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.
- RAJANAY KHAN AND ANOTHERS vs PATER MUHAMMAD alias KOOROO1984 CLC 2175 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-31Read full judgment →
- RAJAB and others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2637 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-27Read full judgment →
- RAJAB ALI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2865 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-29Read full judgment →
- RAJAB ALI vs DARIUS B. KANDAWALLA AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Karachi 14 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Four rent appeals were filed by tenants challenging separate ejectment orders passed by the Rent Controller under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 in favour of the respondent landlords. The landlords sought eviction of four tenements comprising an entire double-storey bungalow on grounds of personal bona fide requirement for use by respondent No. 2, her ailing husband, and unmarried daughter. Certain appellants contested the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship alleging the property was a trust, while all challenged the bona fides and necessity of requiring all four tenements. The High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that appellant Rajab Ali, having long acknowledged tenancy under the respondent, was estopped from denying the relationship. The Court held that residing in an adult child's commodious property does not negate a landlord's natural and legitimate desire to occupy their own property in good faith. Furthermore, the landlord is the sole judge of suitability and accommodation needs according to social status, and tenants cannot dictate partial occupation or allege extravagance to defeat eviction.
Questions settled- Can a tenant who has historically recognized and paid rent to an owner be estopped from later disputing the landlord-tenant relationship on grounds that the property is trust property?
- Whether a landlord currently living in a house owned by their son is entitled to seek eviction of tenants from their own property on the ground of personal bona fide requirement in good faith?
- Can jointly owned rented premises be ordered for vacation solely for the personal use and occupation of one of the co-owners?
- Does a tenant have the legal right to object to an ejectment application on the ground that the entire building sought exceeds the landlord's reasonable accommodation needs or amounts to extravagance?
- Raja SALEEM AKHTAR vs HABIBULLAH and others1984 SCMR 1327 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment application filed by the respondent-landlords against the petitioner-tenant on the grounds of default in payment of rent, nuisance, and personal requirement. The Rent Controller ordered the petitioner's eviction, and the High Court of Sindh subsequently dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and that no default had been committed as rent was tendered via money order and deposited in court following the refusal of rent receipts. The Supreme Court observed that the respondents, being the legal heirs and attorney of the property owner, were fully entitled to collect rent and fell within the definition of 'landlord' under Section 2(f) of the relevant rent ordinance. Consequently, the High Court was justified in finding it unnecessary to frame a specific issue or record a formal finding on the landlord-tenant relationship. Finding no merit in the petition, the Supreme Court dismissed it.
Questions settled- Whether the legal heirs or attorney of a property owner fall within the definition of 'landlord' entitled to file an ejectment application under the rent laws?
- Is it necessary for the Rent Controller to frame a specific issue on the landlord-tenant relationship where the applicants' legal authority to collect rent is established on record?
- RAJA SALEEM AKHTAR vs HABIBULLAH and 2 others1984 CLC 2604 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-23Read full judgment →
- Raja S. AKHTAR and anothers vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2291 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-30Read full judgment →
- RAJA RAHIM DAD AND ANOTHER vs ZIAUR REHMAN AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a property dispute regarding the exclusive versus common use of a staircase within a divided residential property in Rawalpindi. The petitioners, who purchased the property, claimed exclusive rights to the staircase, while the first respondent asserted it was for common use. Following the consolidation of competing suits, the trial court decreed in favor of the respondent, a decision upheld by the Additional District Judge and subsequently affirmed by the High Court, which declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the staircase's use violated their privacy and that the lower courts failed to properly weigh the Local Commissioner's report. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the common use of the staircase were supported by overwhelming evidence, including records from Settlement and Rehabilitation authorities. The Court affirmed that it would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact when supported by credible evidence.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the existence of a Local Commissioner's report mandate a specific outcome in a property dispute regarding common usage?
- Are findings of fact based on spot inspections and evidence by lower courts subject to appellate review in the absence of misreading of evidence?
