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.

• SHAKIR HUSSAIN CHISHTY vs E. A. BREGANZA1984 PLD Karachi 141 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-21
  ejectmentpersonal requirementlandlord and tenantbona fide needdisclosure of accommodationrent controllersecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from a landlord's application for the ejectment of a tenant on the ground of personal requirement. The Rent Controller and the First Appellate Authority both rejected the application, finding that the landlord's existing accommodation was sufficient for his family. The core legal question was whether the landlord had established a bona fide personal requirement for the premises, particularly given his failure to disclose the ownership of an additional flat in the same urban area. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower tribunals, noting that the landlord failed to disclose the existence of the additional flat in his application or evidence. The court held that where a landlord seeks ejectment based on personal need, he is legally obligated to disclose all available accommodation within the same urban area and demonstrate why such premises are unsuitable or unavailable. By failing to disclose the additional flat and prove its inadequacy, the landlord failed to satisfy the statutory requirements for ejectment under the relevant rent legislation. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a landlord required to disclose other properties owned in the same urban area when seeking ejectment on the ground of personal requirement?
  • Does the failure to disclose additional available accommodation invalidate an application for ejectment based on personal need?
  • Can a court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the sufficiency of accommodation in a rent appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAKIR ALI JAFFERI AND 6 OTHERS vs LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER L. B. 0.1984 CLC 2353 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-12Read full judgment →
• SHAKEEL ANJUM vs THE STATE1984 PLD Lahore 459 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-19Read full judgment →
• SHAKAR GANJ MILL LTD., JHANG SADAR vs PARVEZ MASOOD /1984 PLC 1537 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-23Read full judgment →
• Shaikh MUHAMMAD HANIF vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 741 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-27Read full judgment →
• Shaikh MANZAR MASUD vs THE STATE1984 PLD SC (A J & K) 107 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-05-08Read full judgment →
• Shaikh ISRAR AHMAD vs THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND 2 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 975 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-26Read full judgment →
• Shahzada SHAHPUR JAN. vs THE AUDITORGENERAL OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Supreme Court 430 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-29
  civil servantconfirmationstatutory guaranteedepartmental memorandumservice lawregular promotion
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a civil servant, challenged an order of the Federal Service Tribunal which had dismissed his appeal regarding his non-confirmation as an Assistant Superintendent. The appellant, having been promoted on a regular basis and having rendered satisfactory service, was denied confirmation due to a departmental memorandum issued by the Auditor-General of Pakistan, which prohibited the confirmation of any official against the post of Assistant Superintendent. The core legal question was whether such a departmental memorandum could override the statutory right to be considered for confirmation. The Supreme Court held that the memorandum was illegal and invalid because it rendered nugatory the statutory guarantee provided under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Court established the principle that departmental instructions or circulars cannot override or negate explicit statutory rights conferred upon civil servants. Consequently, the Court declared the memorandum without lawful authority and of no legal effect, ruling that the appellant was entitled to be considered for confirmation in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a departmental memorandum override a statutory right to be considered for confirmation granted under the Civil Servants Act 1973?
  • Is confirmation to a post a legal right that can be enforced against a departmental policy prohibiting such confirmation?
