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.
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984SCMR 714 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, filed by Sardar and Dildar, challenged their convictions for the murder of Muhammad Ali and the injury of Saeed Ahmad. Leave to appeal was initially granted on the contention that medical evidence contradicted ocular testimony, specifically arguing that injuries attributed to Dildar’s .12 bore pistol were inconsistent with the nature of the wounds found on the deceased, which allegedly resulted from rifle fire. The Supreme Court examined the prosecution’s version alongside the medical reports. The Court found that while the deceased may not have sustained .12 bore injuries, the evidence confirmed Dildar’s active participation and presence alongside Sardar throughout the incident. Furthermore, the Court noted that the injured witness, Saeed Ahmad, did sustain pellet injuries consistent with Dildar’s weapon. Consequently, the Court held that Dildar was correctly convicted under the principle of common intention. Finding no discrepancy between the medical evidence and the ocular testimony, the Court concluded that the initial leave to appeal was granted on a misunderstanding of the evidence. The leave to appeal was therefore recalled, and the convictions were maintained.
Questions settled- Does the absence of specific weapon injuries on a deceased person necessarily contradict ocular testimony when other evidence confirms the accused's presence and participation?
- Can an accused be convicted under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the specific weapon attributed to them did not cause the fatal injury?
- Is a conviction sustainable when medical evidence corroborates the injuries of a surviving victim despite discrepancies regarding the deceased?
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD and others vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others1984 SCMR 1415 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a revision petition by the High Court, which had upheld the refusal of lower courts to grant an interim injunction in a civil suit. The petitioners, canal water users, had repeatedly challenged the sanctioning of extra water to other respondents through various legal avenues, including writ petitions and an Intra Court Appeal, all of which were unsuccessful. In their subsequent declaratory suit challenging the Canal Officer's order, they sought an interim injunction. The High Court dismissed their revision in limine, finding that the petitioners' water share had not been reduced and that the lower courts' refusal to grant the injunction was neither improper nor illegal. The Supreme Court, upon review, found no grounds for interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that where a party fails to demonstrate a prima facie case of injury or reduction in rights, the refusal of an interim injunction by lower courts is legally sustainable and does not warrant interference in revision.
Questions settled- Can a party repeatedly challenge the same administrative order through successive litigation after previous challenges have failed?
- Is the refusal of an interim injunction by lower courts subject to interference in revision when the petitioner fails to show a reduction in their rights?
- Does the dismissal of a writ petition regarding water rights preclude a subsequent declaratory suit challenging the same administrative order?
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs Mst. BARKAT BIBI AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 813 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a suit brought to pre-empt the sale of land on the basis of a superior right of contiguity. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court decreed it, holding that the defendant's competing claims based on an unregistered exchange document and a collusive decree were invalid. In second appeal, the High Court summoned a revenue patwari, examined revenue records, and dismissed the suit upon finding that both parties were co-sharers in an adjoining water channel recorded as 'mahazi malikan', thereby defeating the pre-emptor's claim of superior contiguity. The petitioners challenged the Supreme Court's decision, arguing against the High Court's recording of additional evidence. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioners failed to object and cross-examined the patwari before the High Court, the objection could not be raised. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a co-owner of a contiguous water channel can defeat a pre-emption claim based on contiguity. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a co-owner of an adjoining water channel can defeat a pre-emptor's claim based on contiguity?
- Can a party object to the recording of additional evidence by the High Court when they failed to object and cross-examined the witness during the proceedings?
- Does unpartitioned co-ownership in a contiguous property grant equal status to defeat a pre-emption suit?
