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.
- TAJ DIN vs PIONEER STEEL MILLS LTD.1984 PLC 403 · Labour Court · 1983-09-28Read full judgment →
- TAJ DIN AND ANOTHER vs PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COMPANY AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1303 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-29Read full judgment →
- TAJ COMPANY LTD. vs WORKERS' UNION1984 PLC 747 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-04-17Read full judgment →
- TAHIRURREHMAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 171 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-04-10Read full judgment →
- TAHIR UL ISLAM vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 274 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
- TAHIR MAQBOOL vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1889 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-14Read full judgment →
- TAHIR MAHAMMAD SHAH (represented by heirs) vs DIWAN METHARAM1984 MLD 113 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-08Read full judgment →
- TAHIR AMIN vs KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD.1984 CLC 2245 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-22Read full judgment →
- TABRAIZ vs SAID MUHAMMAD AND 6 OTHERS1984 PLD Lahore 456 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-11Read full judgment →
- TA LIB HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 337 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
- T. V. SERVICE STATION vs MRS. PARVEEN ANWAR AFRIDI1984 CLC 693 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-26Read full judgment →
- Syedzada AKBER JALIL vs VICE-CHANCELLOR, N.E.D. UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, KARACHI and others1984 MLD 191 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-13Read full judgment →
- SYEDULMUTAHIREEN RIZVI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2858 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-05Read full judgment →
- Syed ZULFIQAR ALI SHAH vs CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, FAISALABAD AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 783 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-02-07Read full judgment →
- Syed ZAWAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs Rai AHMAD and 3 others1984 MLD 154 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-07Read full judgment →
- Syed ZAMIR KAZIM SHAH vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 687 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-07Read full judgment →
- Syed ZAHID ALI vs Syed MUHAMMAD NASIM1984 CLC 828 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-05Read full judgment →
- Syed ZAFAR AHMAD SHAH vs Khawaja NUR AHMAD CHISHTI AND 6 OTHERS1984 CLC 989 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
- SYED ZAFAR ABBAS SHAH vs THE CHAIRMAN, COMMERCIAL COURT AND 21984 P Cr. L J 1455 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-13Read full judgment →
- Syed WILAYAT HUSSAIN vs Sheikh FAZLUR REHMAN1984 CLC 397 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-28Read full judgment →
- Syed TAUSIF AHMAD ZAIDI vs Mst. NAHEEDA NIGHAT1984 MLD 1017 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-04Read full judgment →
- Syed TALIB HUSSAIN vs COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION1984 PLC (C. S.) 653 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
- Syed TAHIRULHASSAN ZAIDI vs Mst. NUSRAT TAHIRULHASSAN AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 76 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, which declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact regarding the non-payment of a dower debt. The core legal question concerned whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding a disputed bank transaction for the payment of dower could be disturbed in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that where the trial court and the appellate court concurrently found upon an appraisal of evidence that the bank transaction representing the payment of dower was fake and that the wife was not the recipient, such concurrent findings of fact are unexceptionable and cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that the superior courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact on appreciation of evidence in constitutional petitions unless such findings are shown to be suffering from any grave illegality or jurisdictional defect.
Questions settled- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the payment of dower be challenged in a constitutional petition?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact affirmed by the High Court based on an appraisal of evidence?
