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.
- AISHA BEGUM vs KAMRAN FOOD INDUSTRY, FAISALABAD1985 PLC 789 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-02-16Read full judgment →
- AISH MUHAMMAD And 68 Others vs PAKISTAN And 75 Other1985 SCMR 774 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from the dismissal of an Intra-Court Appeal by the Lahore High Court, which held that a dispute regarding civil servants' non-promotion following a competitive examination fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The appellants had qualified in a promotional examination for the post of Section Officer, but only the top 100 candidates were promoted based on available vacancies. The appellants contended that all qualified candidates held a right to be promoted to existing and future vacancies before any fresh examination could be held. The Supreme Court examined whether the matter related to the terms and conditions of service or determination of fitness under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 and Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that non-selection due to a limited number of vacancies in a competitive examination relates to eligibility rather than suitability or fitness. Consequently, alleged non-compliance with promotional rules constituted a matter relating to terms and conditions of service, barring High Court jurisdiction. The Supreme Court accordingly affirmed the High Court's judgment and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Does a dispute regarding a civil servant's eligibility for promotion based on available competitive vacancies fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Whether candidates who qualify in a competitive promotional examination acquire a vested right to be appointed against future unreserved vacancies when no panel is maintained?
- Does the non-selection of a qualified candidate due to a restricted number of advertised vacancies constitute a determination of fitness under Section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- AIR COMMODORE MUHAMMAD YAMIN vs MILITARY ESTATE OFFICER AND 21985 PLD Quetta 202 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-06-11Read full judgment →
- AIM INTERNATIONAL vs ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS APPRAISEMENT-I, CUSTOMS HOUSE, KARACHI and 4 others1985 MLD 473 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- AIJAZ MUHAMMAD vs MOHSIN ALI1985 MLD 1098 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-19Read full judgment →
- AIJAZ HUSSAIN BHATTI and another vs Haji BAGH ALI and 9 others1985 CLC 261 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for a temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs, who claimed to be sub-tenants of the premises in suit, seeking to restrain the landlords from disposing of or utilizing the property to their adverse interest. The core legal questions involve whether a sub-tenant is a necessary party in an ejectment action against the main tenant, whether a sub-tenant can be evicted in execution of a writ obtained against the principal tenant, and whether a dispossessed sub-tenant can maintain a possessory action under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. The court held that a sub-tenant has no privity of contract with the superior landlord, is not a necessary party to an ejectment proceeding, and is lawfully liable to be evicted in execution of an eviction order passed against the main tenant. Furthermore, dispossession through the execution of such a rent order does not constitute dispossession otherwise than in due course of law under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The application for temporary injunction was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a sub-tenant is a necessary party to an ejectment application filed by a landlord against the principal tenant?
- Can a sub-tenant be lawfully evicted in execution of a writ of possession issued pursuant to an ejectment order obtained against the main tenant?
- Does the dispossession of a sub-tenant in execution of an eviction order against the principal tenant constitute dispossession otherwise than in due course of law under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
- Can an ad interim temporary injunction be granted in a suit where no perpetual injunction has been claimed in the plaint?
- AIJAZ ALI MANGI vs THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND And Other1985 SCMR 280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the dismissal of the appellant, a Civil Judge, from service by the Sind Service Tribunal following allegations of misconduct and corruption. The core legal questions concerned whether the 'Authorised Officer' was required to record reasons for dispensing with a formal inquiry under the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, and whether a second show-cause notice regarding the specific penalty was mandatory under the shorter procedure of rule 5(3). The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that rule 5(2) grants the Authorised Officer discretion to dispense with a formal inquiry without recording reasons. The Court clarified that the requirement for a second show-cause notice, as established in Mir Muhammad v. N.-W.F.P. Government, applies only to cases involving a formal inquiry, not to the shorter procedure under rule 5(3) where the accused is already apprised of the grounds and proposed action. Additionally, the Court held that failing to specify the exact penalty in the initial notice does not prejudice the accused if they were aware of the potential major penalties.
Questions settled- Is the Authorised Officer required to record reasons for dispensing with a formal inquiry under the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Does the procedure under rule 5(3) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, require a second show-cause notice regarding the specific penalty to be imposed?
- Does the failure to specify the exact major penalty in a show-cause notice under rule 5(3) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, invalidate the disciplinary proceedings?