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs MERAJ DIN1984 CLC 4767 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-27Read full judgment →
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHORSs vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 657 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-09Read full judgment →
- SARDAR KHAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1026 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-24Read full judgment →
- SARDAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2097 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-10Read full judgment →
- Sardar HASTI KHAN vs N.W. F. P. AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 517 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-07Read full judgment →
- Sardar GHULAM NABI KHAN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT. OF STATE OF JAMMU &1984 CLC 325 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This first appeal arises from the judgment of the District Judge, Poonch, dismissing the plaintiff-appellant's suit for damages amounting to Rs. 1,00,000 for malicious prosecution. The core legal question involves determining whether the plaintiff's criminal prosecution for embezzlement and misappropriation in connection with the Kashmir Co-operative Bank Ltd. was initiated maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause, thereby entitling him to damages. The High Court held that the plaintiff successfully proved that his prosecution was both malicious and without reasonable or probable cause, as the evidence established his innocence and pointed to the involvement of higher authorities, while the government failed to substantiate the charges. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's decision, allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit for Rs. 60,000 as damages for legal expenses and defamation. The key principle laid down is that in a civil action for damages for malicious prosecution, the initial onus lies on the plaintiff to prove prosecution by the defendant, malice, absence of reasonable and probable cause, and the termination of proceedings in the plaintiff's favour.
Questions settled- What is the burden of proof in a civil action for damages based on malicious prosecution?
- Whether the initiation of criminal proceedings without reasonable and probable cause amounts to malicious prosecution?
- Can a government official be held liable for damages when prosecuted without sufficient evidence?
- What elements must a plaintiff establish to succeed in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution?
- SARDAR BIBI vs The STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1407 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-17Read full judgment →
- SARDAR ALI vs SHER HUSSAIN AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1038 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court dated 21-4-1984, whereby the High Court cancelled the bail of one co-accused but maintained the pre-trial bail granted to respondent Sher Hussain in a murder case. The core legal question was whether old age and the loss of sight in one eye constitute valid grounds of physical infirmity to justify the retention of bail under the relevant criminal procedure provisions. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court had rightly considered the physical infirmity and old age of the accused in maintaining the bail order, and consequently found no reason to interfere. The petition was accordingly dismissed, upholding the discretionary exercise of judicial power in refusing to cancel bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Whether old age and loss of sight in one eye constitute valid grounds for maintaining bail in a murder case?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an order maintaining bail when the High Court has properly considered physical infirmity?
- SARDAR ALI vs Raja MUHAMMAD AMIN1984 CLC 2641 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-04Read full judgment →
- SARDAR ALI vs GENERAL MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, PESHAWAR1984 PLC 502 · Labour Court · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
- SARDAR ALI vs FAZALURREHMAN AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Peshawar 222 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-05-04Read full judgment →
- SARDAR ALI KHAN vs MUHAMMAD RAUF KHAN AND 4 OTHERS1984 PLD Peshawar 88 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
- Sardar ALI AFSAR KHAN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF J & K1984 PLC (C. S.) 500 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1983-12-11Read full judgment →
- Sardar ABDUL HAMID vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1406 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-12Read full judgment →
- Sardar ABDUL HAMID vs MOMIN KHAN AND 4 OTHERSAccused1984 PLD Peshawar 199 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-04-27Read full judgment →
- SANWAL KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs Haji MUHAMMAD SAIFAL1984 CLC 1116 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-05Read full judgment →
- SANAULLAH vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1713 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-24Read full judgment →
- SANA ULLAH AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR ALI KHAN AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2284 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-04Read full judgment →
- SANA SHAH and others vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1320 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-04Read full judgment →
- SAMUNDER GUL AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 626 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-07Read full judgment →
- SAMUNDAR KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs ALI ZAMAN1984 PLD Peshawar 12 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-09-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from a pre-emption suit concerning land in Batagram, an area where the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950 did not apply, necessitating adjudication under Muslim Law. The core legal question was whether the petitioners (pre-emptors) had strictly complied with the mandatory requirements of talab-i-mowasibat (immediate demand) and talab-i-ishhad (demand with invocation) before filing the suit. The trial court and the appellate court had concurrently dismissed the suit, finding that the petitioners failed to prove these essential prerequisites. The High Court affirmed these findings, holding that the mere averment in the plaint regarding a demand for transfer, even if not denied in the written statement, does not satisfy the strict evidentiary burden required to prove the formal demands under Muslim Law. The Court emphasized that these demands are not mere formalities but strict legal requirements that must be clearly proven through evidence, including the presence of witnesses and, for talab-i-ishhad, the presence of the vendee or vendor or the subject premises. The revision was dismissed as the petitioners failed to establish compliance.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a defendant to specifically deny a general averment of demand in a plaint satisfy the requirements of talab-i-mowasibat and talab-i-ishhad under Muslim Law?
