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.
- ABDUL HAMID vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAHIWAL AND ANOTHER1985 PLC (C.S.) 765 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-06-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID vs PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT DEGREE COLLEGE, TOBA TEK SINGH1985 PLC (C.S.) 238 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-08-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID vs MANSOOR MALIK and others1985 MLD 1554 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID vs BARKAT ALI1985 SCMR 1790 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal regarding the valuation of a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the value of a well located within Khasra No. 635 should have been separately included in the 'Fard Khalis Profit' statement for the purpose of calculating court-fees, or if the well was merely subservient to the agricultural land. The trial court initially determined that the suit was under-valued because the well was excluded from the valuation. However, the appellate court reversed this finding, concluding that the well was not a separate entity but rather subservient to the agricultural land, thereby rendering the original valuation correct. The High Court, in its civil revision jurisdiction, affirmed the appellate court's decision. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no justification to interfere with this concurrent finding of fact regarding the proper valuation of the suit. Consequently, the Court held that the suit was properly valued and dismissed the petition, establishing that a well subservient to agricultural land does not require separate valuation for court-fee purposes in pre-emption suits.
Questions settled- Whether a well located on agricultural land must be separately valued for the purpose of court-fees in a pre-emption suit?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a concurrent finding of fact regarding the valuation of a suit?
- ABDUL HAMID KHAN vs Mst. AISHA KHATOON1985 MLD 1256 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID AND OTHERS vs Pais KARIM DAD AND OTHERS1985 PLD Quetta 112 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-04-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1992 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court for murder and assault under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the testimony of eye-witnesses, who were found to have falsely implicated two co-accused, could sustain the conviction of the remaining appellants without independent corroborative evidence. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions and sentences. The Court held that because the eye-witnesses were found to have falsely implicated the acquitted co-accused, their testimony regarding the appellants was rendered unreliable absent strong, independent corroboration. The judgment reaffirms the principle that where eye-witnesses are found to have falsely implicated some accused persons in an occurrence, their testimony regarding the involvement of other accused is irretrievably shaken. Consequently, such testimony cannot form the basis of a conviction unless supported by strong, independent corroborative evidence. The mere fact that eye-witnesses sustained injuries does not automatically validate their testimony if they are otherwise found unreliable or inimical.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of eye-witnesses be relied upon to convict an accused if the same witnesses have been found to have falsely implicated other co-accused in the same occurrence?
- Does the fact that an eye-witness sustained injuries during an incident automatically validate their testimony against all accused persons?
- Is independent corroborative evidence required when eye-witnesses are found to have falsely implicated some accused in a criminal case?
- ABDUL HAMID and 8 others vs SHAMSUDDIN and 3 others1985 MLD 470 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-31Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1501 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED vs DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, LARKANA and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 1111 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1985-07-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAKEEM vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS1985 PLC 760 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAKEEM KHAN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FINANCE1985 PLC (C.S.) 815 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-03-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAKEEM and another vs COMMISSIONER, DERA GHAZI KHAN DIVISION, D.G. KHAN and another1985 PLC (C.S.) 495 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAI vs THE ADMINISTRATOR, HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HAYDERABAD AND ANOTHERs1935 PLD Karachi 319 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDUL HAFEEZ and others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 873 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HA@ and another vs Syed BASHARAT ALI1985 CLC 1429 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment resolves two separate rent appeals under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. In the first appeal, the landlord sought eviction on grounds of default and personal requirement. The tenant had tendered the rent within the statutory sixty-day grace period. The High Court held that since the rent was tendered within sixty days of becoming due, there was no default, making the ejectment application premature. On the question of personal requirement, the Court held that the Rent Controller must objectively assess the genuineness and good faith of the landlord's claim, including the availability of personnel to run the proposed business; since the landlord's son was studying in another city, the plea lacked bona fides. In the second appeal, the landlord challenged the concurrent refusal of lower courts to evict a tenant who defaulted by only ten days for a single month after thirty years of unblemished tenancy. The High Court held that Section 13(2)(i) of the Ordinance does not make eviction mandatory upon default; the Rent Controller retains discretion to refuse eviction if the default is not wilful or deliberate, which will not be disturbed in second appeal unless arbitrary or perverse.
Questions settled- Can a successful landlord who obtained an eviction order on one ground file cross-objections or a cross-appeal to challenge adverse findings on other grounds?
- Is a landlord permitted to agitate grounds decided against him by the Rent Controller during the tenant's appeal without filing cross-objections?
- Does a ten-day delay in tendering rent for a single month by a long-term tenant automatically require the Rent Controller to order eviction?
- What factors must a Rent Controller consider when evaluating a landlord's claim of personal requirement for business purposes?
