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.
- SIKANDER AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 807 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-19Read full judgment →
- SIKANDAR KHAN AND 6 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1265 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-24Read full judgment →
- SIKANDAR HAYAT vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAHIWAL AND 6 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 798 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-27Read full judgment →
- SIKANDAR HAYAT vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SAHIWAL and others1984 SCMR 1321 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a police inspector seeking pro forma promotion after the expunction of certain adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pro forma promotion when his adverse remarks for the year 1978 were only partially expunged. The Supreme Court held that according to the applicable departmental instructions contained in the Government of the Punjab circular letter, where adverse remarks are only partially expunged, an official is not entitled to pro forma promotion. The court accordingly dismissed the petition, establishing the principle that partial expunction of adverse remarks disentitles a civil servant to pro forma promotion under the governing administrative rules.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant is entitled to pro forma promotion when their adverse remarks are only partially expunged?
- Does the partial expunction of adverse remarks preclude the grant of pro forma promotion under the administrative circulars governing Punjab civil servants?
- SIJAWAR vs Hafiz MUHAMMAD UMER and 3 others1984 CLC 2637 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-09Read full judgment →
- SIJAWAL AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 526 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-03Read full judgment →
- SIDDIQUE vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2489 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-18Read full judgment →
- SIDDIQUE KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs ABDUL SHAKUR KHAN AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Supreme Court 289 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These two civil appeals by special leave arose from judgments of the Lahore High Court concerning pre-emption suits, specifically addressing the payment of deficient court-fees and the resulting impact on limitation. The core legal questions involved whether the court-fee payable on an appeal is governed by the law in force at the time of the institution of the suit or the appeal, whether the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11(b) and (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply mutatis mutandis to memoranda of appeals by virtue of section 107(2), and whether an appeal or suit can be dismissed as time-barred due to deficient court-fee without first affording an opportunity to make good the deficiency, unless there is contumacy or positive mala fides. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that court-fees on appeals are leviable according to the law prevailing at the time of filing the appeal as part of regulatory procedure, and that the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11(b) and (c) apply equally to memoranda of appeals via section 107(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court laid down that a court is legally bound to afford an opportunity to supply deficient court-fees, and the question of limitation must not be factored into the exercise of discretion under section 149 unless the party is guilty of contumacy or positive mala fides.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11(b) and (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply mutatis mutandis to memoranda of appeals by virtue of section 107(2)?
- Whether the court-fee leviable on an appeal is governed by the law in force at the time of the institution of the suit or at the time of the filing of the appeal?
- Whether a court is legally bound to afford an opportunity to supply deficient court-fees before rejecting a plaint or memorandum of appeal?
- Can considerations relating to the law of limitation be taken into account when exercising discretion under section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for granting time to make up a deficiency in court-fee?
- SHUJAUDDIN and 15 otherss vs The ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI and 3 others1984 CLC 2616 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Shujauddin And 15 Other, Customs, Karachi And 3 Other vs AssistantPTCL 1984 (CL) 370 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- SHOUKI alias SHOUKAT AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 613 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenged a High Court order cancelling the bail of two appellants, Shouki alias Shoukat and Shafi Muhammad, who were facing trial for murder. The core legal question was whether the statutory delay provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which denies bail if the delay is occasioned by the act or omission of the accused, applies collectively to co-accused or must be assessed individually. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in treating the co-accused as a single unit. The ratio is that the 'act or omission' causing delay must be attributed to the specific accused seeking bail; the conduct of a co-accused cannot deprive an individual of the statutory benefit of bail if that individual is not personally responsible for the delay. Consequently, the Court restored bail for the appellant who was not responsible for the delay but upheld the cancellation for the appellant whose own counsel's frequent absences caused the trial to be delayed.
Questions settled- Does the act or omission of a co-accused in delaying a trial deprive other co-accused of the statutory benefit of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should the conduct of an accused regarding trial delay be assessed individually or collectively when determining eligibility for bail?
- Can an accused claim that trial delay caused by their counsel's frequent absence is not attributable to their own act or omission?