- AIJAZ AHMED MEMON vs Messers MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd.1985 PLC 2 · Labour Court · 1984-09-30Read full judgment →
- AIJAZ AHMAD MEMON vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., HYDERABAD1985 PLC 994 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-04-17Read full judgment →
- AIDOO AND 4 OTHFRSs vs COLLECTOR/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, LASBELLA,1985 PLD Quetta 205 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-06-16Read full judgment →
- AHSAN ALI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 293 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- AHQAR SARHADI vs Kh. RASHID AHMAD, MAGISTRATE 1st CLASS1985 P Cr. L J 2435 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
- AHMED MUST AFA vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, N.-W.F.P. and 2 others1985 CLC 83 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-07-28Read full judgment →
- AHMED KHAN vs THE STATEPLD 1985 Rev. 108 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1972-01-14Read full judgment →
- AHMED BAKHSH vs The STATE1985 P Cr. L J 653 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-13Read full judgment →
- AHMED ABDUL RAHIM vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1639 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-13Read full judgment →
- AHMAN And Others vs REHMAT KHAN And Other1985 SCMR 1795 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from two civil petitions arising out of an appellate judgment and a subsequent review order passed by the High Court. The High Court had accepted a second appeal setting aside the decree in favour of the petitioners regarding ownership of land by purchase, proceeding in the absence of the petitioners. A review petition filed by the petitioners, alleging lack of service for the date of hearing, was dismissed by the High Court after examining the record and concluding that proper service had been effected in accordance with the High Court Rules and Orders, and additionally noting that the petitioners' substantive case on the merits had also been examined. The Supreme Court considered the petition against the main judgment, which was barred by 26 days, and found no sufficient ground for condonation of delay since the petitioners' lack of knowledge plea had already been examined and rejected. Similarly, the petition against the dismissal of the review was found to be without merit. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed both petitions.
Questions settled- Whether a delay of 26 days in filing a petition against an appellate judgment can be condoned when the plea of lack of knowledge regarding the judgment has already been considered and rejected by the High Court?
- Is a separate notice required for a hearing date when the case is adjourned or heard on a subsequent date in accordance with the applicable High Court Rules and Orders?
- Whether a review petition against an ex parte order is maintainable when the party was duly served for the initial hearing and the procedure followed complied with the relevant rules?
- AHMAD YAR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2178 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-12Read full judgment →
- AHMAD YAR And Others vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants for murder and murderous assault following a dispute over agricultural land possession. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of ocular evidence, the impact of not examining certain cited eye-witnesses, and the determination of actual physical possession of the disputed land. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully established the complainant party's possession through documentary evidence and prior police reports, and that the ocular testimony was credible despite the non-examination of some witnesses. The Court dismissed the appeal on merits, affirming the convictions for murder and assault. However, the Court exercised its discretion to grant the appellants the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that the lower courts had failed to consider the period of detention already served by the appellants prior to sentencing. The judgment reaffirms that concurrent findings of fact regarding guilt and possession, supported by record evidence, are not subject to interference unless a legal infirmity exists.
Questions settled- Does the non-examination of some eye-witnesses cited in the F.I.R. automatically entitle the accused to an adverse presumption?
- Can the Supreme Court grant the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, even if it was not considered by the lower courts?
- Does a recital in a mutation deed regarding the delivery of possession constitute evidence of actual physical possession in a criminal trial?
- AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1254 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-25Read full judgment →
- AHMAD SHER vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2510 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
- AHMAD SHER BHATTI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1975 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
- AHMAD SHAH vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SARGODHA and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 335 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-05-20Read full judgment →
- AHMAD KHAN vs The STATE1985 SCMR 975 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave was directed against the judgment of the Sindh High Court, which had confirmed the appellant's conviction and death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his room-mate. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether a witness statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 could be validly treated as substantive evidence under Section 265-J of the same Code, and whether its exclusion would affect the appellant's guilt. The Court held that even if the contested statement was excluded, the remaining independent eyewitness testimonies, prompt lodging of the FIR, and circumstantial evidence of the appellant being apprehended at the scene with a blood-stained weapon were sufficient to sustain the conviction. However, regarding the sentence, the Court observed that the alleged motive (a trivial quarrel over cleaning the room) was minor and the exact origin of the fight remained shrouded in mystery. Consequently, the Court reduced the death sentence to life imprisonment, granting the appellant the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained if a witness statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is excluded, provided other reliable circumstantial and eyewitness evidence exists?