- Raja NOOR MUHAMMAD vs Raja MUHAMMAD SADIQ AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Lahore 239 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-31Read full judgment →
- Raja MUNAWAR AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3098 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-04Read full judgment →
- Raja MUHAMMAD FEROZUDD1N vs ABDUL QAYYUM AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 1079 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which refused to enhance the sentence of rigorous imprisonment and fine imposed on the respondent, and instead reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone, which was less than a fortnight. The respondent had been convicted under Sections 427, 43, and 447 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's refusal to enhance the sentence and its subsequent reduction of the term of imprisonment warranted interference. After hearing arguments on the quantum of sentence, the Supreme Court held that there was no justification to interfere with the High Court's decision. The Court ruled that the impugned judgment did not suffer from any legal or principled infirmity. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming that discretionary sentencing decisions by the High Court will not be disturbed absent a clear legal error.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court's decision to reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone in the absence of any legal infirmity?
- What is the standard of review applied by the Supreme Court when considering a petition to enhance a criminal sentence?
- Can a sentence be reduced to the period already undergone if the reduction does not violate any legal principles?
- Raja MUHAMMAD AMIR AND 40 OTHERS vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND 21984 PLD Lahore 295 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
- Raja MUHAHMAD NAZIR KHAN AND 5 OTHERS vs ELECTION COMMISSIONER, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS1984 PLD Azad J & K 9 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-12-24Read full judgment →
- RAJ MUHAMMAD vs Mst. CHAN BIBI AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1068 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal due to being filed in the wrong forum and subsequently rejected a request for condonation of delay. The petitioner had originally filed an appeal against a decree for the recovery of money in the Court of the District Judge, Haripur, before later approaching the High Court. The core legal question was whether the delay in filing the appeal in the correct forum could be condoned on the basis of a bona fide mistake by counsel. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the forum for the appeal was not in doubt. The Court held that where the law regarding the appellate forum is clear, a mistake by counsel resulting from gross negligence does not constitute a valid ground for condoning the delay. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that no benefit of a bona fide mistake can be granted in such circumstances.
Questions settled- Can a delay in filing an appeal be condoned when the appellant mistakenly files the appeal in the wrong forum due to counsel's negligence?
- Is a mistake regarding the correct appellate forum considered a valid ground for condonation of delay under the law of limitation?
- RAIS JEEVAN vs AKBAR ALI AND ORHERS1984 SCMR 776 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a Regular Second Appeal filed in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question is whether a transaction disguised as an exchange, coupled with a contemporaneous sale of the exchanged property on the same day, constitutes a 'sale' for the purposes of pre-emption. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the true nature of the transaction and the failure of the lower courts to draw proper inferences from vital material on record deserve consideration. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the composite effect of the concurrent mutations amounts to a sale in law and relevant precedents.
Questions settled- Whether a transaction styled as an exchange accompanied by a contemporaneous sale of the exchanged land constitutes a sale for pre-emption purposes?
- Can concurrent mutations executed on the same day be construed together to determine the true nature of a property transaction?
- Whether the High Court was justified in declining interference with concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of the transaction?
- RAIS AHMAD BARQI vs Shaikh ABDUL QAYYUM1984 CLC 1057 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-14Read full judgment →
- RAILWAY WORKERS' UNION (REGD.) OPEN LINE ESTABLISHMENT vs NATIONAL1984 PLC 327 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-10Read full judgment →
- Rai MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs JAVED AK BAR and others1984 SCMR 1336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a dispute over the custody and disposal of a motor car seized by the police in connection with a criminal case under sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, who had been granted interim custody (Superdari) of the car, subsequently applied to the trial Magistrate for permission to sell the vehicle during the pendency of the trial. The Magistrate allowed the sale without recording any finding that the car was subject to speedy or natural decay and without requiring security for the sale price. The High Court set aside the Magistrate's order in revision, prompting the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the trial court could permit the sale of crime property under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without establishing that the property was subject to speedy or natural decay. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly set aside the order because the application and the Magistrate's order failed to disclose circumstances satisfying the requirements of section 516-A. The Court laid down the principle that an order for the sale of crime property during trial must strictly conform to the statutory conditions governing the custody and disposal of property under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Can a trial court permit the sale of crime property during the pendency of a trial without establishing that the property is subject to speedy or natural decay under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does an omission by a Magistrate to require security for the sale price of crime property render an order under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 invalid?