- SHITAB and 2 others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2874 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
- SHIROMIK INDUSTRIES Ltd. vs COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE and 2 others1984 MLD 562 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-30Read full judgment →
- SHIREEN KHAN vs STAR TEXLILE MILLS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER/DIRECTOR1984 PLC 1538 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
- SHERU AND OTHERS vs Malik RUSTAM AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1197 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-11Read full judgment →
- SHERO vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1298 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
- SHERDIL AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1555 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
- SHERAZ ELAHI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1935 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition was filed by the owner of a passenger wagon challenging the trial court's order of confiscation of the vehicle. The driver of the wagon had been convicted under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (later altered to Section 304-A) for causing the deaths of two individuals through rash and negligent driving. The trial court ordered the confiscation of the wagon under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground that the owner, by permitting an unauthorized driver to operate the vehicle, provided him the opportunity to cause the accident. The High Court examined whether a vehicle involved in a negligent driving accident could be deemed 'property used for the commission of an offence' and whether confiscation without a show-cause notice was lawful. The Court held that a vehicle involved in a negligent driving accident is not an instrument or weapon of the offence under Section 517. Furthermore, the owner was condemned unheard in violation of the principle of audi alteram partem. The revision petition was allowed, and the confiscation order was set aside.
Questions settled- Can a vehicle involved in a fatal accident caused by rash and negligent driving be confiscated as 'property used for the commission of an offence' under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an order of confiscation of property passed under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 valid if the owner of the property was not afforded an opportunity to show cause?
- Can a vehicle owner be held liable for confiscation if the borrower of the vehicle violates the terms of his driving licence without the owner's knowledge?
- SHERAL AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3053 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-11Read full judgment →
- SHER ZAMAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2515 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
- SHER ZAMAN and another vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1573 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-26Read full judgment →
- SHER REHMAN vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1283 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-18Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMADConvict vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1361 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs SULEMAN1984 CLC 367 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-28Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs SARFRAZ MAHMOOD and 6 others1984 MLD 62 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-15Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF1984 PLD Lahore 117 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arises from the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the appellant's suit for a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction regarding a disputed house. The appellant claimed he purchased the house as a benamidar in the name of the respondent, his brother-in-law, to shield it from potential claims by his brothers during a family property dispute. The core legal question centered on whether the transaction was benami, requiring an examination of the source of consideration, custody of the title deed, possession, motive, and surrounding circumstances. The Lahore High Court held that the lower courts misread the evidence regarding the custody of the title deed and based their findings on possession and tenancy on no evidence, while ignoring relevant municipal site plans and unrebutted evidence of construction by the appellant. The Court concluded that the respondent was merely a benamidar for the appellant. The key principle laid down is that while the burden of proving a benami transaction lies on the person alleging it, direct evidence is not strictly required, and the nature of the transaction must be determined by evaluating the totality of circumstances including the custody of the title deed, possession, subsequent conduct, and intention of the parties.
Questions settled- Whether the source of purchase money is conclusive in determining the benami character of a transaction?
- Does the burden of proving a benami transaction require direct evidence, particularly in old transactions?
- Are concurrent findings of fact based on misreading of evidence or no evidence open to challenge in second appeal?
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD SA DIQ AND 2 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 3126 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-23Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs Mst. ANWARI BEGUM and others1984 SCMR 1407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the resumption of property under Settlement Scheme No. 8. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner’s resumption of property due to non-payment was lawful, given the procedural irregularities in serving the demand notice and the subsequent resumption order. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the High Court’s decision that the resumption was invalid. The Court established that statutory demand notices must be served via registered acknowledgment-due cover, with substituted service permissible only after the failure of this primary method. Furthermore, any report of refusal of service must be properly witnessed. The Court emphasized that a transferee retains the right to satisfy payment obligations even after a resumption order, provided the property has not been transferred to a third party. Crucially, the resumption order itself must be served upon the transferee to be effective. Because the Settlement authorities failed to follow these mandatory procedural requirements, the resumption of the property was deemed without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Is substituted service of a demand notice permissible without first attempting service via registered acknowledgment-due cover?
- Does a transferee have the right to make payment for property after a resumption order has been passed?
- Must a resumption order be served upon the transferee to be considered valid?