- Whether a trivial motive and an unexplained origin of a fight can serve as mitigating circumstances to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- AHMAD KHAN vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KHUSHAB and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 337 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-05-06Read full judgment →
- AHMAD KHAN vs SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT JAIL, LAHOREAND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C.S.) 1022 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-04-28Read full judgment →
- AHMAD KHAN vs POSTMASTER-GENERAL, CENTRAL CIRCLE AND ANOTHER1985 PLC 586 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-16Read full judgment →
- AHMAD KHAN vs Mst. GHULAM FATIMA And Other1985 SCMR 645 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a civil suit for a declaration of title based on adverse possession and to set aside a mutation, while also seeking an interim injunction to maintain possession. The trial Court refused to grant the interim injunction, finding that the petitioner had failed to establish a prima facie case of possession, a decision upheld in appeal by the district court and subsequently by the High Court in revision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts improperly exercised their discretion in refusing the interim injunction despite the petitioner's contention of actual cultivating possession. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on a proper examination of the revenue record which prima facie demonstrated the petitioner's dispossession. The key principle laid down is that where revenue records concurrently establish actual dispossession and execution of ejectment proceedings, superior courts will not interfere with the discretionary refusal of an interim injunction by lower forums during the pendency of the suit.
Questions settled- Whether an interim injunction can be granted when revenue records prima facie establish the plaintiff's dispossession?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the refusal of an interim injunction?
- Does a plea of adverse possession warrant the grant of an interim injunction without prima facie proof of current possession?
- AHMAD KARACHI HALWA MERCHANT vs COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, KARACHI ,1985 PTD 272 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-22Read full judgment →
- AHMAD JAVED vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 329 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-13Read full judgment →
- AHMAD HASSAN vs EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER, MULTAN and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 104 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-07-11Read full judgment →
- AHMAD DIN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 655 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-19Read full judgment →
- AHMAD DIN vs DIN MUHAMMAD1985 SCMR 529 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the tenant's second appeal against an order of eviction. The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant from a shop on the grounds of default in rent payment and bona fide personal use, as the landlord was a traditional practitioner (Jarrah) operating from an open footpath and sought to improve his business by moving into a proper shop. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the eviction application, but the first appellate court reversed this decision, finding the personal need genuine, a view affirmed by the High Court. The core legal question was whether a landlord who operated from an open space at the time of letting out a property is barred from later seeking eviction for personal use to conduct the same trade indoors. The Supreme Court held that a landlord is entitled to improve their business status and that previous operation on a footpath does not negate a genuine and bona fide personal requirement for a shop. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a landlord who operates a trade on a footpath at the time of renting out a shop forfeit the right to later seek eviction of the tenant for personal use of the premises?
- Does incidental mention of a son's need by a witness detract from a landlord's consistent pleading of personal need for eviction?
- Whether the omission to explicitly plead bona fide need in the eviction petition constitutes a fatal defect when evidence has been brought on record?
- AHMAD DIN vs BASHIR AHMAD and others1985 CLC 2524 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-16Read full judgment →
- AHMAD And Another vs The STATE1985 SCMR 929 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' application for post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under sections 302, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail based on allegations that they were declared innocent by the police during the investigation, the absence of fatal injury attributions, and the significant delay in the commencement of the trial. The Supreme Court observed that the initial police report did not contain a definitive finding of innocence, while a subsequent report from the Crimes Branch found the petitioners guilty. While the Court rejected the plea based on the police investigation reports, it acknowledged the validity of the petitioners' concern regarding the inordinate delay in the trial proceedings. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal but issued a mandatory direction to the trial court to expedite the disposal of the case, emphasizing the necessity of timely trials for accused persons in custody.
Questions settled- Does a police report stating that witnesses are not coming forward constitute a definitive finding of innocence for the purpose of bail?
- Can a significant delay in the commencement of a trial serve as a ground for the Supreme Court to issue directions for expeditious disposal of a case?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail solely because they were initially declared innocent by a police officer if a subsequent investigation report finds them guilty?