- ABDUL HA MI D vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1985 CLC 2838 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary1985 PLC (C.S.) 311 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-12-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER And Other1985 SCMR 125 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that declined to interfere with an order directing the auction of a vacant plot under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction despite the petitioner's contention that the Settlement Commissioner failed to decide his revision petition on its merits. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that while the petitioner argued the revision was not heard on merits, the Settlement Commissioner had, in effect, affirmed the earlier findings of fact regarding the petitioner's lack of possession of the disputed property. The Supreme Court held that since the finding of fact concerning the absence of possession was adopted and affirmed by the Settlement Commissioner, the petitioner had no legitimate grievance. Consequently, the High Court's refusal to interfere was upheld. The key principle established is that where a revisional authority affirms a finding of fact by referencing earlier findings, such a finding becomes conclusive, precluding interference in constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a High Court interfere in writ jurisdiction with a finding of fact regarding possession made by Settlement Authorities?
- Does a revisional order that affirms earlier findings of fact by reference constitute a decision on the merits?
- Is a finding of fact regarding the absence of possession by a party conclusive if affirmed by a Settlement Commissioner in revision?
- ABDUL GHANI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2119 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs Mst. ZUBAIDA BEGUM And Other1985 SCMR 477 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 22nd March 1983, which dismissed a constitutional petition filed by a tenant challenging his ejectment ordered on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal requirement of the landlady. The core legal question involved the propriety of invoking constitutional writ jurisdiction against concurrent findings of fact on ejectment and whether the High Court properly considered the plea of misreading or non-reading of the record. The Supreme Court held that the case was concluded by concurrent findings of fact and that the refusal of the High Court to exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction was unexceptionable. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that interference with findings of fact under constitutional jurisdiction is unwarranted unless properly justified.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional writ petition is a proper remedy to challenge concurrent findings of fact in ejectment matters?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding default in rent and personal requirement?
- Is the refusal of the High Court to exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction unexceptionable when findings of fact are conclusive?
- ABDUL GHANI vs Mst. MUSSARAT REHANA1985 CLC 2529 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Lahore High Court arose from a trial court decree ordering recovery of Rs. 52,540 as the value of dowry. The appellant erroneously instituted an appeal before the District Court, which lacked pecuniary jurisdiction under the Civil Courts Ordinance 1962, and after the appeal was returned, presented it to the High Court with substantial delay. The appellant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 (subsequently seeking conversion under Section 14) seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the appeal was filed before the wrong forum due to the mistaken legal advice of counsel. The High Court observed that while Section 14 applies directly to suits, its principles are relevant for evaluating 'sufficient cause' under Section 5. However, since the jurisdictional threshold was clear and could have been ascertained with due care, the prosecution before the wrong forum was not in 'good faith' as defined under Section 2(7). Holding that the mistaken advice of counsel does not constitute sufficient cause in such circumstances, the High Court rejected the application and dismissed the appeal as time-barred.
Questions settled- Does Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 directly apply to compute the period of limitation for appeals?
- Can the principles of Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 be considered while determining sufficient cause under Section 5 of the same Act?
- Does the erroneous legal advice of a counsel regarding a clear statutory forum of appeal constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
- Can proceedings instituted before a wrong forum due to lack of due care and attention be deemed to have been prosecuted in good faith under the Limitation Act 1908?
- ABDUL GHANI vs MIRAL And Other1985 SCMR 2018 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court regarding the cancellation and refusal of bail in a criminal case involving murder and rioting. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court interfering with bail granted by the Sessions Court, specifically regarding the evaluation of medical evidence, firearm injuries, and distance. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the discretion properly exercised by the Sessions Judge, as the medical evidence showing blackening contradicted the prosecution's version regarding the distance of the shots, and there was no basis to treat one accused differently at the bail stage. The appeal filed by the accused whose bail was cancelled by the High Court was allowed, and the petition seeking cancellation of bail for the remaining co-accused was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in interfering with the discretion exercised by a Sessions Court in granting bail when the reasons given by the Sessions Court are cogent and proper?
- Can bail once granted be cancelled without strong and exceptional grounds showing a misuse of concession?
- Does the presence of blackening on a firearm injury contradict ocular testimony regarding a long shooting distance at the bail stage?
- ABDUL GHANI vs Hafiz JALALUDDIN1985 MLD 1145 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs FATEH MUHAMMAD And Other1985 SCMR 568 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a petition against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which maintained the acquittal of the respondents for charges of murder and murderous assault. The core legal question involved whether the concurrent findings of acquittal recorded by the courts below based on the benefit of doubt arising from the defence version were sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the trial court was justified in concluding that sufficient doubt was cast on the prosecution version, particularly in light of the testimony of a court witness, and declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact through a reappraisal of evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that concurrent findings of acquittal based on a plausible defence version and benefit of doubt will not be routinely disturbed by the apex court.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal based on the benefit of doubt?