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs FALAKSHER AND 5 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 3002 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-04Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 4 OTHERS vs ABDULLAH AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Peshawar 54 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs SHAFQAT ULLAH1984 CLC 2138 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs Rana BADAR MUNIR AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1169 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal addresses the competency of a suit for pre-emption concerning land allotted to displaced persons from Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The trial court and the Additional District Judge initially held that civil courts lacked jurisdiction over such suits, citing the specific scheme for temporary allotment of rural evacuee agricultural land to Jammu and Kashmir displaced persons. However, the High Court reversed this decision, relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in Haji Sultan Muhammad v. Muhammad Siddiq, which it interpreted as allowing pre-emption in such cases. The petitioners challenged this, arguing that the High Court misapplied the precedent, as the Supreme Court had actually ruled that no right of pre-emption exists regarding sales by temporary allottees because they lack a saleable interest in the land. The Supreme Court found that the contention regarding the High Court's misapplication of binding precedent required further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court correctly interpreted the legal position regarding the pre-emption of lands held by temporary allottees.
Questions settled- Is a suit for pre-emption competent in respect of land allotted to displaced persons from Azad Jammu and Kashmir?
- Do temporary allottees of land under the Scheme for the Temporary Allotment of Rural Evacuee Agricultural land possess a saleable interest sufficient to support a claim of pre-emption?
- SHER MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs AROORA1984 CLC 3292 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-19Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD alias SHERA AND ANOTHERS vs THE STATE1984 PLD Lahore 155 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-13Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMM AD vs AMIR BUX AND 3 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 198 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-09Read full judgment →
- SHER KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2112 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-11Read full judgment →
- SHER HASSAN vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 238 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 2-11-1982, whereby respondent Muhammad Nawaz was acquitted of the charge of murdering Wazir Hassan. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's appraisal of evidence and rejection of the eye-witnesses' testimony was perverse, illegal, or contrary to settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. The Supreme Court held that the appraisal of evidence by the High Court was unexceptionable and proceeded on well-established principles for the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases, noting that the testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses suffered from material contradictions and improvements that rendered their credibility doubtful. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the acquittal of the respondent.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court's appraisal of evidence in a criminal appeal warrants interference by the Supreme Court when it is based on well-established principles?
- Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained on the testimony of eye-witnesses whose evidence contains material contradictions and improvements?
- Does the presence of discrepancies between the first information report and the deposition at trial affect the credibility of an eye-witness?
- SHER DIL AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2997 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-29Read full judgment →
- SHER BAZ vs AMIR KHAN AND 3 OTHERS1984 SCMR 501 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the acquittal of the respondents by the High Court in a murder case involving charges under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the respondents ambushed and murdered the deceased over a motive relating to the abduction of a female relative. The trial court had convicted the respondents, but the High Court reversed the decision and acquitted them. The Supreme Court evaluated the record and upheld the acquittal, finding that the ocular testimony of the interested witnesses was contradicted by medical evidence. Specifically, the presence of ant-bites and the condition of the deceased's internal organs indicated the body remained unattended for a considerable time and that the incident occurred at a different hour than claimed. Furthermore, the prosecution's motive story stood discredited by the statement of the alleged abductee. The Supreme Court concluded that the occurrence was unwitnessed and the eyewitnesses were not present, making it an unfit case for granting leave to appeal. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether ocular testimony contradicted by medical evidence regarding the time of occurrence and condition of the dead body is sufficient to sustain an acquittal?
- Can an eyewitness account given by close relatives be relied upon without independent corroboration when the medical facts falsify their presence at the scene?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal against acquittal maintainable when the High Court's appreciation of evidence regarding a doubtful motive and unwitnessed crime is well-reasoned?
- SHER BAHADAR KHAN vs Qazi ISLAMUDDIN AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Supreme Court 213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, having purchased two shops in an auction and obtained a Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, filed a civil suit claiming ownership of an adjacent third shop, asserting it was structurally part of the same unit. The Municipal Committee contested the suit, claiming ownership of the third shop. The trial and first appellate courts decreed the suit based on structural unity and pre-partition records. The High Court, in revision, reversed this, holding that the civil court lacked jurisdiction as the property was evacuee property not yet disposed of. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan clarified that while civil courts have jurisdiction to determine title derived from a PTD, they cannot go behind the PTD to modify or interfere with the orders of the settlement authorities. The settlement authorities had treated the shops as separate units, and the civil court could not rewrite the PTD based on structural features. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the suit, finding that the lower courts committed a jurisdictional error amenable to correction under revisional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a civil court go behind a Permanent Transfer Deed issued by settlement authorities to modify or alter the division of properties?
- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to determine the identity or extent of a property transferred under a Permanent Transfer Deed?
- Whether an erroneous decision by a subordinate court that results in it exercising a jurisdiction not vested in it by law is amenable to correction in civil revision?