- AHMAD and 2 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 928 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-02Read full judgment →
- AHMAD ALI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1111 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-21Read full judgment →
- AHMAD ALI vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other1985 SCMR 1380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which allowed constitutional petitions filed by vendees of agricultural land allotted against a verified claim. The core legal question concerns the legality of resuming excess land allotted to a claimant who subsequently sold parcels of the allotted land to various vendees, and whether the last allotment or the last sale in point of time should be subjected to resumption. The Supreme Court considered prior case law regarding excess allotments and vendee protections. Granting leave to appeal, the Court held that arguable points were raised as to whether the impugned order perpetuated a manifest illegality by allowing excess allotments to be enjoyed by the allottee and those deriving interest from him. The key principle laid down is that questions concerning the proper application of resumption rules for excess land allotments among subsequent vendees warrant a detailed examination by the apex court.
Questions settled- Whether excess land allotted against a verified claim should be resumed from the last allotment or the last sale in point of time?
- Can vendees who purchased land from an allottee resist the resumption of excess land found to have been allotted fraudulently or in excess?
- Does leaving an excess allotment to be enjoyed by the allottee and his vendees perpetuate a manifest illegality?
- AHMAD ALI SHAH and others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 690 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-27Read full judgment →
- AGRICULTURE ENGINEER, THATTA vs Mst.SHAMIM AKHTAR and 2 others1985 PLC 1093 · Labour Court · 1985-08-17Read full judgment →
- AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE1985 PLC 703 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- AHMAD ALI and 4 others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1295 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-10Read full judgment →
- AGRICULTURAL DEVLOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs NOOR MUHAMMAD1985 PLD Quetta 74 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan challenging the concurrent orders of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which reinstated respondent No. 1 with full back benefits. The employee's services were terminated without inquiry upon allegations of extending loans to undeserving parties, which the employer claimed was a termination simpliciter under Regulation 13 of the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan Staff Services Regulations, 1961. The petitioner also argued that the grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was time-barred.
The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the lower forums' decisions. It held that Section 65-B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 empowers the Labour Court to condone delay by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, guided by the principles of Section 14, where time was lost pursuing proceedings before a wrong forum due to counsel's mistaken advice. Furthermore, termination based on allegations amounting to misconduct requires mandatory adherence to the inquiry procedure under Regulation 95, which cannot be bypassed via termination simpliciter under Regulation 13.
Questions settled- Can delay in filing a grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 be condoned where the applicant acted upon mistaken advice of counsel by filing in a wrong forum?
- Does the dismissal of an internal departmental review petition communicate a fresh cause of action for serving a grievance notice under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Can an employer resort to termination simpliciter under service regulations when the underlying reason for termination consists of allegations of misconduct?
- Does an erroneous finding of fact or law by a Labour Appellate Tribunal acting within its jurisdiction justify interference in constitutional writ jurisdiction?
- Agha Muhammad vs Superintendent Of Police, SIBI And Two OtherPTCL 1985 (CL) 62 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-11-27Read full judgment →
- Agha MAHBOOB SHAH vs ZARINA KHWAJA1985 CLC 1426 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-17Read full judgment →
- AFZAL TEXTILE FACTORY vs JAN MUHAMMAD1985 PLC 323 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-05-23Read full judgment →
- AFZAL MIRZA And Others vs AHMAD SAEED KHAN And Other1985 SCMR 1138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These consolidated appeals challenged a Lahore High Court judgment concerning the transfer of an evacuee bungalow. The central dispute involved competing claims between unauthorized occupants and an allottee, Ahmad Saeed Khan. The appellants, who were in occupation of the property, contended they were entitled to transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and challenged the validity of a Central Government order dated 11-8-1960. The Supreme Court held that the appellants were mere licensees or unauthorized occupants whose possession was not 'undisputed' because valid ejectment orders had been issued against them. Consequently, they failed to meet the criteria for transfer. The Court affirmed that the Central Government’s order of 11-8-1960, which deemed allottees without physical possession to be in possession, was intra vires the Act. The Court clarified that the Act permits the government to deem possession for those with allotment orders issued before the cut-off date, even if physical possession was obtained later. The appeals were dismissed, upholding the transfer of the property to the respondent allottee.