  • Does a civil servant promoted on a regular basis have a right to be considered for confirmation after rendering satisfactory service?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzada PERVEZ KHAN vs PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTARY OF DEFENCE AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 1052(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-12
  service tribunalcivil servantdisciplinary actionpetition for leave to appealburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging a disciplinary action and a finding of fact by a Service Tribunal that the petitioner was not a civil servant, rendering his service appeal incompetent. The core legal question is whether the petitioner qualified as a civil servant capable of maintaining a service appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that in the absence of any material establishing the scale of pay, the order of appointment, or any subsequent transfer of the petitioner as a civil servant, there was no legal justification to interfere with the factual finding reached by the Tribunal. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the burden lies upon the claimant to provide material particulars such as pay scale and appointment orders to substantiate their status as a civil servant when challenging a Service Tribunal finding.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person challenging a Service Tribunal's finding must provide material evidence such as pay scale and appointment orders to prove civil servant status?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a finding of fact reached by a Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAHZADA KHAN vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1161 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-27
  mitigating circumstancesquantum of sentencedeath penalty commutationconfessional statementprovocationmurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, by leave of the Supreme Court, was directed solely at the quantum of sentence imposed upon the appellant, Shahzada Khan, who had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death by the trial court, a decision upheld by the Peshawar High Court. The core legal question was whether the death penalty was appropriate given the mitigating circumstances presented in the appellant's confessional statement. The appellant argued that the deceased had persistently teased and humiliated him, creating a simmering provocation. While the High Court had discounted this motive, the Supreme Court observed that the prosecution failed to provide evidence contradicting the appellant's version of events. The Court held that the persistent annoyance and humiliation caused by the deceased constituted a significant mitigating circumstance. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, further imposing a fine of Rs. 10,000 to be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased. The principle established is that where a confession is relied upon for conviction, the mitigating circumstances contained therein cannot be arbitrarily excluded if not contradicted by other evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court rely on a confessional statement for conviction while arbitrarily excluding the mitigating circumstances contained within the same statement?
  • Does persistent teasing and humiliation by a deceased person constitute a mitigating circumstance sufficient to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Is the death penalty mandatory in a murder case where the prosecution fails to provide evidence contradicting the motive presented by the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAHZADA AHMED SHAH vs M.M.A.SIDDIQUI1984 MLD 287 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
• SHAHZA DA SULTAN HUMAYUN vs NASIRUDDIN1984 CLC 3090 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-14
  transfer of civil suitconflicting decisionscommon questions of fact and lawforum of appealinterest of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil application sought the transfer of a suit pending before a Civil Judge at Karachi to the High Court to be tried together with another subsequent suit between the same parties involving common questions of fact and law. The core legal question was whether a suit should be transferred to the High Court to avoid conflicting decisions, notwithstanding the respondent's contention that such transfer would deprive him of a first appeal forum before the District Judge. The court held that the transfer is justified in the interest of justice to avoid contradictory decisions, and that the grievance of losing a lower appellate forum is illusory when replaced by a superior forum. The key principle laid down is that where two suits involving common questions of law and fact are pending in different courts between the same parties, transfer of the case to avoid conflicting decisions outweighs any theoretical prejudice regarding the loss of a first appeal forum.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil suit be transferred from a subordinate court to the High Court to be tried alongside another suit pending in the High Court?
  • Whether the transfer of a suit from a Civil Judge to the High Court deprives a party of a valid right regarding the forum of appeal?
  • Is the avoidance of conflicting decisions a sufficient ground for the transfer of a suit?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAHU vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND 7 OTHERS1984 PLD Karachi 173 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-09Read full judgment →
• SHAHMAND vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1919 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-15Read full judgment →
• SHAHIM NASIR KHAN vs GHALIB IMAM and 4 others1984 P Cr. L J 2872 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-28Read full judgment →
• SHAHID MAHMOOD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2899 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
• SHAHID MAHMOOD vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 1371 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
• SHAHID AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1413 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
• SHAHER YAR SHER AFGHAN BHATTI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, IRRIGATION & POWER DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 715 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-02-01Read full judgment →
• SHAHENSHAH HUMAYUN COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLD Karachi 426 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-27
  compound interestwaiver of statutory rightsmortgage deedloan agreementstatutory interpretationpendente lite interestHouse Building Finance Corporation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns fifteen consolidated appeals arising from a judgment regarding loan repayments by five Cooperative Housing Societies to the House Building Finance Corporation (HBFC). The core legal question was whether the HBFC was entitled to charge compound interest with monthly rests under Regulation 11 of the HBFC Regulations, 1954, despite the original loan agreements specifying simple interest. The Court held that the HBFC was not entitled to charge compound interest. It determined that the HBFC’s long-standing practice of not charging monthly rests demonstrated that Regulation 11 was directory rather than mandatory, and that the Corporation had waived its right to enforce compound interest. The Court further ruled that the original loan sanction letters and mortgage deeds, which stipulated simple interest, constituted the primary contract, and that the HBFC could not unilaterally alter these terms through oblique references to its regulations. The key principle laid down is that a statutory provision not rooted in public interest, but rather for the benefit of a private entity, may be waived by that entity through its conduct.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statutory regulation be waived by an entity if it is not in the public interest?