- RAHIM vs KHAIRUNNISA BEGUM1984 CLC 2566 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
- RAHIM SHAH vs MUHAMMAD DIN AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Peshawar 265 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-06-25Read full judgment →
- RAHIM DAD vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 750 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner Rahim Dad was convicted under Article 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 after being found in a drunken state, with medical examination and chemical analysis confirming the presence of alcohol in his blood and urine. His appeal and subsequent revision petition before the Lahore High Court were dismissed. In the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the offence requires proof of the actual act of drinking rather than merely being found in a state of drunkenness. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, relying on its earlier view that the expression 'takes an intoxicant' defining 'drinking' in Article 6 of the Order is not restricted to an instant taking in the presence of witnesses, but also encompasses being found to have taken an intoxicant. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts warranted no interference and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether being found in a state of drunkenness constitutes an offence under Article 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979?
- Does the definition of drinking under Article 6 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 require the actual act of drinking to be witnessed?
- Whether the words 'takes an intoxicant' include being found to have taken an intoxicant?
- RAHIM BUX vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND 5 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 1559 · Sindh High Court · 1983-07-16Read full judgment →
- RAHIM BAKHSH vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE., PUNJAB, LAHORE1984 PLC (C. S.) 598 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- RAHEEM vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 371 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
- RAGOO alias BAGAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2713 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-05Read full judgment →
- RAFIULLAH vs DISTRICT JUDGE, SWAT AND OTHERS1984 PLD Peshawar 122 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
- RAFIUDDIN and another vs Mst. SALEEMA BIBI1984 SCMR 1529 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the interpretation of the right of pre-emption regarding agricultural land and village immovable property as provided under the Punjab Pre-emption Act. The petitioners contended that the lower courts failed to correctly construe the provisions of Section 15 of the Act, which delineates the classes of persons entitled to the right of pre-emption. Upon hearing the arguments presented by the petitioners' counsel, the Supreme Court found merit in the submission regarding the potential misconstruction of the statutory provisions. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower courts erred in their application of the law. The Court further ordered that the interim stay order previously granted on 4-2-1977 shall remain operative during the pendency of the appeal, and directed that the appeal be prepared on the existing record with liberty for the parties to submit additional documents.
Questions settled- Does Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 correctly vest the right of pre-emption in the petitioners based on the sale of agricultural land and village immovable property?
- Did the lower courts err in their construction of the statutory provisions governing the right of pre-emption?
- RAFIQUE AHMED JOKHIO vs MESSRS PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION1984 PLC 482 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-11-27Read full judgment →
- RAFIQUE AHMAD vs Syed ATIQUE HUSSAIN and 4 others1984 CLC 2504 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-09Read full judgment →
- RAFIQUE AHMAD RANA vs PAKISTAN CYCLE INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE1984 PLC 1025 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- RAFIQ AHMAD and another vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1411 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-24Read full judgment →
- RABIA, vs ABDUL GBAFOOR and others1984 MLD 634 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-22Read full judgment →
- RAB RAKHIO AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 847 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-05Read full judgment →
- RAB NAWAZ vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2098 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-17Read full judgment →
- RAB NAWAZ vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others1984 P Cr. L J 2440 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
- RAB NAWAZ KHAN vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 485 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-01-23Read full judgment →
- RAB NAWAZ and others vs Ch. FAIZ AHMAD and others1984 CLC 2663 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-18Read full judgment →
- RAB NAWAZ AND 8 OTHERS vs MEMBER (COLONIES) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 4 OTHERS1984 PLD Lahore 244 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-22Read full judgment →
- RA ZZA K vs TASADIQ MUHAMMAD1984 MLD 598 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-08Read full judgment →
- R IAZ HUSSAIN AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1611 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
- QUTAB ALI alias QUTBA vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1877 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-11Read full judgment →
- Qureshi NOOR HUSSAIN AND 7 OTHERS vs GHULAM JAN AND 5 OTHERS1984 PLD Peshawar 86 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Ghulam Jan and his minor brothers instituted a civil suit for a declaration that they were owners in possession of the suit land and that two gift mutations were fraudulent, void, and ineffective against their rights. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, a decision upheld through successive appeals before the Additional District Judge and the District Judge. In the revision petition before the Peshawar High Court, the sole contention raised by the petitioners was that the suit was barred by time under Article 95 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908. The core legal question was whether Article 95 or Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applied when a gift mutation is challenged on the ground of fraud by the successors-in-interest of the donor rather than a party to the transaction. The Court held that Article 95 applies only when a party to the transaction itself challenges it, whereas for successors-in-interest, the applicable provision is the residual Article 120, providing a six-year limitation period. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed as the suit was filed within time.