Questions settled- Does the term 'undisputed occupation' under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 include the occupation of a person against whom ejectment orders have been passed?
- Is the Central Government's order dated 11-8-1960, regarding deemed possession of allottees, ultra vires the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Can a licensee or unauthorized occupant claim a superior right to transfer of evacuee property over a claimant holding a valid allotment order?
- AFZAL MEHDI vs HABIB BANK LTD., JHELUM and another1985 PLC 502 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
- AFZAL KHAN AND 21 OTHERS vs MIAN INAYATUR REHMAN AND 16 OTHERS1985 PLD Peshawar 99 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-01-14Read full judgment →
- AFTAB IQBAL vs MANZOOR AHMAD And Another1985 SCMR 269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the High Court's decision to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment for double murder and to alter a conviction for attempted murder from Section 307 to Section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the High Court was justified in reducing the death sentence and whether the reduction of the attempted murder conviction was legally sound. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s reduction of the death sentence, ruling that sentencing is a discretionary process and that the Court will not interfere unless the sentence is measured fancifully or in breach of natural justice, even if the prosecution's asserted motive fails. However, the Court reversed the High Court's alteration of the conviction under Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, to Section 323, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, holding that the evidence established a clear intent to kill. The key principle laid down is that while the failure of a motive may influence sentencing, it does not mandate a reduction if the crime remains heinous.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the asserted motive for a crime automatically entitle an accused to a reduction in the death sentence?
- Is the Supreme Court of Pakistan authorized to interfere with a sentence that is legal and within the discretion of the High Court?
- Can a conviction for attempted murder under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be reduced to Section 323 when the evidence demonstrates a clear intent to kill?
- AFTAB HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1985 MLD 887 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-14Read full judgment →
- AFTAB AHMED vs MRS. HAZIQ AND 5 OTHERS1985 PLD Quetta 108 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-03-31Read full judgment →
- AFTAB AHMAD SIDDIQI vs THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN1985 PLC 259 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-08Read full judgment →
- AFTAB AHMAD CHEEMA vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, HOME DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C.S.) 535 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-02-01Read full judgment →
- AFSAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1528 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-15Read full judgment →
- AEG TELEFUNKEN PAKISTAN Ltd. vs ELECTRIC CONCERN CORPORATION1985 CLC 155 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for a temporary injunction in a patent infringement suit, where the plaintiff sought to restrain the defendant from importing and selling a product allegedly infringing the plaintiff's patent. The core legal question was whether a defendant in an infringement suit must file a formal counter-claim for revocation to rely on the grounds for revocation specified in Section 26 of the Patents and Designs Act 1911, or if such grounds can be raised as a defense independently. The Court held that Section 29(2) of the Act allows a defendant to raise any ground for revocation under Section 26 as a defense in an infringement suit, regardless of whether a formal counter-claim is filed. The proviso to Section 29(1) merely provides a procedural mechanism for transferring cases to the High Court when a counter-claim is filed, but it does not restrict the substantive right of defense. Furthermore, the Court denied the injunction due to evidence of prior publication and sale of the invention by the plaintiff, and significant delay in bringing the suit.
Questions settled- Can a defendant in a patent infringement suit raise grounds for revocation under Section 26 of the Patents and Designs Act 1911 as a defense without filing a formal counter-claim?
- Does the proviso to Section 29(1) of the Patents and Designs Act 1911 control or restrict the availability of revocation grounds as a defense under Section 29(2)?
- Does the prior sale or advertisement of an invention by the patentee before the grant of a patent disentitle the patentee to a temporary injunction in an infringement suit?
- ADMINISTRATORGENERAL OF AUQAF, ISLAMABAD vs FEDERAL LAND1985 CLC 700 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- ADMINISTRATOR, THAL BHAKKAR, DISTRICT MIANWALI And Another vs GHULAM1985 SCMR 1828 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondents filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership regarding Shamilat Deh and challenging the accuracy of revenue record assessments. The petitioners raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the suit was barred by Section 172(2) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, which restricts the jurisdiction of civil courts over matters concerning land revenue assessment. The Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh, concluded that the true nature of the relief sought was a reduction of land revenue, thereby falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of Revenue Courts, and rejected the plaint. This decision was upheld by the District Judge on appeal. However, the Lahore High Court allowed a revision petition against these orders. The petitioners subsequently sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the submission regarding the High Court's alleged misreading of the plaint required further examination. The matter was set for hearing on the existing record, with parties granted liberty to file additional documents.