  • Does a mortgage deed override the terms of an original loan sanction letter regarding the calculation of interest?
  • Is the House Building Finance Corporation entitled to charge compound interest under Regulation 11 of the HBFC Regulations, 1954, if it has historically accepted simple interest?
  • Are the provisions of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to proceedings under Section 30 of the House Building Finance Corporation Act, 1952?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAHDAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2490 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
• SHAHBAZ KHAN JAKHRANI vs LAL BEG JAKHRANI AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 42 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-09-12
  murderocular testimonymedical evidencematerial improvementacquittalspecial leave to appealcriminal evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that acquitted respondents of murder charges, setting aside their convictions under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in rejecting the ocular testimony of prosecution witnesses and the subsequent ballistic evidence, which the trial court had relied upon to convict the respondents. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the High Court correctly evaluated the evidence. The High Court had identified material improvements and inconsistencies in the witnesses' statements—specifically regarding the deceased's food intake and the distance from which shots were fired—made to align their testimony with medical findings. The Supreme Court affirmed that these discrepancies cast serious doubt on the veracity of the witnesses, rendering the crime likely unwitnessed. Furthermore, the Court noted deficiencies in the investigation. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's assessment of evidence was sound and did not warrant interference, thereby dismissing the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can appellate courts reject ocular testimony if it is inconsistent with medical evidence?
  • Does the making of material improvements in witness statements to align with medical findings justify the rejection of such testimony?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution witnesses' account of the crime is found to be unreliable and inconsistent with the circumstances on record?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAHBAZ GUL vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2495 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-08Read full judgment →
• SHAHBAZ AHMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND 4 07 HERS1984 CLC 1275 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
• SHAHADAT ALI KHAN and others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2776 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-10Read full judgment →
• SHAHABUDDIN vs MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 621 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-14Read full judgment →
• SHAH NAWAZ vs AKRAM SILK FACTORY, GUJRANWALA1984 PLC 1144 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-26Read full judgment →
• SHAH NA SIR RIZVI vs BEGUM SULTANA AHMED1984 CLC 3098 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-14Read full judgment →
• SHAH MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2290 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-06Read full judgment →
• SHAH MUHAMMAD vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL and 3 others1984 MLD 470 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-09Read full judgment →
• SHAH MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD YAQUB AND OTHERS1984 CLC 678 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-06Read full judgment →
• SHAH MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER , vs JURIO AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 3505 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
• SHAH MUHAMMAD (DECEASED) AND OTHERS vs SULEMAN AND OTHERPLD 1984 Rev. 14 Punjab · Board of Revenue · 1982-10-15Read full judgment →
• SHAH KISHWAR AND ANOTHER vs IKRAMULLAH AND ANOTHER1984SCMR 304 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-22
  murder convictiondying declarationappreciation of evidenceleave to appealcriminal justicesudden affairsentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment regarding a murder conviction. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in acquitting one co-accused while maintaining the conviction of the other, and whether the reduction of the death sentence to life imprisonment for the primary convict was legally justified based on the evidence. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that the High Court’s analysis of the evidence was proper and unexceptionable. The Court affirmed that the High Court correctly identified exaggerations and embellishments in the prosecution's case, properly appraised the evidence regarding the single fatal injury, and correctly characterized the incident as a sudden affair rather than a planned attack. The principle established is that where evidence is partially disbelieved regarding one accused or the genesis of an occurrence, it does not automatically invalidate the entire prosecution case against other accused, provided the court can safely separate the credible evidence from exaggerations to ensure the administration of criminal justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court partially rely on evidence to convict one accused while acquitting another based on the same set of facts?
  • Does the presence of a counter-report necessitate the rejection of the prosecution's case?