- Can a trial court rely on the testimony of a court witness to support a defence version and acquit the accused?
- Is a reappraisal of evidence warranted when both courts below have given concurrent findings of fact in a criminal matter?
- ABDUL GHANI vs BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1985 CLC 2572 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 877 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Quetta 145 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-04-27Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others1985 PLC (C.S.) 1064 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Another1985 SCMR 464 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arose from a constitutional petition dismissed by the High Court on grounds of res judicata. The appellant, a non-claimant displaced person in possession of a shop, declined to seek transfer under Settlement Scheme No. I in 1959, but later applied under Settlement Scheme No. VIII in 1968. Pending his application, the property was auctioned. His initial writ petition was dismissed on merits by a Single Judge and on the preliminary ground of non-joinder of the Chief Settlement Commissioner by a Division Bench. A second writ petition impleading the Chief Settlement Commissioner was dismissed as barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court held that since the appellate Division Bench left the merits undecided in the earlier proceedings, no finality attached to the trial court's ruling on the merits, making res judicata inapplicable to the second petition. On the merits, the Court held that refusing transfer under Settlement Scheme No. I does not forfeit rights under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The auction was declared unlawful and the matter remanded.
Questions settled- Does the rule of res judicata apply to subsequent writ proceedings when an appellate court affirms a dismissal solely on a preliminary ground without deciding the merits?
- Does a displaced person's refusal to apply for transfer of evacuee property under Settlement Scheme No. I debar them from claiming transfer of the same property under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
- Can evacuee property be validly auctioned while an application for its transfer under an applicable Settlement Scheme remains pending?
- ABDUL GHAFOOR and others vs REHMANI MASJID and others1985 MLD 1259 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment resolves four appeals arising from inheritance disputes in Punjab, centering on the retrospective impact of the newly enacted Section 2-A of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962 (inserted via Punjab Ordinance No. XIII of 1983). The core legal question was whether agricultural land acquired by a male heir under custom prior to March 15, 1948, is subject to customary restrictions on alienation, and whether pending suits or decrees challenging such alienations survive. The Supreme Court held that under Section 2-A, any male heir who acquired agricultural land under custom from a Muslim before March 15, 1948, is deemed to have become an absolute owner as if the land devolved under Muslim Personal Law. Consequently, customary restrictions on alienation are neutralized, and any decree or suit affirming a reversioner's right under custom to challenge such alienations is void, inexecutable, and abated, unless the transaction is past and closed by delivery of possession. The Court allowed the appeals of the alienees and daughters, dismissing the reversioners' customary claims.
Questions settled- Whether a male heir who acquired agricultural land under custom from a Muslim before March 15, 1948, is deemed to be an absolute owner under Muslim Personal Law?
- What is the legal effect of Section 2-A of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962 on pending suits and decrees challenging alienations under customary law?
- Does the delivery of possession under a customary decree render a transaction 'past and closed' so as to exclude the application of Section 2-A of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962?
- How are the limited estates of Muslim females under customary law distributed upon termination under the combined reading of Sections 3, 5, and 2-A of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962?
- ABDUL GHAFOOR and 7 others vs Mst.ANWAR and 4 others1985 CLC 818 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR alias GHAFOORI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1495 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR . vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 754 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR vs THE STATE1985 MLD 647 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN and others1985 MLD 456 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR and 2 others1985 CLC 832 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR QURESHI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1985 SCMR 1963 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the dismissal of a civil servant. The petitioner, an Assistant Director of Imports and Exports, was dismissed following a departmental enquiry. Upon appeal to the Service Tribunal, the two members were equally divided in their opinions regarding the petitioner's culpability. Consequently, the Chairman of the Tribunal, exercising powers under the Service Tribunals Act 1973, remanded the case for fresh proceedings, citing procedural irregularities, specifically the failure to supply the enquiry report and the lack of a show-cause notice regarding the penalty. The petitioner challenged this remand, arguing that the Tribunal lacked the legal competence to remand cases to departmental authorities and that the Chairman should have resolved the deadlock by granting the benefit of the doubt. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the contentions regarding the Tribunal's power to remand and the proper resolution of the deadlock between members deserved further judicial consideration.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Service Tribunal possess the legal authority under the Service Tribunals Act 1973 to remand a case to departmental authorities for fresh disposal?
- What is the appropriate procedure for the Chairman of the Service Tribunal to follow when there is a difference of opinion between the members of the Tribunal?