Questions settled- Does a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership that also challenges revenue assessment entries fall under the jurisdiction of a Civil Court or a Revenue Court?
- Can a plaint be rejected on the ground that the relief sought is essentially a reduction of land revenue under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967?
- ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, M. P. BHOPAL vs DHARMDAS1985 PTD 713 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1982-08-30Read full judgment →
- ADDITIONAL COMMISSIOINER OF INCOME-TAX vs REWARI ELECTRIC SUPPLY1985 PTD 78 · Delhi High Court · 1982-08-25Read full judgment →
- ABID SHAH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1597 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-09Read full judgment →
- ABID IMAM And Others vs ZAFAR MASOOD And Other1985 SCMR 1220 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that set aside the allotment of a ration depot to the petitioners. The petitioners had been granted the depot by the District Magistrate, Sahiwal, upon the recommendation of a District Allotment Board constituted under the West Pakistan Food Stuff (Distribution) Order, 1967. Unsuccessful applicants challenged this allotment via a writ petition, arguing that the District Allotment Board was not constituted in accordance with the relevant legal provisions. The High Court accepted the writ petition, finding the Board's constitution invalid. The Supreme Court reviewed the impugned judgment and found no legal error in the High Court's reasoning. The Court affirmed that because the District Allotment Board was not validly constituted, any allotment made upon its recommendation was without lawful authority. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that the allotment process was fundamentally flawed due to the illegal constitution of the recommending body.
Questions settled- Whether an allotment of a ration depot made on the recommendation of an invalidly constituted District Allotment Board is lawful?
- Can an allotment be set aside if the recommending body was not constituted in accordance with the relevant legal provisions?
- ABDUS SALAM vs GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN And Other1985 SCMR 968 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- ABDUS SALAM KHAN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT1985 PLC (C.S.) 969 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABDUS SALAM AND 2 OTHERS vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1985 PLC 658 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN vs The STATE1985 SCMR 542 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLC 597 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-10-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND 36 OTHERS1985 PLD Peshawar 46 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN vs Mst. AMIR KHATOON and others1985 MLD 135 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN KHAN vs Mst. AMIR KHATOON and others1985 MLD 200 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN and others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 20 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2417 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN alias Abbi vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1370 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAUF KHAN vs UNITED BANK LTD, AND ANOTHER , .1985 PLC 605 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-12-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, T&T, ISLAMABAD and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 273 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID vs ALLAH DITTA and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 643 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID TAJ MUHAMMAD UMARA KHAN vs FAZAL KARIM And Other1985 SCMR 1589 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID And Another vs GHULAM MAULA And Another1985 SCMR 1700 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a revision petition by the High Court, which upheld the trial court's order rejecting the petitioner's objection regarding the delayed filing of a court-fee stamp in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question concerns the exercise of judicial discretion in condoning a short delay in making up a deficiency in court-fee and whether such conduct amounted to extreme contumacy warranting the rejection of the plaint. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's discretion was properly exercised and not interfered with by the High Court, declining to examine the merits further. The key principle laid down is that where a court exercises its discretion to allow a short delay in filing court-fees pursuant to established precedents such as Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan and Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan, such exercise of discretion will not be lightly interfered with by the appellate or revisional courts unless it is shown to be improperly exercised.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with the trial court's discretion in accepting a delayed court-fee stamp?
- Does a short delay in making up a deficiency in court-fee constitute contumacious conduct warranting the rejection of a plaint?
- Is leave to appeal granted when the lower courts have properly exercised their discretion regarding the filing of court-fees in accordance with established precedents?