- Are the requirements of talab-i-mowasibat and talab-i-ishhad under Muslim Law mere formalities that can be inferred from circumstances, or must they be strictly proven?
- Does the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950 apply to areas where it has not been extended?
- SAMSAM ULLAH ASLAM vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPTRAMENT. AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 785 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-02-06Read full judgment →
- SAMOTA vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1541 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his appeal by the High Court, which had upheld his conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The core legal question concerned the reliability of ocular testimony from close relatives of the deceased without independent corroboration and whether the courts below erred in appreciating the evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petition must be dismissed, finding that the relationship of the eyewitnesses to the deceased did not impair their credibility in the absence of any demonstrable animus to falsely implicate the petitioner. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that the testimony of related witnesses cannot be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship unless animus or a motive for false substitution is established.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of close relatives of a deceased person requires mandatory independent corroboration in a murder trial?
- Does a familial relationship between eyewitnesses and the deceased automatically detract from their credibility?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the courts below regarding ocular testimony without sufficient grounds?
- SAMIULLAH KHAN vs ATTAULLAH KHAN WAZIR AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 471 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court concerning the transfer of evacuee property. The core legal question was whether the appellant had a valid locus standi to challenge the transfer of the property to the respondent through an appeal before the Settlement Commissioner, given the absence of any pending or valid transfer application by the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the High Court and the Settlement Commissioner regarding the non-existence of a valid transfer application by the appellant were unexceptionable. Since the appellant had failed to pursue any transfer application after previous proceedings were closed and the property was subsequently transferred to the respondent on negotiation basis for the reserve price, the appellant lacked locus standi to challenge the transaction. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle that a party without a subsisting claim or application for transfer possesses no standing to challenge the administrative disposal of evacuee property to another.
Questions settled- Does a person who has no pending application for the transfer of evacuee property possess the locus standi to challenge its transfer to another party?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by the High Court and the Settlement Commissioner regarding the non-existence of a transfer application be interfered with without sufficient ground?
- SAMI NASIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1553 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
- SAMAD vs MUHAMMAD JAMAL AND 6 OTHERS1984 PLD Quetta 52 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-09-23Read full judgment →
- SALIMUDDIN vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 943 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a High Court order passed in suo motu revision, which converted the appellant's conviction from Section 304-A and Section 337 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, significantly enhancing the sentence. The appellant had originally been convicted by a Magistrate for causing death and injuries through rash and negligent driving. The core legal question was whether the High Court, while exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction for the enhancement of a sentence, possessed the authority to convert the nature of the conviction itself when the notice issued was limited strictly to the enhancement of the sentence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by converting the offence, as the scope of the suo motu notice was restricted to sentence enhancement only. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the trial court's original conviction and sentence, noting that remanding the matter after twenty years would be inappropriate.
Questions settled- Can a High Court, while exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction for sentence enhancement, convert the nature of the conviction itself?
- Is a High Court limited by the scope of the notice issued when exercising suo motu revisional powers?
- Does a High Court have the authority to alter the offence of conviction during a revision proceeding initiated solely for the purpose of enhancing a sentence?
- SALIMSONS LTD. vs MRS. K. M. AHMAD1984 CLC 431 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-03Read full judgment →
- SALIM AKBAR vs THE GOVERNMENT OF SIND THROUGH THE 'SECRETARY1984 PLD Karachi 358 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of seven rent appeals arising under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which raised common questions of law regarding the retrospective application of an exemption notification. The appellant-landlords had previously filed eviction applications against the Government of Sindh and other public bodies under the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. During the pendency of these proceedings, the Government issued a notification under section 3(2) of the 1979 Ordinance exempting certain government and school properties from the operation of the Ordinance. The Rent Controller dismissed the applications, holding that he lacked jurisdiction due to the notification. The core legal question was whether an executive notification issued under a statutory exemption power could operate retrospectively to affect and abate pending legal proceedings and substantive rights. The Sindh High Court held that subordinate legislation and executive notifications cannot operate retrospectively to impair vested or substantive rights or affect pending proceedings unless the statute expressly or by necessary intendment permits it. The Court ruled that filing a rent application to enforce a statutory right of eviction creates a vested right of action, which cannot be taken away by a subsequent exemption notification. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned orders of the Rent Controller and remanded the cases for decision in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Whether an exemption notification issued under section 3(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 operates retrospectively so as to affect pending eviction proceedings?