- SHER AU vs Mst. MARIAM BAI1984 CLC 1893(2) · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
- SHER ASLAM AND OTHERS vs AHMAD KHAN AND OTHERS1984 CLC 2191 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-06Read full judgment →
- SHER ALI vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 815 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed by Sher Ali against a Supreme Court judgment that upheld his conviction and death sentence for murder. The petitioner, along with co-accused Gul Nawaz, was convicted for the murder of Fazal-ur-Rahman and causing injury to a prosecution witness, Shirin Jan. While the appellate court had previously commuted the death sentence of the co-accused, Gul Nawaz, to life imprisonment on the basis that he did not fire at the deceased, the petitioner's death sentence was maintained due to direct evidence of his involvement in the fatal shooting. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's conviction and sentence warranted review in light of the evidence presented. Upon re-examining the testimony of the eye-witness, Shirin Jan, the Court found that the evidence clearly established the petitioner's role in firing at the deceased, distinguishing his culpability from that of the co-accused. Consequently, the Court held that the previous findings were sound and dismissed the review petition, affirming the original conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Does the evidence of an eye-witness identifying a specific accused as the shooter justify maintaining a death sentence while commuting the sentence of a co-accused?
- Can a review petition be dismissed if the findings of the original judgment are based on consistent eye-witness testimony?
- Is a delay in filing a review petition excusable when the matter involves a death sentence?
- SHER ALI vs Mst. KALSOOM BEGUM and others1984 SCMR 1245 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a revision petition challenging concurrent findings of fact by subordinate courts regarding the validity of a sale deed. The respondent, a widow, had filed a civil suit challenging a sale deed of her property to the petitioner, alleging fraud, lack of consideration, and non-execution. Both the trial court and the district judge, upon re-examining the evidence, concluded that the sale deed was fraudulent, lacked consideration, and was not executed by the respondent. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's revision, finding no misreading of evidence or legal defect. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the lower courts failed to properly weigh the presumption of validity attached to a registered deed and misconstrued evidence regarding rent. The Supreme Court held that the case turned on concurrent findings of fact, which were supported by evidence. Finding no misreading of evidence or misapplication of law, the Court affirmed that it would not interfere with such concurrent findings in its appellate jurisdiction, and consequently refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of misreading of evidence or misapplication of law?
- Does a registered sale deed create an irrebuttable presumption of validity when challenged on grounds of fraud and lack of consideration?
- Is a revision petition maintainable against concurrent findings of fact where no misreading of evidence is demonstrated?
- SHER AFZAL KHAN AND OTHERS vs Haji RAZI ABDULLAH AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 228 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of evacuee property, specifically a shop originally designated as Property No. 353. The respondent had acquired the entire property through a valid Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) issued in 1969. Years later, after the repeal of the relevant settlement laws, the petitioner sought and obtained an order from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferring a portion of this property (designated as 353-A) to him under Settlement Scheme No. 1 of 1976. The Peshawar High Court set aside this transfer, holding that the authorities lacked the competence to reopen a past and closed transaction involving a valid P.T.D. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that once a P.T.D. is issued and the settlement laws are repealed, the settlement authorities lack jurisdiction to review or reopen such transactions. The Court held that the subsequent transfer order was coram non judice and wholly incompetent, as there was no surviving jurisdiction to adjudicate upon or alter the finality of the property transfer after the repeal of the governing statutes.
Questions settled- Can settlement authorities reopen a past and closed transaction involving a valid Permanent Transfer Deed after the repeal of the settlement laws?
- Does the repeal of settlement laws extinguish the jurisdiction of authorities to review previous property transfers?
- Is a transfer order issued by settlement authorities regarding property already covered by a valid Permanent Transfer Deed legally competent?
- SHELL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY Ltd. and another vs INDUS GAS1984 MLD 334 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-09Read full judgment →
- Sheikh MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs MUHAMMAD ASGHAR ALI1984 PLD Lahore 230 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition arises out of an appellate court judgment allowing the plaintiff to withdraw their declaratory suit with permission to file a fresh suit under Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the conditions for a formal defect were not met and that amendments to the pleadings should have been preferred. The core legal question was whether the appellate court lawfully permitted the withdrawal of the suit under the expression 'other sufficient grounds' or whether a formal defect was strictly required. The Lahore High Court held that the expression 'other sufficient grounds' in Order XXIII, Rule 1(2)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is wider in signification, is not ejusdem generis with 'formal defect', and can cover circumstances where denying withdrawal would result in grave injustice. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts have wide discretionary powers to allow the withdrawal of a suit with liberty to sue afresh on grounds other than formal defects to prevent technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
Questions settled- Whether the expression 'other sufficient grounds' in Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is ejusdem generis with 'formal defect'?