  • Is it legally permissible to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment when the court finds the incident was a sudden affair without previous planning?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAH HUSSAIN vs ABDUL QAYUM AND mums1984 SCMR 427 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-22
  co-sharerpartition of landalienation of propertyjoint holdingvendee rightsundivided khata
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court regarding the partition of land and the rights of a vendee purchasing specific land from a co-sharer. The core legal question was whether a vendee who purchases specific field numbers from a co-sharer in possession can claim ownership and partition of that specific land if it exceeds the vendor's share, or if such rights are subject to adjustment during partition. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the High Court's decision. The Court held that a co-sharer in possession may alienate specific land for consideration, but the vendee's rights are limited to the vendor's overall entitlement in the joint property. The key principle laid down is that a vendee of a co-sharer in an undivided khata is clothed with the same rights as the vendor, no more and no less. Consequently, if the specific land purchased exceeds the vendor's share, the vendee's rights remain subject to adjustment during the partition of the joint holding, ensuring other co-sharers are not prejudiced.

  Questions settled

  • Can a co-sharer in possession alienate specific field numbers to a vendee?
  • Are the rights of a vendee purchasing from a co-sharer subject to adjustment during partition proceedings?
  • Does a vendee of a co-sharer acquire greater rights in the property than the vendor possessed?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAH GHULAM and anothers vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2644 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-14Read full judgment →
• SHAH DIN AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 PLD Lahore 137 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-06
  post-arrest bailfurther enquiryZinaabductionNikah Registrarsui jurisHudood laws
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a case involving charges under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, read with the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners abducted the complainant, a major, and subjected her to rape over a period of captivity. The petitioners contended that the FIR was delayed by fifty days, that the complainant had voluntarily entered into a Nikah with one of the petitioners, and that prosecution witnesses provided contradictory statements. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the claim of a valid marriage and the evidentiary discrepancies. The Court held that because the complainant was sui juris and the validity of the marriage remained a disputed factual issue, the case constituted one of 'further enquiry' under the law. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioners to bail. The judgment emphasizes the sacred duty of Nikah Registrars under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, to verify the competency, age, and free will of parties before authenticating marriages, especially in suspicious circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the production of a registered Nikahnama by an accused in an abduction and rape case constitute grounds for bail on the basis of further enquiry?
  • What is the scope of the duty of a Nikah Registrar under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, when authenticating a marriage?
  • Can bail be granted when the complainant is sui juris and the voluntariness of the marriage is a disputed question of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAH ALI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1918 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-30Read full judgment →
• SHAFQAT NASREEN vs AMIR FATIMA1984 SCMR 953 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-11
  leave to appealejectmentdefault in payment of rentpersonal requirementopportunity of hearingcross-examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges the judgment of the Sind High Court upholding the ejectment order passed against the petitioner-tenant. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to cross-examine the respondent-landlord and lead evidence, rendering her case undefended. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment was unexceptionable as the record demonstrated that the Rent Controller had granted multiple opportunities to the petitioner for cross-examination and evidence, which she failed to avail. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that where a party fails to avail of repeated opportunities granted by the trial forum to lead evidence or conduct cross-examination, a grievance of being condemned unheard or left undefended is legally untenable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant can claim denial of a fair hearing when multiple opportunities to cross-examine the landlord and lead evidence were provided but not availed?
  • Is an ejectment order passed after concurrent findings regarding default in rent and personal requirement liable to interference when procedural defaults are attributable to the tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAFQAT ALI vs SETTLEMENT. COMMISSIONER (LANDS) AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 682 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-07
  inheritance disputecustomary lawlife estaterehabilitation settlement schemejamabandi entriesmaintenance rightslimited owner
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a land settlement inheritance dispute involving the estate of a deceased widow, Mst. Majid-un-Nisa. The appellants claimed that the deceased held the land merely for maintenance under Customary Law, asserting their right as reversioners of her husband, Ulfat Ali Khan. Conversely, the respondents maintained she was a limited owner. The Rehabilitation Commissioner, relying on jamabandi entries, treated the deceased as a limited owner and determined inheritance shares accordingly. The High Court upheld this decision, rejecting the appellants' plea regarding maintenance. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the deceased held the land as a life estate or for maintenance and whether the inheritance shares were correctly calculated. The Court held that the High Court's interpretation of jamabandi entries as establishing a 'life estate' was legally sound. Furthermore, the Court found no factual basis for the maintenance plea and noted that the appellants failed to establish the necessary conditions for correcting the inheritance shares. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether jamabandi entries can be interpreted to establish a life estate rather than a maintenance arrangement in land settlement cases?