- Does a landlord acquire a vested or substantive right upon filing an eviction application under rent restriction laws?
- Can an executive authority in the exercise of subordinate legislative power make a notification take effect retroactively to impair existing rights?
- SALEH vs The STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2821 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
- SALEH MUHAMMAD vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (E), WAPDA, MA RDAN1984 PLC (C. S.) 80 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-09-03Read full judgment →
- SALEH MUHAMMAD vs Mst. NASREEN AKHTAR1984 CLC 3501 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-06Read full judgment →
- SALEH MUHAMMAD vs Mst. HALIMA AND OTHERS1984 CLC 916 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves four consolidated rent appeals challenging an order by the Additional District Judge, which reversed a Rent Controller’s finding that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties. The core legal question was whether the respondent had successfully established the tenancy, and whether the appellate court correctly reversed the Rent Controller's dismissal of the ejectment applications. The High Court held that the burden of proof lies heavily on the alleged landlord to establish the tenancy through evidence of high order, noting that mere oral assertions are insufficient, especially when contradicted by other evidence. The Court found the Additional District Judge’s order perverse for failing to properly analyze the evidence. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed that fragmentary appeals against preliminary findings, such as the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, are procedurally inconvenient and discouraged. Instead, such issues should be challenged in a final appeal after the entire case is disposed of. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate order and restored the Rent Controller's original decision dismissing the ejectment applications for lack of proof of tenancy.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proof lie on the landlord to establish the existence of a tenancy relationship?
- Is it permissible to file an appeal against a preliminary finding of a Rent Controller before the final disposal of the ejectment case?
- Can a landlord-tenant relationship be established solely by the oral testimony of the alleged landlord?
- SALEH MUHAMMAD vs ABDUL MANAN AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 3321 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-06-27Read full judgment →
- SALEEM vs The ST A TE1984 SCMR 1269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from the judgment of the High Court, which altered the petitioner Saleem's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Part I of Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to imprisonment for life along with a fine payable as compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, while upholding certain other convictions under Section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions pertained to the credibility of a delayed first information report and the identification of the assailant responsible for the fatal injury. The Supreme Court held that the explanation for the delay in lodging the first information report was plausible given the injuries sustained by the family and apprehension of harm, and that ocular testimony sufficiently established the petitioner's role. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the petitioner's guilt and sentencing.
Questions settled- Whether a delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case when plausible explanation is provided?
- Can related eye-witnesses be relied upon to sustain a conviction for culpable homicide and hurt?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the identification of an assailant?
- SALEEM SAJID RIZVI AND ANOTHER vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES1984 PLC 792 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- SALEEM AZIZ KHAN vs CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, MULTAN AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 739 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-01-03Read full judgment →
- SALEEM AHMAD KHAN vs MRs, JAMILA LATIF1984 MLD 734 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-16Read full judgment →
- SALAMAT ALI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB,HOME DEPARTMENT1984 PLC (C. S.) 395 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-04-02Read full judgment →
- SALAM ULLAH vs THE STATE1984 PLD Karachi 73 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-07Read full judgment →
- SALAHUDDIN KHAWAJA vs KARIM BAKHSH AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 3010 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-21Read full judgment →
- SALAHUDDIN AND 8 OTHERS vs PROVINCE OF SIND THROUGH SECRETARY, TRANSPORT AND 4 OTHERS1984 CLC 1989 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-05Read full judgment →
- SALABAT KHAN vs GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE1984 PLC 54 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-25Read full judgment →
- SAKHI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT THROUGH CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY1984 CLC 526 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-04-05Read full judgment →
- SAJJANI ABDUL MAJID AND OTHERS vs AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 447 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves three appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the common question of whether a grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is mandatory prior to instituting proceedings in a Labour Court to challenge the termination of service. Factually, no such notice was given in any of the cases. The High Court had previously held that such notice was necessary relying on earlier case law. However, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to notice the insertion of subsection (6) into section 25-A on 9 February 1973 by the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1973, which eliminated the requirement of notice in cases of termination. The Supreme Court held that pursuant to this statutory amendment and prior authoritative construction, an aggrieved worker could directly seek a remedy against employment termination. Consequently, the appeals were allowed.