- Syed SULTAN AHMAD vs NIAZ MUHAMMAD and another1984 MLD 834 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-11Read full judgment →
- Syed SIKANDAR SHAH vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND and 2 others1984 MLD 906 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
- Syed SHAUKAT HUSSAIN vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, PUNJAB CIVIL SECRETARIAT, LAHORE AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 689 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-07Read full judgment →
- SYED SHAH vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 76 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-09-26Read full judgment →
- Syed SHAH SAMAD ALAM vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, LAHORE REGION AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 71 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-05-19Read full judgment →
- Syed SHABBIR HUSSAIN SHAH THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES ' vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS1984 PLC 1160 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed SAMAD ALI vs LAHORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) .1 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-22Read full judgment →
- Syed SAJJAD HUSSAIN AND OTHERS vs Syed IZHAR HUSSAIN AND OTHERS1984 CLC 903 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-08Read full judgment →
- Syed SAGHIR AHMED NAQVI vs PROVINCE OF SIND and anothers1984 MLD 604 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-08Read full judgment →
- Syed SAFDAR ALI Z1APetitioned vs Syeda UMME RABBAB1984 CLC 2201 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-08Read full judgment →
- Syed RIAZUDDINand 15 others vs DEPUTY LAND COMMISSIONER and 2 others1984 MLD 750 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-22Read full judgment →
- Syed RAMZAN ALI SHAH vs MILITARY ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL, RAWALPINDI1984 PLC (C. S.) 665 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-08-10Read full judgment →
- SYed QURBAN HUSSAIN SHAH and anothers vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2916 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
- Syed QAISAR ABBAS RIZVI vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN1984 PLC 1528 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed Pir MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI SHAH vs HAZRAT MAHMOOD AND OTMERS1984 P Cr. L J 908 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-21Read full judgment →
- Syed PAIDIN vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1984 CLC 659 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-12Read full judgment →
- Syed NOORULHASSAN vs THE STATE1984 PLD Peshawar 273 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-05-04Read full judgment →
- Syed NOOR-UL-HAQ BOKHARI AND 2 OTHERS vs ALLAH WASAYA TEXTILE MILLS1984 PLC 1292 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed NAUSHAB ALI SHAH vs COL. MEHMOOD KHAN DURANI1984 CLC 2945 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
- Syed MUZAFFAR ALI JAFRI vs THE COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD DIVISION AND TWO OTHERS1984 CLC 1352 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
- Syed MUSTAFA ALI vs THE SETTLEMENT AND CLAIMS COMMISSIONER, LAHORE1984 SCMR 934 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an appeal filed by Syed Mustafa Ali against the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the rejection of his review application by the Settlement and Claims Commissioner. The core legal question was whether the appellant's applications for a pro rata share in a joint claim could be treated as independent miscellaneous applications rather than applications for review of a past order, particularly when he had acquiesced in the initial verification order and failed to challenge it through statutory remedies. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's subsequent applications effectively sought to set aside the earlier final order in which he had acquiesced, and he could not claim the benefit of enhanced verification achieved solely by other co-sharers who had diligently pursued their legal remedies. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that a party cannot bypass statutory remedies or benefit from the vigilance of others without pursuing timely legal proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether an application for a pro rata share in a joint claim can be treated as an independent application rather than a review of a previous order?
- Can a claimant who acquiesced in an initial verification order claim the benefit of an enhanced valuation achieved solely through the diligence of co-sharers who pursued legal remedies?
- Whether a review application filed beyond the statutory limitation period is maintainable under the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956?
- Syed MURAD ALI SHAH and 2 others vs REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE1984 MLD 796 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-29Read full judgment →
- Syed MUMTAZ HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL1984 CLC 2716 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
- Syed MUKHTAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2181 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-28Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA1984 CLC 2007 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-18Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD WASIF vs THE PROVINCE OF SIND THROUGH THE SECERETARY, BOARD OP REVENUE, KARACHI AND OTHERS1984 CLC 3033 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD USMAN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SIND AND '61984 CLC 2087 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-04Read full judgment →
- SYED MUHAMMAD TAHIR vs HABIB BANK LTD., SIALKOT1984 PLC 1210 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-12-12Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE SHAH AND OTHERS vs Sh. MUHAMMAD AFZAL1984 CLC 349 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, was initially dismissed in default and later restored upon an application filed after five months. The respondents filed a review petition against the order of restoration, contending that the restoration application was time-barred under Article 168 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applied. The court evaluated whether the review petition was barred by Order XLVII, Rule 9(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and found that rule inapplicable as the prior order was for restoration under Order XLI, Rule 19, not a review. Acknowledging that the restoration application was filed well beyond the thirty-day limitation period, the court held that the delay prejudiced the valuable right accrued to the respondents. Consequently, the review petition was accepted, the previous restoration order was set aside, and the appeal stood dismissed for want of prosecution.
Questions settled- Whether an application for review of an order restoring an appeal is barred under Order XLVII, Rule 9(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when the restored order was passed under Order XLI, Rule 19?