  • Does a sonless widow under the Customary Law of Ambala District hold land only for maintenance?
  • Can inheritance shares be corrected in a settlement scheme without establishing the factual basis for the death of a predecessor in interest?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAFQAT ALI CHATHA vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1481 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-08Read full judgment →
• SHAFIQUE AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1617 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-16Read full judgment →
• SHAFIQUE AHMAD ANSARI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, EDUCATIONDEPARTMENT AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 527 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1983-12-12Read full judgment →
• SHAFIQ NIAZI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2895 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-04Read full judgment →
• SHAFIA AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 673 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-09Read full judgment →
• SHAFA ULLAH AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3195 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-08-12Read full judgment →
• SHABRATI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2817 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-12Read full judgment →
• SHABIR SHAH alias SHABIR HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3147 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-18Read full judgment →
• SHABBIR HUSSAIN vs MOIZ ABBAS1984 MLD 397 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-19Read full judgment →
• SHABBIR AHMAD vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL, PAKISTAN RAILWAY POLICE AND 31984 PLC 1140 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• SHABBIR AHMAD and another vs THE ST ATE1984 MLD 1459 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
• Sh. Salim Ali Chairman, Allay Bros And Co., Ltd. Lahore. vs The StatePTCL 1984 (CL.) 7 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-23Read full judgment →
• Sh. NASEEM AHMAD vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1984 PLC 608 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-23Read full judgment →
• Sh. MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs Mian NADIR JANG BAHADUR and others1984 SCMR 1226 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-23
  evictionlandlord and tenantestoppeladmissionrent controlconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a constitutional petition dismissed by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld an eviction order against the appellant passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Additional District Judge. The core legal question was whether the appellant, having previously admitted the respondent's status as landlord in earlier litigation and documentary evidence, could subsequently challenge the Rent Controller's jurisdiction by claiming the property belonged to the Custodian of Enemy Evacuee Property and denying the landlord-tenant relationship. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was estopped from denying the respondent's title or the landlord-tenant relationship due to his own prior admissions. The Court affirmed the lower courts' findings, noting that the respondent's evidence regarding the relationship remained unrebutted. The key principle laid down is that a tenant who has previously admitted the landlord's title and the existence of a tenancy relationship in legal proceedings or documents is precluded from later denying that relationship or the landlord's title in eviction proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant deny the landlord's title after having previously admitted the landlord-tenant relationship in earlier proceedings?
  • Is a tenant estopped from challenging the Rent Controller's jurisdiction when they have previously acknowledged the landlord's status?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs Kh. FAUJ EHSAN AND OTHERS1984 CLC 492 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
• Sh. MUHAMMAD RAFIQ AKHTAR vs Sqn/Ldr. (Rtd.) Sh. GHULAM SADIQ1984 MLD 806 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-06Read full judgment →
• Sh. MUHAMMAD JAVED vs HUSEIN SUGAR MILLS LTD.1984 PLC 1117 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-06-28Read full judgment →
• Sh. MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, LAHORE DEVELOPMENT1984 PLC 1215 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• Sh. KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs BAGH ALI AND OTHERS1984 CLC 677 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-25Read full judgment →
• Sh. KHURSHID MAHBOOB ALAM vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND OTHERS1984 CLC 938 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-06Read full judgment →
• Sh. FAZAL-UR-REHMAN vs CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION REGION, MULTAN AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 247 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-04-19Read full judgment →
• Sh. EJAZ AHMED vs MUHAMMAD ABDUL LATIF1984 CLC 2596 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
• Sh. ASGHAR ALI vs Mst. AZIZ BEGUM AND 7 OTHERS1984 PLD Rev. 7 · Board of Revenue · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
• Sh. ABDUR RASHID AND ANOTHERS vs MUHAMMAD JAMIL SADDIQUE AND 91984 CLC 1762 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
• Sh. ABDUL SATTAR AND OTHERS vs Haji GHULAM RASOOL AND OTHERS1984 CLC 687 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-18Read full judgment →
• Sh. ABDUL RASHID AND OTHERS vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1984 SCMR 25 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-06
  settlement and rehabilitationurban propertyallotment of landpossession-based transferleave to appealconcurrent findings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an urban settlement dispute concerning the transfer of a plot of land. The petitioner, who was in possession of a portion of the plot, contended that the entire plot had been allotted to him and that the settlement authorities were legally obligated to transfer the whole plot to him, irrespective of the actual possession held by others. The respondent No. 2 was in possession of another portion, and the remaining part of the plot had been ordered for auction. The High Court had previously affirmed the findings of the settlement authorities. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner's claim of being allotted the entire plot was factually incorrect based on the findings of the lower forums. The Court held that the settlement authorities' decision to transfer the plot based on actual possession was legally sound and free from infirmity. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact regarding allotment and possession, and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether settlement authorities are legally obligated to transfer an entire plot to a claimant regardless of actual possession if the allotment was not for the entire plot?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding allotment and possession in a settlement case?