Questions settled- Does Article 95 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act 1908 apply when a gift mutation is challenged by the successors-in-interest of the donor rather than a party to the transaction?
- Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs a suit for declaration challenging a fraudulent gift mutation filed by non-parties who are successors of the donor?
- What is the period of limitation under Article 120 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act 1908 for filing a suit for declaration upon knowledge of fraud?
- QURBAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2216 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
- QURBAN HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 43 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-08-26Read full judgment →
- QURBAN HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS vs HUKAM DAD1984 PLD SC (A J & K) 157 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
- QURBAN ALI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 PLD SC (A J & K) 104 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
- QUALITY STEEL WORKS LTD. vs MUQARRAB KHAN1984 PLC 587 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-11-07Read full judgment →
- QUALITY STEEL WORKS LTD. vs Mst. NASREEN MUHAMMAD NASEEM AND 41984 CLC 2071 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-18Read full judgment →
- QUALITY STEEL CORPORATION vs Ch. MUHAMMAD TUFAIL1984 CLC 2255 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two civil revision petitions involving the same parties and property, arising from execution proceedings of an ejectment order passed under the rent laws. The core legal questions concerned the competency of a civil revision against orders passed under the rent restriction law and whether an independent civil suit is barred under Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure when an ejectment order is being executed by a Rent Controller. The Lahore High Court held that a civil revision is not competent against orders of the Rent Controller or Appellate Authority in view of the finality attached under the relevant rent legislation. Furthermore, following amendments empowering the Rent Controller to execute ejectment orders as decrees of a civil court, provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure apply, rendering an independent civil suit regarding questions of title, right, interest, or possession barred by Order XXI Rule 103. Consequently, both revision petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a civil revision is legally competent against an order passed by a Rent Controller or Appellate Authority under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Does an amendment empowering the Rent Controller to execute ejectment orders as civil decrees make the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to such executions?
- Is an independent civil suit barred by Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of matters relating to title, right, interest, or possession arising during execution proceedings before a Rent Controller?
- Can a plaint be lawfully rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure when the instituted suit is barred by law?
- Qazi ZAHEER AHMAD vs AMJAD ALI SHAIKH1984 MLD 1080 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-03Read full judgment →
- Qazi T. ZAMAN vs Dr. ABDUL RASHID1984 MLD 91 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
- Qazi SHARIF HUSSAIN vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1420 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-03Read full judgment →
- Qazi SARDAR BAHADAR vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 177 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Upper Division Clerk, challenged the termination of his services after overstaying his ex-Pakistan leave. Having gone abroad in June 1978, the petitioner sought multiple extensions, eventually requesting a five-year extension in March 1980. However, his services had already been terminated effective December 1979. Upon receiving notice of termination in April 1980, the petitioner did not seek reinstatement until November 1982. His subsequent departmental appeal was rejected as time-barred, a decision upheld by the Federal Service Tribunal on May 22, 1983. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed the matter, considering the significant delay in challenging the termination. The Court held that there were no sufficient grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, as the departmental appeal was hopelessly time-barred. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused, reinforcing the principle that administrative remedies must be pursued within the prescribed statutory limitation periods and that unexplained, substantial delays in challenging termination orders preclude judicial intervention.