- ABDUR RASHID and 6 others vs MUHAMMAD HANIF and 2 others1985 CLC 1887 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHEED vs UNITED BANK Ltd.1985 MLD 305 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHIM vs THE STATE1985 MLD 775(1) · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHIM And Another vs GHULAM NABI And Other1985 SCMR 173 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a civil petition for review filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging a previous decision regarding the allotment and transfer of Ahata No.11. The core legal questions raised were whether an appeal converted from a civil petition requires a bench of at least three judges, and whether the petitioners became transferees of the disputed property by operation of law under Scheme No.VII based on occupation. The Supreme Court held that under Order XI, petitions for leave against orders made by a Single Judge of the High Court may be heard by a two-judge bench, and that the factual question of occupation had already been conclusively determined against the petitioners by the Settlement authorities based on the revenue record. Consequently, no ground for review was established, and the petition was dismissed, laying down that concurrent factual findings of settlement authorities grounded in revenue records will not be interfered with in review proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal converted from a civil petition against an order of a Single Judge of the High Court requires a bench of at least three Judges?
- Can a finding of fact regarding property occupation concurrently determined by settlement authorities based on revenue records be re-examined in review?
- Whether occupation of a property under Scheme No.VII creates a legal right of transfer when revenue records indicate occupation by another party?
- ABDULLAH vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1938 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH vs THE STATE And Another1985 SCMR 1509 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a murder trial where the petitioner had been in custody as an under-trial prisoner since July 1976. After nearly three years in custody, the Sessions Judge granted him bail on 25-4-1979, which was subsequently set aside by the Sindh High Court on 9-9-1979. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner sought bail on the merits and on the ground of unconscionable delay, relying on the amendments made to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the Code of Criminal Procedure Amending Ordinance 71 of 1979. The Supreme Court observed that even after excluding the delay caused by five adjournments requested by the petitioner, he had remained behind bars for more than two and a half years without any assurance of when the trial would conclude. The Court held that such an unconscionable delay, not attributable to the accused, constitutes a valid ground for bail. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal, the High Court's order was set aside, and the petitioner was released on bail.
Questions settled- Whether an under-trial prisoner is entitled to bail on the ground of unconscionable delay if the trial has not concluded for over two and a half years?
- How should the court calculate the period of delay for the purposes of bail when some adjournments were requested by the accused?
- Can bail be granted under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution cannot provide any assurance as to when the trial will be heard?
- ABDULLAH SHAUKAT vs ALLAH BAKHSH And Other1985 SCMR 573 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan on a petition for leave to appeal arising from a dispute concerning the redemption of mortgaged lands involving intervening Custodian interest and the application of the principle of acknowledgment. The core legal questions examined by the Court include whether the principle of acknowledgment was correctly applied in the absence of a signed instrument of acknowledgment, whether section 67 of the Transfer of Property Act affected the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer in Punjab, and whether an application under sections 10 and 11 of the Redemption of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964 was competent in view of the Custodian's intervening interest in the property. Granting leave to appeal, the Court held that the legal questions raised require detailed examination and ordered security of Rs. 1,000 along with the continuation of the interim status quo. The key principle laid down relates to the procedural and jurisdictional prerequisites for redeeming mortgaged properties burdened by Custodian interests and statutory acknowledgment requirements.
Questions settled- Whether principle of acknowledgment was correctly applied to a case where there was no signed instrument of acknowledgment?
- Whether section 67, Transfer of Property Act affected the jurisdiction of Revenue Officer in Punjab?
- Whether in view of the Custodian's intervening interest in the property, an application under sections 10 and 11, Redemption of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964 was competent?
- ABDULLAH KHAN and another vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.-W.F.P.1985 CLC 495 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-09-30Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH JAN And Others vs TILA MUHAMMAD And Other1985 SCMR 94 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment upholding a decree for possession in favor of the respondent. The dispute originated from a sale-deed executed by the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, Haji Mian Muhammad, in favor of his son, Haji Fazal Elahi. The petitioners contested the validity of the sale, alleging lack of consideration, undue influence, and that the vendor lacked a sound disposing mind at the time of the transaction. The trial court, affirmed by the High Court, found that the vendor was of sound mind, no undue influence occurred, and consideration was paid. Additionally, the trial court noted that the petitioners were barred from raising these defenses under the principle of res judicata, as they had previously litigated the same property and sale transaction without raising these specific grounds. The Supreme Court observed that the issues raised were essentially questions of fact already determined concurrently by the lower courts based on the evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the petition, affirming the lower courts' findings.
Questions settled- Does the failure to raise available grounds of defense in a previous suit regarding the same property bar those grounds in a subsequent suit under the principle of res judicata?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere in a petition for special leave to appeal where the lower courts have reached concurrent findings of fact based on evidence?