  • Is the transfer of urban property by settlement authorities based on actual possession legally permissible?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. ABDUL MAJEED vs UNITED BANK Ltd.1984 SCMR 1434 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-06
  recovery of loansleave to defendconditional leavebanking suitacknowledgment of liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from a suit for recovery of a loan brought by the respondent bank against the petitioner under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The trial court granted the petitioner leave to defend the suit conditionally upon depositing the entire suit amount, a condition upheld by the High Court after dismissing the petitioner's writ petition and subsequent regular first appeal upon failure to deposit. The core legal question is whether the trial court's discretion to make the grant of leave to defend conditional upon depositing the entire suit amount was properly exercised. The Supreme Court held that given the undisputed encashment of loan cheques and the petitioner's written acknowledgment of liability, the imposition of the condition was justified and within the trial court's discretion, warranting no interference. The key principle laid down is that the imposition of conditions for granting leave to defend a recovery suit is within the trial court's discretion, which will not be interfered with when supported by clear evidence of loan disbursement and acknowledgment of liability.

  Questions settled

  • Whether conditional leave to defend a recovery suit can be made subject to the deposit of the entire suit amount?
  • Is the imposition of conditions for granting leave to defend within the discretion of the trial court?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be entertained against the dismissal of a regular first appeal in a banking recovery suit where liability is acknowledged?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. ABDUL HAMID vs PRESIDENT, CANTONMENT BOARD AND OTHERS1984 CLC 592 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →
• Sh. ABDUL HAMEED vs WAPDA1984 PLC 767 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-05-29Read full judgment →
• Sh. ABDUL AZIZ vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through its Chairman1984 CLC 2629 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-31Read full judgment →
• SH IT AB vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2893 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
• SH A H AMA ND vs RESIDENT MAGISTRATE, RABWAH and others1984 MLD 1408 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-27Read full judgment →
• SEWA vs Mst. SANTI AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1159 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-05Read full judgment →
• SEVEN STAR ENTER PRISES vs KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION and 21984 CLC 2643 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-28Read full judgment →
• SHAHNA KHAN vs AULIA KHAN AND OTHERS1984 PLD Supreme Court 157 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-21
  pre-emption suitlimitationcourt fee deficiencyrejection of plaintextension of timenet profitsrelation back doctrine
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court arose from a pre-emption suit where the trial court and High Court dismissed the plaint as barred by limitation due to the late supply of deficient court-fees. The plaintiff had filed the suit on the last day of limitation without court-fees, undertaking to pay upon calculation of net profits, and subsequently applied to deposit the calculated court-fee. The lower courts held that the suit was deemed filed only when court-fees were supplied, which occurred after the limitation period expired.