Questions settled- Can a service appeal be entertained when the departmental appeal is hopelessly time-barred?
- Does the failure to challenge a termination order within the prescribed limitation period preclude judicial relief?
- Qazi MUHAMMAD RAFIQ AND OTHERS vs Qazi FEROZE BAKHT AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1570 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from protracted litigation concerning a decree for possession of land originally obtained by Qazi Mehr Din. Following his death during the appeals, some legal heirs were brought on record, while other claimants claiming to be heirs from another wife subsequently sought execution of the decree. The executing court dismissed their application, holding that they must file a separate suit. However, the High Court reversed this decision, ruling that their status as representatives of the decree-holder could be determined under Section 47(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Upon a petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's view. The core legal question was whether persons claiming to be representatives of a party can have their status determined by the executing court under Section 47(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure rather than filing a separate suit. The Court held that the executing court has the jurisdiction to determine whether a person is a representative of a party under Section 47(3). The key principle laid down is that questions regarding whether a person qualifies as a representative of a party for execution purposes must be determined by the executing court itself.
Questions settled- Whether the question of whether a person is the representative of a party can be determined by the executing Court under section 47(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Are claimants asserting to be legal representatives of a decree-holder required to file a separate suit to establish their claim for execution, or can it be decided during execution proceedings?
- Qazi KHURSHID ALAM and others vs Sardar HIDAYATULLAH MOKAL, SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1984 SCMR 1384 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld an order of the Settlement Commissioner. The Settlement Commissioner had restored a revision petition that was previously dismissed in default, citing humanitarian grounds because some of the petitioners were a widow and her minor children. The petitioners before the Supreme Court challenged this restoration, arguing that the contesting respondents had retransferred their units from the Sialkot District after the land in dispute had already been confirmed to the petitioners and possession delivered. Furthermore, the petitioners contended that the Settlement Commissioner and the High Court failed to account for the fact that, in addition to the widow and her minor children, there were three other adult respondents who were not entitled to the humanitarian indulgence granted. Finding substance in these contentions, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the restoration of the revision petition was legally justified given the change in circumstances and the status of the respondents.
Questions settled- Can a revision petition dismissed in default be restored on humanitarian grounds?
- Does the retransfer of units by a claimant after the confirmation of land affect their standing to agitate a claim?
- Is it legally permissible to restore a petition on humanitarian grounds when some beneficiaries are adults not entitled to such indulgence?
- Qazi FAIZUL HAQ vs N.W. F. P. THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY1984 SCMR 451 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an appeal filed by a civil servant challenging his dismissal from service on charges of misconduct relating to the erroneous release on bail of a murder accused who had used impersonators. Following a departmental inquiry finding him guilty, the appellant was dismissed from service, and his departmental review and subsequent service tribunal appeal were unsuccessful. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan to examine whether there was a procedural violation of the rules by failing to supply a copy of the inquiry report and failing to issue a second show-cause notice prior to the dismissal decision. Conceding to the established legal position of the Court requiring these procedural safeguards, the respondents did not contest the appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the dismissal order, and directed that the disciplinary proceedings resume from the stage where the inquiry report was submitted to the competent authority, while treating the appellant as under suspension.
Questions settled- Whether failure to supply a copy of the inquiry report and issue a second show-cause notice vitiates disciplinary proceedings resulting in dismissal?
- What is the legal effect on disciplinary proceedings when an order of dismissal is set aside due to procedural non-compliance?