- ABDUL GHAFFAR KHAN vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, THROUGH ITS1985 PLC 594 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR KHAN vs Dr. QABIL KHAN1985 SCMR 1930 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court of Sind dismissing an eviction appeal for non-prosecution and subsequently refusing its restoration. The core legal questions concern the legality of dismissing an appeal for non-appearance when a holding-brief counsel was present, and whether the court was justified in dismissing a restoration application based on counsel's illness by referencing prior adjournment requests despite unrebutted medical evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the legality of the dismissal order and the treatment of the counsel's illness require detailed examination by the appellate bench. The key principle laid down is that the presence of a holding-brief counsel and the effect of unrebutted medical evidence regarding counsel's illness warrant thorough consideration when evaluating the dismissal of an appeal for default and the subsequent refusal to restore the same.
Questions settled- Is a court justified in dismissing an appeal for non-appearance when a counsel holding brief for the engaged advocate is present in court?
- Whether unrebutted evidence of a counsel's illness constitutes sufficient cause for the restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution?
- Can a court rely on past adjournment requests to reject a restoration application supported by a medical certificate for a current absence?
- ABDUL GHAFFAR HASHMI vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, RAWALPINDI and 3 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 6 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-05-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR AND ANOTHERs vs LALPLD 1985 Rev. 187 [Sind] · Board of Revenue · 1985-01-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL BERMAN THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS vs PROP. GHULAM RASOOL TANWIR1985 PLD Lahore 423 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL BART vs THE SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 527 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1985-02-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL BARI And Others vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE1985 SCMR 1783 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the Sind High Court dismissing a second appeal concerning ejectment and execution proceedings. The core legal question involved the executability of an ejectment order and the determination of ownership and tenancy rights in execution proceedings before a Rent Controller. The Supreme Court held that where the relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the primary tenant was duly determined by the Rent Controller and left unchallenged, and where the petitioners sought to establish their own independent title and ownership rights through execution proceedings, interference by the court was unjustified. The key principle laid down is that questions of title and independent ownership rights cannot be adjudicated or enforced within summary ejectment execution proceedings under rent laws, and a concluded determination of the landlord-tenant relationship binds the parties.
Questions settled- Can questions of title and independent ownership be adjudicated within execution proceedings of an ejectment order?
- Whether interference is justified when a determination of the relationship of landlord and tenant by the Rent Controller remains unchallenged?
- ABDUL AZIZ vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1666 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentenced to death, filed a review petition before the Supreme Court seeking a reduction in sentence based on a compromise reached with the legal heirs of the deceased. The core legal question was whether a post-conviction compromise between parties constitutes a valid ground for reviewing a final judgment of the Supreme Court. The Court held that it could not interfere in the matter as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record, which is a prerequisite for review jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a compromise between parties, while potentially reducing future violence, does not legally amount to an error in the judgment that would warrant a review. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed, with the Court noting that the petitioner could instead seek relief through a mercy petition to the Government.
Questions settled- Does a compromise between the parties after the dismissal of a leave to appeal petition constitute a valid ground for reviewing a Supreme Court judgment?
- Is a compromise between the families of the deceased and the convict a sufficient basis to establish an error apparent on the face of the record?
- Can the Supreme Court reduce a death sentence in a review petition solely on the basis of a compromise reached between the parties?
- ABDUL AZIZ vs THE STATE and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 1615 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashment of proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before an Assistant Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The core legal question was whether proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. could be utilized to resolve a property dispute between a landlord and tenant where civil litigation and other criminal complaints were already pending, and whether such proceedings were procedurally valid. The High Court held that the Magistrate acted illegally by treating the dispute as a criminal matter under Section 145, Cr.P.C. to secure possession of the premises, noting that the parties had existing rent disputes and other criminal litigation. The Court emphasized that Section 145, Cr.P.C. is not a substitute for civil ejectment proceedings or criminal trespass complaints under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings, ordered the shop to be unsealed, and directed that possession be restored to the party from whom it was originally taken.
Questions settled- Can proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to resolve a landlord-tenant dispute where civil remedies are available?
- Does the High Court have the power under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to entertain a petition for quashment if a revision application has already been dismissed by the Sessions Judge?
- Is a Magistrate authorized to conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in proceedings initiated under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- ABDUL AZIZ vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE And Other1985 SCMR 1224 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's Intra-Court Appeal in an urban settlement case. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, a local allottee in possession of a part of the disputed house, holds a preference over the respondent claimant, given that the respondent's occupation allegedly commenced with the permission of the petitioner prior to the target date. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's finding regarding the respondent's undisputed occupation of the house was correct, as the factual occupation was admitted and no ejectment order had been passed against the respondent before the target date. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the historical circumstances of entry do not negate undisputed physical occupation in the absence of prior eviction proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether an allottee in possession has preference over a claimant non-allottee when the claimant's occupation of a portion of the house is admitted?