- Can an appellate court permit the withdrawal of a suit with permission to file a fresh suit at the appellate stage?
- Does the mere wrong description of property or error in the date of a sale-deed constitute a formal defect under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- When will the High Court interfere in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 with an order allowing the withdrawal of a suit?
- Sheikh MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs Sheikh MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 103 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns High Court appeals against an order of a Single Judge dismissing the appellant's applications for temporary injunction and the appointment of a receiver in a suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts. The appellant alleged that the respondent diverted partnership funds to establish various companies and purchase vessels, asserting that these companies were benami entities for the respondent. The core legal question was whether the appellant established a prima facie case to warrant the requested interlocutory relief. The Court held that the appellant failed to provide sufficient material to substantiate the allegations of fund diversion or to demonstrate that the companies were mere fronts for the respondent. The Court affirmed that a company maintains a separate legal entity from its promoters or shareholders, and mere allegations of fund diversion without supporting evidence do not constitute a prima facie case. Consequently, the Court upheld the trial court's exercise of discretion in refusing the injunction and receiver, emphasizing that appellate courts should not interfere with such discretion unless it was exercised on incorrect principles or ignored relevant material.
Questions settled- Does the mere promotion of a company by an individual lead to the legal conclusion that the individual is the owner of that company?
- Is a party entitled to an injunction or the appointment of a receiver based solely on bare allegations of fund diversion without prima facie evidence?
- Under what circumstances will an appellate court interfere with the trial court's exercise of discretion in granting or refusing interlocutory relief?
- Can a court remove a person from the possession or custody of property if the party to the suit has no present right to remove them?
- Sheikh MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs ABDUL MAJEED1984 CLC 110 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-12Read full judgment →
- Sheikh MUHAMMAD ALI vs Sheikh M. MASHKOOR ANWAR1984 SCMR 518 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought the ejectment of the respondent from a property, claiming ownership as a transferee from the Settlement Department holding a P.T.O. The respondent contested this, arguing the property was acquired by the Provincial Government under the Shah Alam Gate Development Scheme, rendering the Settlement Department's transfer illegal. Lower courts dismissed the petitioner's ejectment application, relying on precedent that such acquired property was immune from transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The petitioner appealed, arguing that a prior undertaking by the Lahore Improvement Trust in a separate writ petition entitled him to compensation or transfer. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings that the petitioner lacked the status of a landlord because the property was not validly transferable by the Settlement Department. However, the Court clarified that the High Court's dismissal of the second appeal did not preclude the Lahore Improvement Trust from independently considering the petitioner's case for property transfer, provided he met the conditions set by the Central Government's acquisition sanction and the Trust's own resolutions and practices.
Questions settled- Can a property acquired by the Provincial Government for a development scheme be transferred by the Settlement Department?
- Does the possession of a P.T.O. (Provisional Transfer Order) automatically confer the status of a landlord for ejectment purposes if the underlying transfer is legally invalid?
- Does the dismissal of a second appeal by the High Court preclude a statutory body from independently considering a claim for property transfer based on prior undertakings?
- Sheikh Mian ZAHOOR AHMAD vs Thekedar NAZIR AHMAD1984 PLD Lahore 26 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
- Sheikh GULZAR AHMAD vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA AND 31984 CLC 1702 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-27Read full judgment →
- SIRAJ-UD-DIN SAQ1B vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1984 PLC 1110 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-11-11Read full judgment →
- Sheikh AZAD HUSSAIN vs Sheikh IMDAD HUSSAIN and another1984 MLD 497 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →
- Sheikh ATAUR RAHMAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 2007 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
- Sheikh ALI DARAZ AHMAD SIDDIQUI vs WITH SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KARACHI1984 CLC 2634 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Sheikh AHMAD DIN AND 78 OTHERS vs MEMBER COLONIES, BOARD OF REVENUE AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 3304 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This intra-court appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition regarding the disposal of plots in a developed market scheme in Faisalabad. The core legal questions involved whether the appellants, existing merchants, had a vested legal right to be allotted plots or shop-sites in the newly established market, and whether the successor authority was competent to modify the original Karyana Market scheme into a General Market and dispose of plots via public auction under the Punjab Development of Cities Act, 1976. The Lahore High Court held that the scheme did not confer any enforceable right upon the appellants to claim allotment or preferential purchase of the plots, and that the development authority, with the approval of the Provincial Government, lawfully exercised its powers to modify the scheme and conduct open auctions. The court established that development schemes continued under deeming provisions of repeal statutes carry the necessary statutory flexibility for amendment or modification by the competent authority in the public interest, and that adjacent merchants hold no proprietary or preferential right over State-acquired land unless expressly granted by the scheme.