- Qazi ABDUR RAHMAN MUGHAL vs ABDUL WAHID AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 791 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the exclusive use of a 'Gali' (alleyway) situated between the properties of the petitioner and the respondents. The petitioner sought a permanent and mandatory injunction to prevent the respondents from opening doors or water outlets into the alley, claiming exclusive ownership and usage rights based on long-standing possession. The trial court initially decreed the suit in the petitioner's favor, a decision partially modified by the appellate court. The High Court subsequently allowed the respondents' appeal, finding no evidence of exclusive possession by the petitioner. The Supreme Court examined the site plan and evidence, noting that the alley was a blind alley used by both parties for access to their respective houses. The Court held that the petitioner failed to establish exclusive title or possession, relying only on oral assertions against evidence showing the alley's long-term use by the respondents and the public. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that in the absence of documentary proof of exclusive ownership, a party cannot exclude neighbors from using a shared access way.
Questions settled- Does long-term usage of a Gali by one party automatically confer exclusive ownership rights over it?
- Under Section 110 of the Evidence Act 1872, does the burden of proving ownership shift to the defendant when a plaintiff claims possession?
- Can a party obtain an injunction to prevent neighbors from using a shared alleyway without proving exclusive title to the land?
- QASIM KHAN vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1040 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, filed by Qasim Khan, challenges the sentence of death imposed for the murder of his uncle, Abid Khan. The conviction was based on the deceased's dying declaration, which was originally recorded as an F.I.R. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal solely to consider whether the sentence of death should be commuted to imprisonment for life, specifically examining whether the motive—a dispute over the deceased's purchase of the appellant's land—constituted sufficient mitigating circumstances. Upon reviewing the evidence and the appellant's statement, the Court found that the record lacked sufficient detail regarding the land transaction to establish a mitigating factor that would warrant a reduction in sentence. Consequently, the Court held that there were no grounds to interfere with the sentence of death confirmed by the High Court. The judgment reaffirms that a mere assertion of motive, without substantiated details demonstrating extenuating circumstances, is insufficient to justify the imposition of the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life in a murder case.
Questions settled- Does a mere assertion of motive, without detailed evidence, constitute a sufficient ground for reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Can a sentence of death be commuted when the record lacks sufficient details regarding the alleged mitigating circumstances?
- QASIM HUSSAIN SHAH vs MUHAMMAD GULZAR KHAN1984 PLD SC (A J & K) 150 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
- QASIM AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from criminal petitions for special leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of pre-trial bail applications by the Lahore High Court in a case registered under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners, who were named in the First Information Report as being armed and participating in an unlawful assembly resulting in murder and simple injuries, are entitled to post-arrest bail on grounds of alibi and lack of specific injury attribution. The Supreme Court held that at the bail stage, pleas of alibi cannot be conclusively evaluated and prima facie participation demonstrated through specific roles and weapon attribution in the First Information Report disentitles the accused to relief. The court dismissed the petitions, affirming that where active participation is alleged and supported by record, discretionary relief of bail is unwarranted.
Questions settled- Whether a plea of alibi can be conclusively determined at the bail stage to grant relief to an accused?
- Does the absence of a specific injury attributed to an accused disentitle them to bail when they are named in the First Information Report as part of an armed unlawful assembly?
- Is a case where co-accused are armed with lethal weapons and attributed active participation considered a fit case for post-arrest bail?
- QASIM AND OTHERS vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1984 CLC 2218 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-07Read full judgment →
- QAMARUDDIN AND ANOTHERS vs STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION1984 CLC 1559 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-07Read full judgment →
- SULTAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1863 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-06Read full judgment →
- QAMARUDDIN AND 5 OTHERS vs Messrs SUFI TEXTILE AND PRINTING MILLS LTD,1984 PLC 740 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-05-09Read full judgment →
- QAMAR-UZ-ZAMAN vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB1984 PLC (C. S.) 779 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-02-07Read full judgment →
- QAMAR ZAMAN PIRZADA vs MESSRS PAKPORS CERAMICS LTD. AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 1440 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-23Read full judgment →
- QAMAR KHAN vs REHMATULLAH1984 CLC 1924 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-08Read full judgment →
- QAMAR DIN vs RENT CONTROLLER, CANTT. RAWALPINDI AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner (tenant) sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing his constitutional petition, which had challenged an eviction order granted in favour of the respondent landlady on the ground of personal requirement. The tenant argued that the landlady merely sought rent enhancement, had sold an annexe on the premises, and that an expenditure of Rs. 35,000 on improvements converted the tenancy into a fixed term. During the hearing, it was admitted that the tenant and most of his family had been residing in England for years, leaving the premises under the control of his son-in-law. The Supreme Court observed that the tenant had effectively abandoned the premises in favour of a son-in-law who held the status of a mere licensee or sub-tenant. Finding no bona fides or grounds warranting the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the petition, noting that the tenant remained free to pursue his disputed monetary claim for improvements before a competent civil court without affecting the eviction.