- Does Article 168 of the Limitation Act, 1908 apply to a petition for the restoration of a second appeal dismissed for default under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Can a court review its previous order of restoration when the initial application for restoration was admittedly time-barred?
- Syed MUHAMMAD SIBTAIN ALI RIZVI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1749 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-31Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD SAQIB vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2768 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-30Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD MUSTAQEEM SHAH vs MANAGING DIRECTORS, MUHAMMAD1984 PLC 801 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD MEHDI ZAIDI AND 3 OTHERS vs PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL1984 PLC 948 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD MASHOOQ vs Mst. NAFIS FATIMA AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Constitution petition by the Sind High Court, which had upheld concurrent findings of the lower courts granting a divorced wife decrees for dower and maintenance during the Iddat period. The core legal questions involved whether concurrent factual findings regarding dower and maintenance could be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction, and whether pleas regarding the legality of the marriage, raised for the first time without being pleaded in the petition, could be considered. The Supreme Court held that findings of fact based on evidence by the lower courts are unexceptionable and cannot be challenged in a Constitution petition, and that pleas not raised in the petition or in the original family proceedings cannot be entertained. The key principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reopen concurrent findings of fact based on evidence, nor to entertain new factual pleas not raised in the pleadings below.
Questions settled- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding dower and maintenance be challenged in a Constitution petition?
- Whether a party can raise new pleas regarding the legality of a marriage for the first time in a Constitution petition without pleading them in the petition or before the trial court?
- Are findings of fact based on evidence by lower courts open to interference under constitutional jurisdiction?
- Syed MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS AND OTHERS1984 PLC 30 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-11Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD HASSAN ASHRAF vs AIJAZ-UR-REHMAN1984 MLD 241 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD ALI vs Mst. AISHA1984 CLC 2332 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant filed an ejectment application against the respondent on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide requirement. The Collector dismissed the application, finding neither ground established. Upon appeal, the Sindh High Court examined whether the admitted non-payment of rent from August 1976 to June 1977 constituted a default. The Court held that the respondent failed to prove the alleged practice of paying accumulated rent, which in any event is of no avail under settled jurisprudence, and that the tenant could have deposited the rent in court or remitted it. The Court further held that the appellant failed to substantiate his personal bona fide requirement with evidence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed solely on the ground of default in payment of rent, granting the respondent four months to vacate the premises. The key principle laid down is that a tenant cannot evade the statutory obligation to pay rent regularly by pleading an unproven practice of accumulated payments when legal remedies to deposit rent are available.
Questions settled- Does a practice of paying accumulated rent absolve a tenant from liability for default?
- Can an ejectment application succeed on personal requirement without substantiating evidence?
- Is a tenant obliged to deposit rent in court if the landlord's exact address is disputed?
- Syed MUHAMMAD ALI vs DR. MUHAMMAD SULTAN ZAKARIA1984 CLC 2351 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD ALI AND OTHERS vs PAKISTAN1984 CLC 690 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-22Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD AKRAM SHAH vs PUNJAB PROVINCE1984 PLC (C. S.) 143 · Punjab Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD ABBAS vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE PUNJAB AND 21984 PLC (C. S.) 654 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed MUEEN UDDIN vs SAEEDA PARVEEN1984 SCMR 120 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an eviction order under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller or an appellate authority, acting under the Ordinance, possesses the jurisdiction to collaterally impeach a civil court decree on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. The Supreme Court held that the appellate authority exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring the civil decree a nullity. The Court affirmed that a decree obtained by fraud is voidable, not void, and remains operative until set aside by a competent court of plenary jurisdiction. Consequently, the Rent Controller and the appellate authority, being tribunals of limited jurisdiction, cannot disregard such a decree in collateral proceedings. The key principle laid down is that while a Rent Controller must determine the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship as a foundational fact, they cannot challenge the validity of a civil court decree establishing title, as such decrees are binding until formally rescinded or recalled in appropriate proceedings before a competent court.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller or appellate authority under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 collaterally impeach a civil court decree?
- Is a decree obtained by fraud void or voidable?