- Does the permissive entry of a resident prior to the target date render their occupation disputed for settlement purposes in the absence of an ejectment order?
- ABDUL AZIZ vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF and 15 others1985 P Cr. L J 2160 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs Mst. KHATIJA1985 MLD 233 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UTILITY STORES CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN1985 PLC 222 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ URFI vs S.G. JEELANI and 5 others1985 CLC 2415 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ SIDDIQUI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1492 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ SHAH And Another vs ABDUL GHAFOOR And Another1985 SCMR 221 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a civil revision petition. The core legal questions involved whether the grant of an amendment application constitutes a 'case decided' under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the presentation of a plaint by a pleader lacking a written power of attorney within the period of limitation renders it invalid. The Supreme Court observed that an order allowing an amendment of the plaint after judicially considering facts can amount to a 'case decided', but noted that such an exercise is academic since all questions raised before the trial court can be re-agitated in an appeal against a decree. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that further consideration of the second question was unnecessary as it would be a futile exercise.
Questions settled- Whether the grant of an amendment application constitutes a case decided within the meaning of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does an order allowing the amendment of a plaint after judicially considering the facts amount to a case decided?
- Does a plaint presented by a pleader without a written power of attorney fail to be regarded as validly presented within the period of limitation?
- ABDUL AZIZ KHAN vs ABDUR REHMAN AND OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 203 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition called in question an order of the Election Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's election petition and temporary injunction application under rule 9 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979, due to non-compliance with procedural requirements such as failing to deposit the requisite security, failing to serve a copy of the petition upon the respondent, and failing to properly sign and verify annexures. The core legal questions involved the discretionary nature of the power to dismiss an election petition under rule 9, whether procedural non-compliance mandates summary dismissal without opportunity to lead evidence, and the extent of interference by the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court held that while procedural provisions should not be applied too technically and rule 9 confers a discretionary power rather than a mandatory mandate, the petitioner acted crudely and negligently with gross violations and failed to show sufficient cause. The Court affirmed that the Election Tribunal exercised its discretion on proper judicial principles, and dismissed the petition, ruling that the High Court will not interfere with such judicious exercise of discretion in constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of rule 9 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979, mandatorily compel an Election Tribunal to dismiss an election petition for non-compliance with rules or whether the power is discretionary?
- Should an Election Tribunal frame proper issues and permit parties to lead evidence before dismissing an election petition for procedural non-compliance?
- Can the High Court interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with the discretionary order of an Election Tribunal passed on proper judicial principles?
- Whether the omission to deposit security, serve a copy of the election petition, and sign annexures constitute gross violations warranting dismissal under the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979?
- ABDUL AZIZ KHAN and 3 others vs NOOR MUHAMMAD and 5 others1985 CLC 583 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged the orders of the Colony Assistant/Collector, the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), and the Member, Board of Revenue, which rejected their application for allotment of an Ahata (village site) and subsequently dismissed their appeal and revision. The petitioners' appeal before the Additional Commissioner had been dismissed not only for default of appearance but also on the merits. Their subsequent application for restoration/review was rejected on the ground that the successor-in-office lacked review jurisdiction. The High Court held that when an appellant fails to appear, the appellate court under Order XLI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 may either adjourn the hearing or dismiss the appeal in default, but has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on the merits. Any such decision on the merits in the appellant's absence must be deemed a dismissal in default, making a restoration application under Order XLI Rule 19 competent. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the case to the Collector for a fresh decision on the merits.
Questions settled- Does an appellate court have jurisdiction to decide an appeal on the merits in the absence of the appellant?
- Whether an order deciding an appeal on the merits in the absence of the appellant should be treated as a dismissal in default for the purpose of restoration?
- Is an application to restore an appeal dismissed in default considered an exercise of review jurisdiction?
- Can a party claim exclusion of time spent bona fide in seeking restoration of an appeal when calculating the limitation period for filing a revision?
- ABDUL AZIZ BUTT vs THE STATE1985 MLD 846 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ BUTT vs MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and another1985 MLD 148 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-31Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ And Others vs ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER And Other1985 SCMR 1782 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition and an Intra-Court Appeal regarding the allotment of land. The petitioners, previously found to have received excess land allotment under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, had their excess allotment cancelled. Despite previous litigation concluding against them, the petitioners initiated a new round of litigation challenging the subsequent allotment of that same land to a third party. They relied on the proviso to section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, claiming entitlement based on their possession of the land. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' claim was meritless, noting that the matter had already been justly concluded in previous litigation. The Court affirmed that the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, does not allow for the re-opening of past and closed transactions or concluded decisions. Consequently, the plea based on possession was legally unavailable to the petitioners, and the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975 allow for the re-opening of concluded litigation regarding land allotments?