Questions settled- Is a grievance notice mandatory under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before instituting proceedings in a Labour Court to challenge the termination of service?
- Did the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1973 do away with the requirement of notice for challenging termination of service under section 25-A?
- SAJJAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1276 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →
- SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH and another vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1520 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-27Read full judgment →
- SAJID HUSAIN and 8 others vs JAFFAR ALI1984 MLD 707 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-29Read full judgment →
- SAJAWAL SHAH vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1074 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Sajawal Shah against the judgment of the High Court, which maintained his conviction under sections 304(I), 308, and 447 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while acquitting his co-accused. The petitioner was originally tried along with others for murder, murderous assaults, and rioting, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment for life and fines. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether leave to appeal should be granted on the basis of a plea of self-defence requiring reappraisal of evidence and whether a judgment of a Sessions Court not cited before the High Court could be relied upon. The Supreme Court held that it is not proper to grant leave merely for the reappraisal of evidence when no question of law is raised, and that a judgment of a Sessions Judge cannot be cited for the first time before the apex court when it was omitted below. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal along with the bail application.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal merely for the reappraisal of evidence when no question of law is raised?
- Can a judgment of a Sessions or Additional Sessions Judge be cited for the first time before the Supreme Court when it was not cited before the High Court?
- SAIFUR REHMAN vs FAZLUR REHMAN AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLD Peshawar 219 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-06-08Read full judgment →
- SAIFULLAH vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1996 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-28Read full judgment →
- SAIFULLAH vs HUSSAIN SUGAR MILLS1984 PLC 1104 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-11-15Read full judgment →
- SAIFULLAH vs HABIB BANK LTD. SIALKOT THROUGH ZONAL CHIEF1984 PLC 1091 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-09-28Read full judgment →
- SAIFUDDIN AND ANOTHERS vs MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND 191984 CLC 737 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-17Read full judgment →
- SAIFEE WOOL HOUSE vs RENT CONTROLLER AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 1381 · Sindh High Court · 1974-12-16Read full judgment →
- SAIFAL and anothers vs The STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2293 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
- SAID KHAN AND 12 OTHERS vs Mst. FOZIA PARVEEN AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 494 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
- SAID AZAM vs HUSSAIN SHAH (Rpresented by Legal Heirs) and another1984 SCMR 1301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether a subsequent transfer of mortgagee rights by the first vendee to the petitioner (second vendee) was valid and effective to defeat the plaintiff's superior right of pre-emption. The petitioner argued that the transfer was made in recognition of his superior right within the limitation period. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts established that no valid sale occurred within the period of limitation prescribed for instituting a pre-emption suit. Consequently, the subsequent transfer could not defeat the plaintiff's pre-emption claim. The Court affirmed that a sale transaction occurring after the expiry of the limitation period for a pre-emption suit, or one that is not properly proved or registered, cannot be used to obstruct a pre-emptor's superior right. Leave to appeal was refused as no error of law was identified.
Questions settled- Can a subsequent transfer of property made after the expiry of the limitation period for a pre-emption suit defeat the plaintiff's right of pre-emption?
- Does a sale deed that is neither registered nor proved according to law confer valid title to immovable property?
- Can a second vendee defeat a pre-emptor's claim by asserting a transfer of rights that occurred after the pre-emption suit was filed?
- SAID AHMAD and others vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1498 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-26Read full judgment →
- SAID AHMAD AND ANOTHERS vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND 4 OTHERS1984 CLC 1260 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
- SAHIBZADA SHARAFUDDIN AND 15 OTHERS vs TOWN COMMITTEE, PINDIGHEB1984 CLC 1517 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Civil Revision challenged the refusal of a temporary injunction against the levy of a parking fee by a Town Committee for a bus-stand. The petitioners contended that the fee could not be levied without the approval of the Regional Transport Authority, citing Section 137 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, which permits tax levy "subject to the provisions of any other law," and Rule 253 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969, requiring such approval. The lower courts had refused the injunction, deeming it a money matter with reparable loss. The Lahore High Court held that Section 137, being a later and specific provision, prevails over Section 4 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 1979, which generally gives the Act supremacy over other laws. Consequently, the levy was subject to Rule 253 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969, and without the Regional Transport Authority's approval, it suffered from legal infirmity. The Court granted the temporary injunction, staying the recovery of the fee, finding that the levy was prima facie illegal and could cause inconvenience beyond mere monetary loss.