  The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments, holding that presenting a plaint before the expiry of limitation saves the suit from being time-barred under Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1908. Where court-fees are subsequently supplied pursuant to an order or application under Order VII Rule 11 and Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the payment relates back to the date of initial presentation. Dismissal on the ground of limitation for late court-fee supply was held erroneous, and the trial court's failure to exercise discretion under Section 149 CPC stemmed from a misapprehension of law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the late supply of court-fees under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 render a pre-emption suit barred by limitation if the plaint was originally presented within time?
  • Can a court reject or dismiss a suit as time-barred for non-payment of court-fees without first requiring the plaintiff to supply the deficient court-fees under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a plaintiff required by law to obtain and submit a statement of net profits prior to filing a pre-emption suit within the limitation period?
  Read full judgment →
• Seth KESHOMAL AND ANOTHERS vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 21984 CLC 2022 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-05Read full judgment →
• SERVIS INDUSTRIES LTD., LAHORE vs TAJ NAWAB AND 36 OTHERS1984 PLC 923 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-07-09Read full judgment →
• SERV1S INDUSTRIES LTD. vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN /1984 PLC 1038 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-05Read full judgment →
• SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT, UNITED BANK LTD., LAHORE vs ABDUR RAUF1984 PLC 1249 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-12Read full judgment →
• SECRETARY, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE vs DEWAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI1984 SCMR 522 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-24
  excise dutyproduction capacity taxman-made fibre yarncotton yarndouble taxationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition by the Federal Government is directed against a short order of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan dated 18-11-1976, which held that excise duty on the manufacture of man-made fibre yarn cannot be imposed on machinery already assessed to production capacity tax for manufacturing cotton yarn, as it amounts to double taxation. The core legal question concerns the validity of such imposition of excise duty under the relevant entries and notifications. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the matter, noting that the question raised needs detailed examination, and suspended the operation of the impugned order pending final disposal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether excise duty can be imposed on the manufacture of man-made fibre yarn by machinery already assessed to production capacity tax in respect of cotton yarn?
  • Does the simultaneous imposition of production capacity tax and excise duty on the same plant or machinery amount to double taxation?
  Read full judgment →
• SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, EXCISE AND TAXATION1984 SCMR 801 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-04
  ad hoc appointmentservice rules relaxationMartial Law Instructionreversionservice tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The respondent, an Administrative Officer in the Agriculture Department, was appointed as an Excise and Taxation Officer in 1976 through the exercise of the Governor's power to relax service rules. Following the 1977 regime change, Martial Law Instruction No. 21 was promulgated, requiring the scrutiny of ad hoc appointments made during the previous regime. The respondent's appointment was reviewed by the Public Service Commission, which deemed him ineligible, leading to his reversion to the Agriculture Department. The Punjab Service Tribunal subsequently set aside this reversion, ruling that the respondent's appointment, made via the Governor's power of relaxation, was not an ad hoc appointment within the scope of Martial Law Instruction No. 21. The Provincial Government appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that Martial Law Instruction No. 21 explicitly deems appointments made via the relaxation of rules as ad hoc. Pending the final decision, the Court ordered the suspension of the respondent's relief from his parent department, directing his reinstatement and payment of salary in the Agriculture Department.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appointment made through the relaxation of service rules fall under the definition of an ad hoc appointment under Martial Law Instruction No. 21?
  • Can an appointment made in the purported exercise of the power of relaxation of rules be deemed an ad hoc appointment for the purposes of scrutiny?
  Read full judgment →
• SECRETARY TO GOVERMENT OF PUNJAB, IRRIGATION AND POWER1984 PLC 1060 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• SECRETARY FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE AND OTHERS--1984 SCMR 642 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-13
  service tribunalleave to appealterms and conditions of servicedissolution of corporationpay revisionupgradation of postsseniority
  Summary & questions settled

  Three petitions for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution were filed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The core legal question involved the extent of protection of terms and conditions of service regarding pay and status for erstwhile employees of the dissolved Agricultural Development Corporation under Presidential Order No. 5 of 1972, and whether they were entitled to the same pay revisions and upgradations as their counterparts in the Agriculture Department. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction in setting right the manifestly unjust treatment meted out to the respondents by equating them in pay scale and status with those holding identical pay scales in the Agriculture Department, and that prospects of promotion do not constitute a vested right in service. The key principle laid down is that transferred employees protected under dissolution orders are entitled to fair and non-discriminatory treatment in pay revisions at par with identical counterparts in the receiving department, without being prejudiced by their erstwhile corporate origin.