- Does a tribunal with limited jurisdiction have the power to disregard a decree passed by a court of plenary jurisdiction?
- Syed MOHAMMAD SHAH vs Dr. TAJAMUL HUSSAIN1984 CLC 2522 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-23Read full judgment →
- Syed MOAZZAM ALI vs PRINCIPAL, DAWOOD COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING &1984 CLC 2093 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-18Read full judgment →
- Syed MOAllUM HUSSAIN vs MRs, FATIMA QIDWAI1984 MLD 925 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
- Syed MEHDI ALI TIRMIZEY vs THE SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION1984 PLC (C. S.) 657 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-10-13Read full judgment →
- Syed MAZHAR ALIAppelicant vs ALI KHAN AND ANOTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 354 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed for the quashment of criminal proceedings pending under section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 before the City Magistrate Nawabshah. The core legal questions involved whether the dispute between the parties was purely civil in nature regarding a dishonoured cheque, and whether a petition for quashment under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is maintainable without first approaching the trial court under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the contents of the complaint and preliminary statements disclosed only a civil dispute that could not result in a conviction, rendering the continuation of criminal proceedings an abuse of the court's process. Furthermore, the court held that where cognizance is taken after a preliminary inquiry, moving the trial court under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 would be a futile exercise, making the remedy under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 directly maintainable. The petition was consequently allowed and the proceedings quashed.
Questions settled- Whether a petition for quashment of proceedings is maintainable under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without first moving the trial court under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a dispute arising from a dishonoured cheque involving payment obligations constitute a criminal offence under section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 or a civil dispute?
- Does the continuation of criminal proceedings that cannot result in a conviction amount to an abuse of the process of the court?
- Syed MASOOD HUSSAIN ZAHIDI vs AZIZ AHMED1984 SCMR 945 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's writ petition concerning the allotment of agricultural land in Chak No. 44/NB, Sargodha. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner acted without jurisdiction in fixing a maximum limit of 12 1/2 acres for land allotments in the estate, thereby curtailing the appellant's adjustment of his full claim, and whether paragraph 11 of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme or the principle of 'first come first served' applied. The Supreme Court held that the Deputy Commissioner's order limiting allotments was not issued under paragraph 11 of the Scheme—which applies to rateable distribution when temporary allotments cannot be satisfied—but was a valid exercise of administrative power to account for local conditions and accommodate multiple claimants on valuable land near the town, pursuant to the broader objectives of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The Court further held that the principle of 'first come first served' was inapplicable given the competent authority's power to regulate allotments equitably. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner is competent to fix a maximum limit on land allotments in an estate independently of paragraph 11 of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme?
- Does paragraph 11 of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme apply to estates where land was not previously open to temporary allotment?
- Can a claimant enforce a vested legal right to obtain land to the extent of his full entitlement in a particular area to the detriment of other claimants?
- Is the principle of 'first come first served' applicable to land allotments under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme where authorities regulate distribution based on local conditions?
- Syed MAQSOOD ALI vs Mst. SOOFIA NAUSHABA AND 3 OTHERs1984 CLC 3167 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-09Read full judgment →
- Syed MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND 31984 PLC 1590 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
- Syed MANZOOR HUSSAIN NAQVI vs Mst. SHAH RUKH ZAMANI BEGUM1984 CLC 1618 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
- Syed MAHBOOB SHAH vs SHER AFZAL1984 CLC 2499 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
- Syed MAHBOOB ALI AND 2 OTHERS vs GHULAM RABBANI AND 8 OTHERS1984 CLC 114 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-08Read full judgment →
- Syed MAH MOOD QADRI AND 5 OTHERS vs 0. S. D., FEDERAL LAND1984 CLC 2330 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Syed LIAQAT ALI vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, GOVERNMENT1984 PLC 980 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed KHADIM HUSSAIN SHAH and others vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1319 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
- Syed KHADIM HUSSAIN ABEDI vs Mst. GETI ARA BEGUM1984 CLC 68 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This first rent appeal challenges an order of the Rent Controller striking off the appellant/tenant's defence and ordering ejectment due to non-compliance with a rent deposit order. The core legal question is whether a rent order directing the deposit of arrears is valid when it fails to consider the tenant's specific plea of prior payment for a portion of the claimed period, especially when the case had reached an advanced stage of evidence recording. The Court held that the Rent Controller failed to perform a necessary summary inquiry regarding the disputed arrears and ignored the tenant's plea of payment. Consequently, the rent order was deemed illegal, and the subsequent striking off of the defence based on that flawed order was unsustainable. The principle laid down is that a Rent Controller must consider all pleadings, objections, and evidence on record before passing a rent order under Section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, particularly when a dispute regarding the quantum of arrears exists, and cannot strike off a defence based on an order that ignores a tenant's specific, unaddressed plea of payment.