Questions settled- Whether a development scheme framed under the Town Improvement Act, 1922 and continued under the Punjab Development of Cities Act, 1976 can be modified by the competent authority?
- Do merchants operating in an old market acquire a vested legal right to be allotted plots in a newly established relocation scheme?
- Can a development authority dispose of commercial plots through public auction instead of private treaty with specific claimants?
- Whether the Provincial Government can lawfully approve the conversion of a Karyana Market scheme into a General Market scheme?
- Sheikh ABDUL MAJIED vs TAYAB ALI1984 MLD 793 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-14Read full judgment →
- Sheikh ABDUL AZIZ vs COLLECTOR, MUZAFFARGARH AND 2 OTHERS1984 SCMR 65 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Qanungo, sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 15-11-1976. The petitioner had been dismissed from service departmentally, which was later converted by the Commissioner into reversion from Qanungo to Patwari. The Service Tribunal partially accepted the petitioner's appeal by converting the reduction in rank to the lowest of the scale of Qanungo, noting he never held the rank of Patwari. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the Tribunal failed to address other grounds on the merits and erred in substituting the penalty itself. The Supreme Court held that it is reasonable to infer unpressed grounds were abandoned, and that the Service Tribunal, as an appellate forum, acted lawfully in examining the case and granting permissible relief. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal can substitute an illegal departmental penalty with an appropriate order permissible under the law?
- Whether grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal but not addressed by the Tribunal can be presumed to have been not pressed?
- Can a civil servant be reverted to a post lower than the one he initially held?
- Sheikh 'ABDUL HAMEED. vs PUNJAB LOCAL COUNCILS ELECTION AUTHORITY1984 CLC 993 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
- SHEEDU vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 864 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-20Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT MASIH vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2511 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-04Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1487 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, by special leave, challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court which upheld the appellant's conviction for murder and sentence of death. The core legal questions concerned the credibility of the solitary eye-witness, the appellant's alleged production of the crime weapon, and whether the omission of the eye-witness's name in the inquest report and police proceedings undermined the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal regarding the conviction, affirming that the eye-witness was natural and credible, and that the recovery of the blood-stained knife from the appellant was sufficiently established by the testimony of the investigating officer. However, the Court modified the sentence, holding that because the murder occurred during a heated affray involving multiple individuals where the appellant acted under the influence of his elders and delivered a single blow, the death penalty was not warranted. The Court laid down the principle that an inquest report under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not substantive evidence and does not require the mandatory inclusion of eye-witness names to validate the prosecution's case.
Questions settled- Is an inquest report prepared under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 substantive evidence of the occurrence?
- Does the failure to mention an eye-witness in the inquest report or police proceedings automatically invalidate their testimony?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the basis of the solitary statement of an eye-witness?
- Does the fact that an accused acted under the influence of elders during an affray constitute a ground for mitigating a death sentence?