- ABDULLAH BUTT vs MUNAWAR ALI And Other1985 SCMR 1007 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a pre-emption suit regarding agricultural land where the trial court's dismissal of the suit underwent multiple rounds of appeals and remands before the Sind High Court ultimately decreed the suit in favor of the pre-emptor. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court misread evidence regarding demands and contiguity, and that pre-emption was not exercisable under Muslim Law for the subject land. The Supreme Court examined issues concerning the finality of remand orders, the application of Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding cross-objections by a respondent, and whether the High Court erred in refusing to consider the petitioner's arguments on merits. Finding that the High Court misapplied procedural bars regarding remand and cross-objections without examining the merits of the case, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the petitioner to examine these points.
Questions settled- Whether an order of remand not passed under Order XLI Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 attracts the bar under Section 105(2) of the Code?
- Can a respondent challenge findings decided against them in the courts below without filing a separate appeal or cross-objection?
- Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to consider arguments on merits regarding the validity of demands and contiguity in a second appeal?
- ABDULLAH and others vs REHMAT ALI1985 CLC 2527 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH And Another vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND)1985 SCMR 647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the dismissal of a constitutional petition regarding the allotment of agricultural land. The dispute arose between two sets of claimants, both asserting rights as 'informers' regarding excess land allotment to a third party. The core legal question was whether the respondents, who had provided information to the Officer Incharge of the Central Record Room, were entitled to priority over the petitioners, who had subsequently filed an appeal before the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that the respondents were entitled to priority as informers. The Court reasoned that the term 'Rehabilitation Department' in the relevant scheme should not be interpreted narrowly to include only settlement authorities competent to cancel allotments. Since the respondents provided accurate information first, and the petitioners merely intervened during active inquiries initiated by the respondents' information, the petitioners could not deprive the respondents of their statutory benefit. The principle laid down is that an informer's priority is established by the timely provision of accurate information to the relevant department, rather than the specific authority empowered to finalize the allotment.
Questions settled- Does the term 'Rehabilitation Department' in the context of informer benefits under the Rehabilitation Scheme include authorities other than those strictly competent to cancel and re-allot land?
- Can a subsequent claimant, by filing an appeal, deprive an earlier informer of statutory benefits if the information provided by the informer was accurate and led to active inquiries?
- Is an informer required to approach the specific settlement authority competent to cancel an allotment to qualify for the benefits of an informer under the Displaced Persons (Land) Settlement Act 1958?
- ABDULLAH and 14 others vs GHULAM RASOOL and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 103 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHID vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1599 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHEED vs HABIB BANK Ltd.1985 PLC 510 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHEED vs COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR DIVISION, BAHAWALPUR1985 PLC (C.S.) 655 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-11-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHEED vs AMAN ULLA H1985 CLC 2304 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHEED and others vs UNIVERSAL OIL AND VEGETABLE GHEE MILLS, SHEIKH UP.URA1985 PLC (C.S.) 1115 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHEED and others vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 3022 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHEED and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 78 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHAB KHAN vs Lt. Col. M. NISAR AHMAD And Other1985 SCMR 100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Magistrate, sought leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing his criminal revision. The petitioner alleged that the Deputy Commissioner and other respondents conspired to forcibly evict him from his government-allotted bungalow in retaliation for the petitioner's criminal action against a D.S.P. who had raped the petitioner's wife. The petitioner's private complaint against the respondents was dismissed by the trial court and the High Court for lack of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The respondents contended that the eviction was a lawful exercise of official duty under the Central Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance 1965, necessitating such sanction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, identifying the core legal questions as whether the alleged acts were performed in the discharge of official duties, whether they fell within the scope of the 1965 Ordinance, and whether Section 11 of the 1965 Ordinance, as a special law, overrides the general requirement for sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Does the requirement for sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to acts alleged to be committed in conspiracy and outside the scope of official duty?
- Does Section 11 of the Central Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance 1965 override the general provisions of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the necessity of sanction for prosecution?
- Can acts of forcible eviction performed under the guise of official authority be considered 'purporting to act in the discharge of official duties' for the purpose of statutory protection?
- ABDUL WAHAB and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 771 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-09Read full judgment →