- Can a party re-agitate a claim to land after the matter has been previously decided and concluded by the courts?
- Does possession of land grant a right to transfer under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975 if the underlying allotment dispute has already been settled?
- ABDUL AZIZ And Another vs AKBAR KHAN1985 SCMR 426 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of three connected civil appeals arising from pre-emption suits concerning sales of agricultural land in Tehsil Khushab, District Sargodha. The core legal question was whether the trial court was under a mandatory obligation under section 25(1) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, to determine the market value of the suit properties when a dispute regarding the sale price existed, and whether the mutation entries regarding price were conclusive. The Supreme Court held that where the pre-emptor eventually accepts and admits the ostensible sale price recorded in the mutation during the trial, and the vendee fails to produce evidence to substantiate a higher price or provide data for determining market value, section 25(1) of the Act is not attracted because the parties are no longer in disagreement as to the price. The Court further clarified that the price was accepted based on the substantive admission of the pre-emptor rather than the strict conclusiveness of the mutation entry. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether the trial court is bound to determine the market value under section 25(1) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, when the pre-emptor accepts the sale price mentioned in the mutation during the trial?
- Does section 25(1) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, apply when the parties are no longer in disagreement as to the price at which the pre-emptor shall exercise the right of pre-emption?
- Can the sale price accepted by a pre-emptor at trial be acted upon by the court in the absence of evidence regarding market value?
- ABDUL AZIZ alias AZIZ AND ANOTHER- Convicts vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 534 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AKBAR vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 447 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
- ABBASI TEXTILE MILLS LTD. RAHIM YAR KHAN vs KARAM ELAHI1985 PLC 876 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-07-17Read full judgment →
- ABBAS vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1242 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-18Read full judgment →
- ABBAS ALI vs SUBDIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, TANDO ALLAHYAR and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 2837 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-20Read full judgment →
- ABBAS ALI SHAH and another vs NAEEM AHMAD and 2 others1985 MLD 172 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-05Read full judgment →
- ABAAD ALI And Another vs SAKHI HUSSAIN1985 SCMR 1073 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning a dispute over agricultural land sold by the respondent to the petitioners via a registered sale deed in 1963. Years later, during consolidation proceedings, additional land was discovered, increasing the vendor's total share, whereupon it was alleged that the sale contravened Martial Law Regulation No. 64 for not including the vendor's entire holding. The petitioners instituted a civil suit for a declaration that the sale was legal and valid, which was decreed by the trial court but dismissed by the lower appellate court and the High Court on appeal. The core legal questions involve whether a transaction valid when entered into can be invalidated by facts discovered years later, and whether a civil court suit was competent in view of paragraph 27 of Martial Law Regulation No. 59. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these questions, ordering the appeal to be made ready on the present record while maintaining the interim order.
Questions settled- Whether a transaction, legal and valid when entered upon, can be declared invalid on the discovery of certain facts several years later?
- Whether a suit in the Civil Court for a declaration that a transaction of sale was not hit by Martial Law Regulation No. 64 was competent in view of paragraph 27 of Martial Law Regulation No. 59?
- ABA HUSSAIN vs Mst. MEHRUNNISSA BEGUM1985 CLC 2109 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
- A.K. NIAZI And Others vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL And Other1985 SCMR 151 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review application filed by A.K. Niazi and others against the previous judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 2-4-1979. The core legal question raised in the review was whether certain factual findings regarding the possession of the respondent, Sh. Muhammad Ismail, and the assertion that the petitioners had not raised the possession point at various stages were incorrect. The Supreme Court observed that the contested point did not figure in the impugned judgment of the Letters Patent Appeal Bench or in the relevant order of the Settlement Department. Consequently, the Court held that neither legally nor factual grounds were established to warrant a review of the previous order. The key principle laid down is that a review petition cannot succeed when the grounds urged were not part of the record or the impugned judgments below, failing to meet the strict legal and factual thresholds required for review.
Questions settled- Whether a review petition is maintainable when the grounds urged failed to figure in the impugned judgments or departmental orders?
- What constitutes sufficient legal or factual grounds for the review of a previous judgment of the Supreme Court?