- SHAUKAT HUSSAIN SHAH AND OTHERS vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT1984 PLC 1224 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- SHAUKAT HUSSAIN KHAN through his legal representatives vs ANWAR and another1984 MLD 799 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-01Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3198 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-10-14Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI vs BROOKE-BOND (PAKISTAN) LTD. AND OTHERS1984 PLC 38 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-06Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI vs ABDUL HASSAN alias NOOR HASSAN alias HANNAN AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 2086 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-02Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI TAHIR vs HABIB BANK LTD.1984 PLC 1291 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-29Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI KHAN vs PUNJAB GOVERNMENT1984 PLC (C. S.) 81 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI KHAN LODHI (represented by his 9 Legal Heirs) vs SETTLEMENT1984 MLD 1053 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-02Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT AL1 vs THE COMMISSIONER and 2 others1984 SCMR 1377 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by a Superintendent in the Office of the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, who sought leave preparatory to retirement (L.P.R.) before attaining the age of superannuation. Following the enhancement of the retirement age under the Interim Constitution, the petitioner applied for the cancellation of his L.P.R., which was refused by the competent authorities, culminating in a final order by the Board of Revenue. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal, Lahore, which was dismissed as time-barred due to the absence of any application for the condonation of delay. The core legal question was whether the appeal before the Service Tribunal was barred by limitation and whether a final order had been passed by the competent authority. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Commissioner had indeed passed a final order and that the appeal before the Service Tribunal was patently time-barred without an application for condonation of delay, thereby upholding the Service Tribunal's decision and dismissing the petition. The key principle laid down is that failure to file an appeal within the prescribed limitation period without seeking condonation of delay justifies its dismissal.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal filed before the Service Tribunal without an application for condonation of delay can be entertained when patently time-barred?
- Does a refusal of representation by higher authorities extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- SHAUK AT vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3136 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-03Read full judgment →
- SHARIF AHMAD AND OTHERS vs CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL LAND CO M ISSION1984 SCMR 605 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal through special leave is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition in a land reforms case on the ground that the purchasers of land were not an "aggrieved party". The core legal question was whether purchasers of land from a vendor whose sales were not denied are considered an aggrieved party entitled to challenge orders of the Federal Land Commission regarding land reforms. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the petition in limine without examining the merits, noting that the purchasers as well as the seller—who was permitted to be transposed as a petitioner—were indeed aggrieved parties. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the High Court for a decision on the merits subject to the payment of costs.
Questions settled- Whether purchasers of land from a vendor in a land reforms case constitute an aggrieved party entitled to file a constitutional petition?
- Can a respondent in a constitutional petition be transposed as a petitioner by the appellate court?
- Whether a constitutional petition against land reform orders can be dismissed in limine on the ground of locus standi without examining the merits?
- SHARFUDDIN vs Mst. KISHWAR JEHAN1984 CLC 1133 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
- SHARBAT KHAN AND OTHERS vs Haji LAL GUL AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan which dismissed a constitutional petition against the cancellation of bail granted to the petitioners. The criminal case arose from a violent clash in the tribal area of District Zhob resulting in murders and injuries, subsequently referred to a Tribunal under Ordinance II of 1968. The petitioners were initially granted bail by the President of the Tribunal, but this order was set aside by the Additional Commissioner and upheld by the Board of Revenue and the High Court. The Supreme Court examined the record, noting that the Additional Commissioner had ignored a previous material order of the Commissioner and failed to apply an independent mind regarding the change of circumstances and the lack of ocular testimony against the petitioners. The Supreme Court held that the Additional Commissioner exercised jurisdiction illegally by ignoring material considerations. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and confirmed the bail granted to the petitioners.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate authority can cancel bail by ignoring material orders and circumstances on the record?
- Can bail be granted when there is an absence of direct ocular testimony against the accused and their complicity requires further inquiry?
- SHARBAT KHAN AND 9 OTHERS vs Haji LAL GUL AND 3 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 411 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged the order of the Member Board of Revenue affirming the decision of the Additional Commissioner, who had set aside an order of the President of the Tribunal (Assistant Commissioner) granting them post-arrest bail under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968. The petitioners argued that no appeal lay against the Assistant Commissioner's bail order, that separate cancellation appeals were required for each accused, that disputed facts demonstrated their innocence, and that they were entitled to statutory bail as of right under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, introduced via Ordinance LXXI of 1979.
The High Court held that under Section 16(2) of the Ordinance, the President of the Tribunal exercises the powers of the Deputy Commissioner when granting bail, making such orders appealable under Section 23 to the Commissioner. The Court rejected technical objections regarding a joint appeal and refused to evaluate disputed facts at a pre-trial stage. Crucially, the Court held that under Article 247(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, statutory amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure do not automatically apply to Provincially Administered Tribal Areas unless specifically extended by notification or regulation. Consequently, Ordinance LXXI of 1979 did not apply, and statutory bail could not be claimed. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is a bail order passed by the President of a Tribunal under Section 16 of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968 appealable to the Commissioner under Section 23?
- Does an amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically extend to Provincially Administered Tribal Areas without a specific notification or regulation under Article 247(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can an accused person in a Tribal Area claim statutory bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as introduced by Ordinance LXXI of 1979 if the amending Ordinance has not been extended to that area?
