants on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal need under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question concerns whether the respondents committed a wilful default in paying rent for the alleged period. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that no default was established, noting that the tenants had a history of regular rent payment, attempted to pay via money order and deposit in court when the landlord withheld receipts, and that the landlord's allegations appeared to be a fabricated story. The petitions were accordingly dismissed, affirming the High Court's judgment that the tenants' conduct was unblemished and discretion was rightly exercised in their favour.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the ejectment order on the ground of no default?
- Does the failure of a landlord to issue rent receipts justify the tenant sending rent through money orders or depositing it in court?
- Can concurrent findings regarding the absence of wilful default in rent payment be interfered with in leave to appeal?
- AKBAR ALI vs BAGH DIN And Other1985 SCMR 1206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his first appeal by the Lahore High Court. The trial court had decreed the suit on condition that the balance sale price be deposited by a specific date, failing which the suit would stand dismissed. The stipulated date and the subsequent days being holidays and the presiding officer being on leave, the petitioner applied for an extension of time on the first available working day, which was refused on the ground that the court had become functus officio. The core legal question was whether the time for depositing pre-emption money could be extended or computed under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act when intervening holidays prevented deposit on the due date, and whether the trial court remained functus officio. The Supreme Court held that the petition was meritless because the petitioner failed to deposit the amount on the reopening day and instead sought an extension of time, which the court lacked jurisdiction to grant once functus officio. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court becomes functus officio after passing a pre-emption decree with a default clause for depositing the sale price?
- Can the benefit of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act be claimed when a party applies for an extension of time rather than depositing the amount on the next working day?
- Does a court retain jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing pre-emption money after the expiry of the deadline fixed in the decree?
- AKBAR ALI and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 538 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-05Read full judgment →
- AKBAR ALI AND 9 OTHERS vs ASSANDAS AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Karachi 117 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-28Read full judgment →
- AJUN KHAN vs MU H A MM A D1985 CLC 728 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-26Read full judgment →
- AJAB KHAN vs ABDUL JABBAR1985 PLD Peshawar 95 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-01-18Read full judgment →