Questions settled- Can a Town Committee levy a parking fee for a bus-stand without the approval of the Regional Transport Authority?
- Does Section 137 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, which allows tax levy "subject to the provisions of any other law," prevail over Section 4 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 1979, which generally makes the Act prevail over other laws?
- Under what circumstances can a temporary injunction be granted in matters involving the payment of taxes?
- Is the levy of a parking fee by a Town Committee for an unapproved bus-stand legally infirm?
- Can a High Court interfere with a discretionary order of lower courts in a civil revision under Section 115, C.P.C.?
- Sahibzada Mir Haji GHULAM HUSSAIN KHAN vs THE CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL LAND1984 CLC 2020 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-24Read full judgment →
- SAHARANPUR COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. vs TAMIZUL HASAN1984 CLC 2067 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-09Read full judgment →
- SAFDAR-UL-MALIK (SAFDAR KHAN) vs WAPDA AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1055 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
- SAFDAR JAVID AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1886 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-13Read full judgment →
- SAFDAR and another vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the dismissal of the appellants' appeal by the Lahore High Court regarding their conviction and sentence in a murder case. The core legal question concerned the presence and legal effect of an injury found on the person of one of the appellants in relation to a plea of self-defence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of guilt under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 against the first appellant and section 352 against the second appellant were well-founded and supported by reliable ocular and medical evidence, and that the injury on the second appellant's leg was not relatable to the occurrence. However, noting the absence of premeditation and that the incident resulted from a sudden flare-up, the Court altered the capital sentence of the first appellant to imprisonment for life while maintaining the conviction, along with a fine and compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where an occurrence is sudden and without premeditation, and where an injury claimed by an accused in self-defence is not supported by contemporaneous material or medical evidence linking it to the incident, the sentence of death may be commuted to imprisonment for life.
Questions settled- Whether an injury found on an accused person can be linked to the occurrence when medical opinion indicates it could be due to a fall and lacks supporting surface marks?
- Does a sudden flare-up without premeditation or subsisting enmity warrant the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Whether concurrent findings of guilt based on prompt F.I.R. and consistent ocular testimony are liable to interference by the Supreme Court?
- SAFDAR & Co. and 4 others vs NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COOPERATIVE FINANCE1984 MLD 135 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-21Read full judgment →
- SAEEDUR REHMAN vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, MESSRS SAIF NADEEM KAWASAKI1984 PLC 1617 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1984-07-07Read full judgment →
- SAEEDUR REHMAN vs ABDUL MATIN1984 MLD 156 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-25Read full judgment →
- SAEEDULLAH KAZMI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARYMINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING, ISLAMABAD1984 PLD Supreme Court 463 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1984-05-14Read full judgment →
- SAEEDULLAH KAZMI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1984 SCMR 1081 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1983-10-22Read full judgment →
- SAEED MIAN ANSARI AND ANOTHERS vs IXTH SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & RENT1984 CLC 1889 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-30Read full judgment →
- SAEED M U HAMMAD vs JUDGE FAMILY COURT AND OTHERS1984 CLC 908 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
- SAEED ALAM vs INSPECTORGENERAL OF POLICE, N.W. F. P. AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 663 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an order of the N.-W. F. P. Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the appellant's service appeal for failure to exhaust departmental remedies. The appellant, a Motor Vehicles Examiner, was dismissed by the Inspector-General of Police for misconduct. He argued that the N.-W. F. P. Police Rules, 1975 governed his service and that he had exhausted the required review remedy under those rules. The core legal question was whether the N.-W. F. P. Police Rules, 1975 applied to a Motor Vehicles Examiner, thereby exempting him from the standard departmental appeal requirements applicable to civil servants. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was a civil servant under the N.-W. F. P. Civil Servants Act, 1973, and not a police officer subject to the Police Rules, 1975. Consequently, the appellant was required to file a departmental appeal under the N.-W. F. P. Civil Servants Act, 1973, before approaching the Service Tribunal. The Court affirmed that the Service Tribunal correctly dismissed the appeal as incompetent for failure to exhaust the mandatory departmental appeal process.