Questions settled- Is a rent order valid if it fails to address a tenant's specific plea regarding the payment of arrears?
- Must a Rent Controller consider evidence on record when passing a rent order under Section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Can a tenant's defence be struck off for non-compliance with an illegal rent order?
- Syed KHADIM ABBAS RIZVI vs Miss GOHAR FATIMA1984 CLC 2449 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an order of the XVth Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, which allowed an ejectment application filed by the respondent-landlady against the appellant-tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent, while deciding the issue of personal requirement against the respondent. The core legal questions involved whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, whether the appellant committed default in the payment of rent, and whether the respondent could assail the adverse finding on personal requirement without filing a cross-appeal or cross-objections. The Sindh High Court held that the respondent's ownership was established, that the appellant's father acted as her attorney in collecting rent confirming the landlord-tenant relationship, that the appellant failed to prove valid tender or deposit of rent for the disputed months constituting default, and that a respondent may criticize an adverse finding without filing a cross-appeal. The Court further held that the respondent sufficiently proved her bona fide personal need to live independently with her husband. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with modified time granted to vacate.
Questions settled- Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists when rent is collected by the owner's father acting as an attorney?
- Does a tenant's failure to examine the postman disprove the refusal of a money order for rent?
- Can a respondent challenge an adverse finding on an issue without filing a cross-appeal or cross-objections?
- Whether a married daughter is barred by custom from maintaining a separate house for living independently with her husband?
- Syed KABIR HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE1984 PLD SC (A J & K) 82 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-02-20Read full judgment →
- Syed JAWAHAR ALI SHAH vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES1984 PLC 143 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-10-30Read full judgment →
- Syed JARAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1310 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-20Read full judgment →
- Syed JARAR HUSSAIN and another vs ZAIGAM HUSSAIN and another1984 MLD 918 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-02Read full judgment →
- Syed JAFFAR HUSSAIN vs The CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY1984 CLC 2570 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-30Read full judgment →
- Syed IRSHAD ALI SHAH vs Mst. RAHIM BIBI AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 175 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order granting a temporary injunction in a suit regarding the possession of a government plot. The core legal question was whether the respondent, an alleged unauthorized occupant, established a prima facie case for interim relief based on a government policy allowing for the regularization of unauthorized possession. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in granting the injunction. The Court reasoned that the respondent’s claim was grounded in a specific government policy letter, and since she was in physical possession with existing construction, the lower courts erred in dismissing her application solely on the basis of her status as an unauthorized occupant without considering the regularization policy. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence to rebut the respondent's claim regarding the timing of her possession. The key principle laid down is that where a government policy provides for the regularization of unauthorized possession, such policy must be considered when determining the balance of convenience for interim relief, and an arguable case exists if the occupant’s claim aligns with such policy criteria.
Questions settled- Can a court grant a temporary injunction to an unauthorized occupant if a government policy exists for the potential regularization of such possession?
- Does a stranger to a suit have the right to file an appeal against an order if they are adversely affected by it?
- Is the status of an occupant as a trespasser sufficient grounds to deny equitable relief when a government policy for regularization is invoked?