- A. MASOOD ALI vs QURESHA SULTANA1985 MLD 1175 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-15Read full judgment →
- A. GHANI vs Mst. RASOOL BIBI and 7 others1985 CLC 2066 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-26Read full judgment →
- A. F. FERGUSON & Co. vs THE SIND LABOUR COURT AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Supreme Court 429 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a Constitutional Petition filed by a firm of Chartered Accountants challenging the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The High Court had dismissed the petition, holding that the firm constituted an 'industry' under Section 2(xiv) of the Ordinance and that the trade union had locus standi, while leaving the question of whether the union qualified as a Collective Bargaining Agent to the Labour Court. The Supreme Court addressed whether a constitutional petition challenging jurisdiction should be entertained when it results in piecemeal adjudication. The Supreme Court held that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court should not ordinarily be exercised where it does not completely dispose of the case. Fragmentary and piecemeal decisions of causes are disfavored. While dismissing the appeal and upholding the dismissal of the petition on the ground that it was premature, the Supreme Court clarified that it did not agree with the High Court's determination that the chartered accountancy firm constituted an 'industry'. The Labour Court was directed to decide all pending questions and objections.
Questions settled- Should the High Court exercise its constitutional jurisdiction when doing so will not completely dispose of the case and results in piecemeal adjudication?
- Is a constitutional petition challenging the jurisdiction of a Labour Court premature if disputed questions of fact remain to be determined by the Labour Court?
- Whether the definition of 'industry' under Section 2(xiv) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 includes learned and liberal professions like chartered accountancy?
- A UQA F vs Z A FA R ULLA H and another1985 CLC 2033(1) · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-06Read full judgment →
- A SL AM KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF N-W.F.P. and 3 others1985 CLC 814 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
- A BDULLAH vs HASAN ABBAS1985 CLC 892 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an ejectment application filed by a landlord against a tenant on grounds of default in rent payment, bona fide personal requirement, and unauthorized subletting. The core legal questions concern whether rent deposited in court under the Controller's order constitutes a valid tender despite the tenant's dispute regarding the rent amount, and whether the landlord sufficiently established bona fide requirement for the premises. The Court held that depositing rent in court under the Controller's order is a valid tender, even if done "under protest" or subject to a dispute, as it complies with the statutory mechanism of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Regarding bona fide requirement, the Court ruled that a landlord already occupying commercial premises must provide specific evidence explaining why existing space is insufficient to justify the need for additional premises; a mere assertion of desire is insufficient. Furthermore, the allegation of subletting remained unproven. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the tenant was not in default and the landlord failed to substantiate the grounds for eviction.
Questions settled- Does the deposit of rent in the office of the Controller under the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 constitute a valid tender even if the tenant disputes the rent amount?
- Is a tender of rent made 'under protest' or subject to a dispute invalid?
- What must a landlord prove to establish a bona fide requirement for additional business premises when they are already in occupation of other commercial premises?
- Does the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 require a dispute between the parties as a condition precedent for a tenant to deposit rent with the Controller?
- A AMER S AEED vs DISTRICT JUDGE and others1985 CLC 2680 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-04Read full judgment →
- A .GHAFOOR vs Mst.AMINA FATIMA1985 CLC 1801 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-06Read full judgment →
- A & B INDUSTRIAL GASES LIMITED vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT1985 MLD 1462 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-01Read full judgment →
- ) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS vs PRASAD PROCESS PRIVATE LTD.1985 PTD 605 · Madras High Court · 1982-12-15Read full judgment →
- (Sh .) MUHAMMAD AZAM vs (Sh.) GULZAR AHMAD And Another1985 SCMR 1615 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an eviction order against a tenant, where the landlord sought possession of shop premises for his son's business. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the ejectment application, finding the landlord's claim lacked good faith. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that the landlord's evidence was credible and corroborated, and that previous compromises regarding rent did not negate current bona fide requirements. The Lahore High Court upheld the appellate court's order in its constitutional jurisdiction, finding no jurisdictional error and noting that constitutional review should not function as a substitute for a second appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that it would not re-examine questions of fact conclusively determined by the appellate court acting as a special forum under the relevant rent legislation. The Court reiterated that constitutional jurisdiction is not a substitute for a regular second appeal, particularly where such appeals have been abolished by statute, and findings of fact by the appellate authority are generally final.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction as a substitute for a regular second appeal in rent cases?
- Are findings of fact determined by an appellate court under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, subject to re-examination by the Supreme Court?
- Does a landlord's previous compromise with a tenant regarding rent enhancement preclude a subsequent claim of bona fide requirement for the premises?