Questions settled- Does the N.-W. F. P. Police Rules, 1975 apply to a Motor Vehicles Examiner?
- Is a Motor Vehicles Examiner considered a police officer under the Police Act, 1861?
- Must a civil servant exhaust departmental appeal remedies before approaching the Service Tribunal?
- Can a mercy petition be treated as a substitute for a mandatory departmental appeal?
- SAEED AKHTAR MALIK vs GENERAL MANAGER, HYESONS SUGAR MILLS LTD. /1984 PLC 824 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-11Read full judgment →
- SAEED AHMED KAZI AND ANOTHER vs NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS1984 PLC 397 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- SAEED AHMAD vs WAPDA1984 PLC (C. S.) 188 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-11-02Read full judgment →
- SAEED AHMAD vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 695 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-19Read full judgment →
- SAEED AHMAD KAZI vs CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS1984 PLC 1480 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order of stay issued by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which suspended the transfer orders of several bank employees. The employees, alleging unfair labor practice due to their union activities, had filed both a complaint under Section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 and an application under Regulation 32 of the NIRC Regulations seeking a stay of the transfers. The core legal question was whether a collective bargaining agent could simultaneously pursue a complaint for an unfair labor practice already committed and an application for a stay against the same act. The Court held that these were inconsistent positions. Relying on its previous jurisprudence, the Court ruled that while a complaint under Section 53 addresses an unfair labor practice already committed, an application under Regulation 32 is exclusively for preventing a threatened unfair labor practice. Because the employees sought to stay the same transfers they were complaining about as already committed, the stay order was legally impermissible. The Court set aside the stay order and quashed the Regulation 32 proceedings, while preserving the Section 53 complaint.
Questions settled- Can a collective bargaining agent simultaneously file a complaint for an unfair labour practice already committed and an application for a stay against the same act?
- Is an application under Regulation 32 of the NIRC Regulations maintainable against an unfair labour practice that has already been committed?
- Can a stay order be granted against a transfer order that has already been executed?
- SAEED AHMAD AND OTHERS vs GHULAM NABI AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order passed by the High Court in revision, where the petitioners had failed to deposit the probable value of the land in a pre-emption suit within the stipulated time. The core legal question concerned the correctness of the amount fixed as the probable value and the extension of time for depositing the required sum. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding the correctness of the probable value were proper, and noted that the High Court had already acted with generosity in granting an extended period of one month to deposit the remaining Zar-e-punjum. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the decision of the High Court. The key principle laid down is that discretionary relief regarding extension of time in pre-emption matters will not be interfered with lightly when the courts below have correctly determined the probable value.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can grant further time to deposit the Zar-e-punjum in a pre-emption suit during revision proceedings?
- Does a petition for leave to appeal lie against an order of the High Court extending the time to deposit pre-emption money?
- Are concurrent findings regarding the probable value of land in a pre-emption suit open to interference without substantial grounds?
- SAEE AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1069 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns criminal appeals arising from a violent incident where a mob of 200-250 individuals attempted to forcibly restore land possession, resulting in one death and multiple injuries. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly interpreted the scope of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically regarding whether individual roles within an armed unlawful assembly could be detached from the common object of the assembly. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by individualizing the criminal liability of the main attackers. The Court affirmed that members of an unlawful assembly who arm themselves with deadly weapons to achieve a common object—forcible land recovery—are vicariously liable for murder and murderous assaults committed in prosecution of that object. The principle laid down is that when an unlawful assembly is formed with the intent to use violence, and members are armed with deadly weapons, the resulting crimes are attributable to all members under Section 149, as the commission of such crimes is a likely consequence of the assembly's common object.
Questions settled- Can the criminal liability of members of an armed unlawful assembly be individualized when the assembly's common object involves the use of force?
- Does the use of deadly weapons by members of an unlawful assembly render them vicariously liable for murder committed in prosecution of the assembly's common object?