  Questions settled

  • Whether erstwhile employees of a dissolved corporation are entitled to parity in pay revisions and upgradations with identical counterparts in the receiving department?
  • Does an employee have a vested interest or right in the stages and prospects of promotion?
  • Whether the Service Tribunal exceeds its jurisdiction by granting relief to rectify discriminatory pay scale treatments for transferred civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Sayed HAJI SHAH vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 347 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-10Read full judgment →
• SATTAR KHAN vs RASHID KHAN AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 678 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-27
  murderculpable homicidesentence enhancementgrave and sudden provocationacquittalcriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition is directed against the acquittal of two co-accused and for the enhancement of the sentence of Rashid Khan, who was tried for the murder of Ali Aksar. The trial court convicted Rashid Khan under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, while acquitting the co-accused. On appeal, the High Court altered his conviction to section 304-1 of the Pakistan Penal Code and reduced his sentence to four years' rigorous imprisonment, while dismissing the complainant's revision for sentence enhancement. The Supreme Court evaluated the petition and noted that the High Court rightly relied upon the accused's statement regarding grave and sudden provocation arising from the deceased's illicit relations with the accused's wife near his house. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in converting the conviction and awarding the modified sentence. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as having no force.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on the accused's version of grave and sudden provocation?
  • Can a petition for the enhancement of a sentence be maintained when the lower courts have properly appreciated the evidence and circumstances of the case?
  • Is an accused's statement regarding self-defence and provocation to be accepted in its entirety when relied upon for altering a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• SARWAR ZIA AND OTHERS vs BAGH DIN1984 CLC 3517 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-23Read full judgment →
• SARWAR vs THE STATE1984 PLD Federal Shariat Court 20 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-02-14Read full judgment →
• SARWAR SHAH vs JAMSHID KHAN AND 6 OTHERS1984 PLD Peshawar 74 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
• SARWAR MAHMOOD vs JAMIL AHMED KHAN1984 MLD 1159 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-29Read full judgment →
• SARWAR KHAN vs MAJOR (Rm.) HASHIM KHAN AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 1413 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-21Read full judgment →
• SARWAR ALI KHAN vs MUHAMMAD ALI--Responden1984 MLD 753 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-26Read full judgment →
• SARGODHA TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs ABDUL HALEEM1984 PLC 526 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-15Read full judgment →
• SARFRAZ KHAN vs MUHAMMAD KHAN and 2 others1984 SCMR 1210 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-04
  enhancement of sentencelife imprisonmentdeath penaltydismissal in limineleave to appealcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing in limine a criminal revision petition filed by the complainant for the enhancement of the respondents' sentence from life imprisonment to death for murder. The core legal question is whether the High Court erred in dismissing the revision petition for sentence enhancement in limine while the convicts' appeals against their conviction and sentence were still pending, and whether the case warranted the normal penalty of death. The Supreme Court held that the impugned order of the High Court did not call for any interference and refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that discretionary orders of the High Court regarding the dismissal of sentence enhancement revisions will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court where no legal infirmity is found.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a revision petition for enhancement of sentence can be dismissed in limine while appeals against conviction are pending?
  • Does a pre-planned murder necessarily warrant the imposition of the death penalty in every case?
  • When will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of the High Court declining to enhance a sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• SARFRAZ AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1670 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-12Read full judgment →
• SARDOOD AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 649 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-11-14Read full judgment →
• Sardar NAZEER AHMAD vs GHULAM NABI1984 CLC 358 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-04Read full judgment →
• Sardar MUHAMMAD ZAFARULLAH KHAN JOYA vs THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND 7 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 691 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-07Read full judgment →
• SARDAR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2632 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-19Read full judgment →
• Sardar MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs A. C./RETURNING OFFICER AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 1286 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
• Sardar MUHAMMAD ARIF AND 4 OTHERS vs Syed SHARIF HUSSAIN1984 CLC 135 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-03-04Read full judgment →