- SHARAFUDDIN AND OTHERS vs GHULAM MAHBOOB SUBHANI1984 CLC 1141 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
- SHARAFAT ULLAH vs THE STATE1084 P Cr. L J 1939 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-06Read full judgment →
- SHARAFAT HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1730 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-22Read full judgment →
- SHARAF KHAN vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1426 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
- SHAN ILLAHI vs Mst. MAHMOODA BEGUM1984 CLC 931 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an order of the Rent Controller striking off the appellant's defence and ordering ejectment due to failure to comply with a tentative rent order. The appellant, a tenant, was ordered to deposit arrears of rent by a specific deadline but failed to do so until several days later. The core legal questions were whether the Rent Controller was required to conduct a detailed inquiry into alleged prior payments before passing a tentative rent order, and whether the delay in depositing rent could be condoned based on the appellant's illness. The Court held that a tentative rent order is passed based on available material without a final determination of liability, and thus, the Controller was not obligated to hold a full inquiry into disputed payment claims at that stage. Furthermore, the Court found that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving that illness rendered timely payment impossible. Consequently, the Court upheld the striking off of the defence, affirming that the Rent Controller's procedural actions were legal and competent despite minor mislabeling of the application's statutory basis.
Questions settled- Is a Rent Controller required to conduct a full inquiry into disputed rent payments before passing a tentative rent order?
- Does the mislabeling of a rent application under the wrong section of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 invalidate the proceedings if the Rent Controller treated it under the correct section?
- What is the burden of proof on a tenant seeking condonation of delay in depositing rent due to illness?
- SHAMSUR REHMAN vs MESSRS PREMIER TOBACCO INDUSTRIES LTD.1984 PLC 300 · Labour Court · 1979-11-07Read full judgment →
- SHAMSUL QAMAR alias SEPOY vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 504 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was brought to challenge the conviction and enhanced sentence of the petitioner, a godown chowkidar, under Section 408 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner for criminal breach of trust regarding missing tobacco bundles, and the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed his appeal while accepting a revision petition to enhance his sentence. The State raised a preliminary objection that Section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 barred further revision. The High Court held that while Section 439-A excludes revisional jurisdiction under Section 439, it does not curtail the High Court's inherent powers under Section 561-A to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice in extraordinary cases. On the merits, the Court found the conviction rested solely on an uncorroborated eye-witness whose statement was recorded after an unexplained inordinate delay of nearly a month, making it a case of no evidence. Consequently, the High Court accepted the petition, quashed the conviction, and set aside the sentences.
Questions settled- Does Section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the High Court from exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A?
- Can the High Court quash a conviction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 where the judgment is based on no evidence?
- Is an uncorroborated statement of a solitary witness examined after an unexplained inordinate delay sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction?
- SHAMSUDDIN (THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS) vs NISAR AHMAD1984 CLC 1016 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-12Read full judgment →
- SHAMSHER KHAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 589 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
- SHAMSHER AWAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 303 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-19Read full judgment →
- SHAMSHER ALI vs THE COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD DIVISION and 2 others1984 CLC 2742 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-01Read full judgment →
- SHAMSHER ALI KHAN vs COMMANDANT BORDER MILITARY POLICE, D. G. KHAN1984 PLC (C. S.) 759 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-01-15Read full judgment →
- SHAMSHER ABBAS BOKHARI vs MEMBERS (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1984 PLC (C. S.) 816 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-11Read full judgment →
- SHAMSHAO ALI vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another1984 CLC 2485 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-13Read full judgment →
- SHAMSHAD NABI vs SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION1984 PLC 582 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-12-21Read full judgment →
- SHAMROZ KHAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2599 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-19Read full judgment →
- SHAMIM AHMED vs The DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI and 2 others1984 MLD 609 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
- SHAMIM AHMED vs ARSHAD JAMIL and 3 others1984 MLD 1189 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
- SHAMASUDDIN vs ALI JAN1984 CLC 1456 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
- SHAMAN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 PLD Quetta 144 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
- SHAKOORAN BIBI AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1875 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-23Read full judgment →
- SHAKIR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 PLD Supreme Court 353 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
- SHAKIR JAMEEL vs ZAHEER AKHTAR1984 MLD 400 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-04Read full judgment →