- Is it necessary to assign a specific fatal act to an individual member of an unlawful assembly to sustain a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- SADRUDDIN vs The MAYOR, KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION and another1984 CLC 2583 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-14Read full judgment →
- SADIQ MUHAMMAD vs HAJI MUHAMMAD and another1984 MLD 488 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-02Read full judgment →
- SADIQ MUHAMMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 681 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
- SIRAJ-UL-HAQ BAIG vs WAPDA /1984 PLC 1540 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-08-08Read full judgment →
- SADIQ MASIH vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 615 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-20Read full judgment →
- SADIQ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2179 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-16Read full judgment →
- SADIQ and others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2334 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-20Read full judgment →
- SADIQ and others vs Mst. FATIMA and others1984 SCMR 1219 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a land settlement case concerning the inheritance of one Lakha, who died in India. The core legal controversy relates to the identity, parentage, and inheritance rights of Mst. Fatima, who was recognized by the settlement authorities as the sister of Kamala and entitled to a share through Rehmat, another brother who died issueless in Pakistan. After the petitioners' writ petition challenging Mst. Fatima's parentage and inheritance right failed before the High Court, they sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to point out any legal or other infirmity regarding the concurrent findings of fact on the identity and parentage of Mst. Fatima, and that the technical points raised had been duly addressed by the High Court. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, establishing that concurrent findings of fact on parentage in settlement cases will not be interfered with absent a substantial legal infirmity.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal can be granted against concurrent findings of fact regarding parentage and inheritance in a land settlement case?
- Does the failure to establish a legal infirmity in the lower court's determination of identity and parentage warrant the refusal of a petition for leave to appeal?
- SADDAR DIN vs ALLAH RAK HAS1984 CLC 1258 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition arises from the concurrent judgments of the lower courts holding the respondent-plaintiff's suit for mandatory injunction and possession to be within time. The core legal question is whether the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 can be extended to a plaintiff who voluntarily withdrew a previous suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 with permission to file a fresh suit. The Lahore High Court held that section 14 applies only where a suit fails due to a defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature ejusdem generis, and does not apply where a suit is withdrawn under Order XXIII Rule 1, as rule 2 expressly binds the plaintiff to the law of limitation as if the first suit had never been instituted. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgments, accepted the revision petition, and dismissed the suit as barred by time.
Questions settled- Whether the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 can be claimed when a previous suit is withdrawn under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the expression 'other cause of a like nature' in section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 include the voluntary withdrawal of a suit with permission to file a fresh one?
- Is a plaintiff who institutes a fresh suit after withdrawing a previous suit bound by the law of limitation as if the first suit had not been instituted?
- SADAAT KHAN vs MESSRS STERLLING PRODUCTS PAKISTAN LTD, AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 708 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-17Read full judgment →
- SACHU alais SACHEEDINO vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 647 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-15Read full judgment →
- SABIRA BEGUM vs Khan MIR AJAM KHAN AND OTHERS1984 CLC 927 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-29Read full judgment →
- SABIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 315 · Lahore High Court · 1963-05-30Read full judgment →
- SABIR ALI vs DANDOT CEMENT Co. LTD.AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 931 · Labour Court · 1983-06-06Read full judgment →
- SABAUDDIN MUJAHID and 2 others vs S.ABBAS HAIDER TIRMIZI1984 MLD 409 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-28Read full judgment →
- SA UDULLAH KHAN and others vs QALANDAR and others1984 SCMR 1412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging concurrent findings of the lower courts holding that a disputed property transaction constituted an exchange rather than a sale, resulting in the dismissal of a suit for pre-emption. The core legal question was whether the transaction was a sale or an exchange. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of extrinsic evidence establishing the petitioner's contention, and given that the petitioner's witnesses were not present at the completion of the transaction, the lower courts rightly relied upon the exchange deed. The Court further ruled that a registered exchange deed cannot be construed as a sale merely on the basis of the potential price the land could fetch or the improbability of exchanging one kanal for three kanals. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a transaction described as an exchange can be construed as a sale merely on the basis of the price the land could fetch?
- Does the improbability of exchanging one kanal of land in lieu of three kanals convert an exchange deed into a sale?
- Can a pre-emption suit succeed when the plaintiff fails to provide extrinsic evidence and witnesses who were not present at the completion of the transaction?