- ZULFIQAR vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2167 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-22Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3167 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-19Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3245 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-23Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR ALIBHATTI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 762 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-15Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR ALI vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1423 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR ALI vs LYALLPUR COTTON MILLS, FAISALABAD1984 PLC 1124 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-20Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR ALI MUHAMMAD vs CHAIRMAN, ADMISSION BOARD1984 CLC 2169 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-10Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR 0 PAPPO vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1412 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-31Read full judgment →
- ZONAL WORKERS' UNION IRRIGATION, LAHORE vs IRRIGATION EMPLOYEES'1984 PLC 921 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- ZOHRA BEGUM vs PAKISTAN BURMAHSHELL Ltd.1984 CLC 2769 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two appeals arising from a rent dispute between a landlady and a corporate tenant regarding a plot in Karachi. The core legal questions were whether a landlord who unjustifiably refuses rent can subsequently claim default, and whether a tenant is liable for default if rent is deposited in a court later found to lack territorial jurisdiction. The Court held that the landlady’s refusal to accept the rent cheque was unjustified, and she could not take advantage of her own wrong to claim default. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the tenant could not be penalized for depositing rent in a court that had accepted the deposit, invoking the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no man). The Court affirmed that the tenant’s actions were not wilful and that the deposit, even if irregular, did not constitute default. The appeals were dismissed, upholding the Rent Controller’s decision to reject the ejectment application based on the alleged default.
Questions settled- Can a landlord who unjustifiably refuses to accept rent subsequently sue the tenant for default in payment of rent?
- Does a tenant commit default if they deposit rent in a court that is later found to lack territorial jurisdiction but had initially accepted the deposit?
- Is a tenant liable for default when the landlord fails to move the Rent Controller for a tentative rent deposit order during the pendency of a rent case?
- ZILADAR KHAN AND ANOTHER vs ABDUL SHAKUR AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 204 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' Regular First Appeal concerning agricultural land previously owned by one Ismail, who died issueless. The core legal question was whether the petitioners successfully established their status as collaterals of the deceased owner entitled to inherit the estate upon the death of the widow, Mst. Fazeelat Begum, and whether the mutation in her favor was void. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to discharge the heavy burden of proof required to establish their collateral status, as their oral testimony lacked first-hand knowledge of the deceased's parentage, whereas the respondents produced contradictory evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the petitioners had not proven their relationship to the last male owner.
Questions settled- Whether the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs claiming as collaterals to establish their parentage and relationship to the last male owner?
- Can oral testimony by witnesses lacking first-hand information regarding parentage suffice to prove collateral succession?
- Whether a mutation of property in favor of a deceased owner's widow can be successfully challenged without proof of collateral status?
- ZIAULLAH BUTT vs THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE1984 PLC 1194 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- ZIAULHASSAN vs THE STATE1984 PLD Supreme Court 192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order cancelling the petitioner's pre-arrest bail in a case involving the misappropriation of valuable articles by a police official. The core legal questions concerned whether the High Court could cancel bail after a significant lapse of time, whether the trial court must be approached first for cancellation, and whether the potential for recovery of misappropriated property constitutes valid grounds for cancellation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court’s cancellation was justified. The Court affirmed that there is no rigid rule regarding the time limit for cancellation; rather, it depends on the circumstances, including whether the initial bail order was illegal or lacked awareness of the law. Furthermore, the Court established that the recovery of stolen or misappropriated property is a valid ground for cancellation. Crucially, the Court reiterated that pre-arrest bail requires specific proof of mala fides regarding the intended arrest, and an order granting such bail without addressing this requirement or the necessity of investigation is legally flawed.
Questions settled- Is there a rigid time limit after which bail cannot be cancelled by a superior court?
- Must the court that originally granted bail be approached first for its cancellation under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the potential recovery of misappropriated articles serve as a valid ground for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail?
- What is the essential condition that must be satisfied to justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- ZIAULHAS SAN HA SHMI vs FAIZ AHMAD AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 1491 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →
- ZIAUL HAQ vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 440 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
- ZIA-UL-HAQUE vs UNITED BANK LTD., RAWALPINDI1984 PLC 961 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-29Read full judgment →
- ZIA ANWAR AND OTHERS vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 513 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought the ejectment of their tenant, respondent No. 1, on the ground of unauthorized subletting of a shop to respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, finding that subletting had occurred. This order was upheld by the Additional District Judge on appeal. However, the High Court, in a second appeal, reversed these findings. While acknowledging the subletting, the High Court held that the petitioners had waived their right to seek ejectment by accepting rent from the sub-tenants for years, thereby creating an estoppel. The petitioners challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court erred by introducing a plea of waiver and estoppel that was never raised in the pleadings, nor framed as an issue, and regarding which no evidence was led. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the contentions regarding the High Court's justification in making out a new case for the respondents and the alleged oversight of material evidence required further consideration.
Questions settled- Can a High Court decide a case based on a plea of waiver or estoppel that was neither pleaded nor framed as an issue by the parties?
- Is a landlord estopped from seeking ejectment on the ground of subletting if they have accepted rent from the sub-tenants for a significant period?
- ZEESHAN ELLAHI vs DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 2298 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-30Read full judgment →
- ZARBADSHAH MASOOD vs COMMANDANT MAGISTRATE 1ST CLASS, SUTLEJ1984 PLD Lahore 449 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-26Read full judgment →