- Syed IRSHAD AHMAD vs THE RETURNING OFFICER, K. M. C. UNIT No, 123 AND 281984 CLC 3259 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-16Read full judgment →
- Syed IQBAL SAMIE and others vs JAM GUL MUHAMMAD and another1984 SCMR 1544 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that decreed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The core legal question was whether the agreement to sell was void under Martial Law Regulation No. 64 due to alleged violations regarding land holdings and whether the respondents were estopped from asserting the validity of the transaction due to their prior pleadings in a pre-emption suit. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the transaction did not violate Martial Law Regulation No. 64 as the alienor intended to divest himself of his entire holding. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument of estoppel, noting that the respondents had consistently maintained the validity of the transaction. The Court affirmed that the High Court's assessment of the facts and law was correct, emphasizing that the timing of the transactions did not render them invalid when the clear intent was a simultaneous divestment of the entire holding. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does an agreement to sell land violate Martial Law Regulation No. 64 if the alienor intends to divest himself of his entire holding?
- Can a party be estopped from asserting the validity of a transaction based on their pleadings in a prior, separate pre-emption suit?
- Does the timing of mutation entries for separate land transactions invalidate them under Martial Law Regulation No. 64 if the intent is simultaneous divestment?
- Syed IMDAD HUSSAIN vs THE CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, ISLAMABAD1984 PLC 1269 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF A J & K1984 PLC (C. S.) 465 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1983-12-11Read full judgment →
- Syed IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR1984 PLD SC (A J & K) 111 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-04-16Read full judgment →
- Syed HASSHMI vs MUSHEERUDDIN SIDDIQUI AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 82 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-20Read full judgment →
- Syed HASHIM ALI SHAH vs PRESIDENT, SUMMARY MILITARY COURT, KARACHI1984 P Cr. L J 1379 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a constitutional petition seeking to have his pre-trial detention period counted towards his one-year sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed by a Summary Military Court, and to set aside a fine of Rs. 2,00,000. The petitioner argued that under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the period spent in custody as an undertrial prisoner should be deducted from the substantive sentence. The Sindh High Court examined whether this provision applied to sentences awarded by Military Courts. The Court held that the Army Act establishes a separate and independent scheme for trials and punishments, rendering the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 inapplicable to Military Court proceedings. Furthermore, the Court determined that, pursuant to the recent amendment to Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with decisions or sentences imposed by a Military Court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, affirming that the judiciary cannot grant relief regarding sentences passed by Military Courts.
Questions settled- Does Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to sentences awarded by Military Courts?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to interfere with sentences imposed by a Military Court?
- Is the Army Act a self-contained scheme for trials and punishments distinct from the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Syed HASAN vs NASIM NAJMI and another1984 MLD 839 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-20Read full judgment →
- Syed HASAN NAWAZ vs MOOSA and others1984 MLD 199 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-09Read full judgment →
- Syed HADI MASOOD vs Begum HAMEEDA SALAM--Defendant1984 MLD 1102 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-03Read full judgment →
- Syed GHULAM SHAH vs Mrt. HAWA BAI AND 5 OTHERS1984 CLC 190 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-22Read full judgment →
- Syed GHULAM SHABBIR BUKHARI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, S. G. A. & I. DEPARTMENT1984 PLC (C. S.) 649 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-20Read full judgment →
- Syed GHULAM HUSSAIN SHAH vs Syed SADIQ HUSSAIN SHAH and others1984 SCMR 1419 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of a shop located in Mauza Gheela Khurd, Tehsil and District Rawalpindi, between a petitioner in actual physical occupation and a respondent who is the allottee. Both parties sought the transfer of the property under Settlement Scheme No. VII, framed pursuant to the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Settlement Department initially ruled in favor of the petitioner based on his undisputed physical occupation. However, the High Court overturned this decision, determining that the petitioner's possession was merely permissive and thus inferior to the rights of the allottee. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether a person in actual physical occupation possesses a superior entitlement to the transfer of rural property compared to an allottee, specifically interpreting the provisions of paragraph 3 of Settlement Scheme No. VII regarding the disposal of rural properties in minor villages. The Court ordered the continuation of an existing interim order pending the final adjudication of this legal question.
Questions settled- Does a person in actual physical occupation of a rural property have a superior entitlement to its transfer over an allottee under Settlement Scheme No. VII?
- How should paragraph 3 of Settlement Scheme No. VII be interpreted regarding the transfer of rural properties in minor villages?