Questions settled- Whether the prolonged residence of a tenant abroad, leaving the premises in possession of a son-in-law without a fresh tenancy, amounts to abandonment of the tenancy?
- Whether findings of fact recorded by rent authorities can be interfered with under the discretionary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Whether an unresolved monetary claim for improvements made by a tenant to rented premises constitutes a valid legal bar to his eviction on the ground of personal requirement?
- QAMAR DIN AHMAD & Co. vs PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1984 CLC 952 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-27Read full judgment →
- QALANDAR ALI SHAH vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2275 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-05Read full judgment →
- QAIMUDDIN vs GHULAM SARWAR AND 3 OTHERS Opponents1984 P Cr. L J 1973 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
- QAIM KHAN and others vs Mst. ELAHI KHANUM and others1984 SCMR 1462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged an order of the Peshawar High Court, which had affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing their suit on the grounds of res judicata. The dispute concerned land originally mortgaged in 1910. The heirs of the original mortgagor had previously sued for a declaration of ownership and possession, succeeding up to the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a new suit claiming ownership by asserting that the mortgagors' rights had been extinguished due to the expiry of the 60-year limitation period. The trial court dismissed this subsequent suit, ruling that the issue of limitation and the nature of the mortgage had already been directly and substantially decided in the previous litigation. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting that the petitioners' current plea regarding the expiry of the limitation period had been explicitly raised and adjudicated in the earlier proceedings. Consequently, the Court held that the principle of res judicata barred the re-litigation of these issues, thereby dismissing the petition and affirming the lower courts' dismissal of the suit.
Questions settled- Does the principle of res judicata bar a subsequent suit where the core issue of limitation was already decided in previous litigation between the same parties?
- Can a party re-litigate the issue of the expiry of a mortgage limitation period if that specific issue was adjudicated in a prior suit?
- QADIR BAKHSH vs S.H.O., P.S. KALA,DISTRICT D.G. KHAN1984 MLD 1306 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-22Read full judgment →
- QADEER AHMAD vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER-BWP1984 PLC 401 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-27Read full judgment →
- Q A MARUDDIN KHAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3105 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-03Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB. ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD1984 PLC 1547 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-09-19Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOT LAKPHAT DEPOT, LAHORE vs IRSHAD GILL1984 PLC 1408 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOT LAKHPAT, LAHORE vs SHAUKAT ALI1984 PLC 1421 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs WAJID HUSSAIN /1984 PLC 1056 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs SHAYAM RAZA AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLC 207 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-04-11Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD ZAHID1984 PLC 525 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-19Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD RIAZ AHMAD1984 PLC 528 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-20Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD NAEEM KHAN1984 PLC 1028 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-25Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD IHSAN1984 PLC 928 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs J. C. KHAN1984 PLC 732 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-21Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs IFTIKHAR AHMAD1984 PLC 959 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-07-03Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs ALI MUHAMMAD HAFIZ1984 PLC 991 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-12Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs ABDUL RAZZAQ AND OTHERS1984 PLC 1002 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs ABDUL HAKEEM AND 4 OTHERS1984 PLC 202 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-04-11Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER, ICHHRA DEPOT, LAHORE vs SALEEM MAHMOOD1984 PLC 1437 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER vs SUBEDAR KHAN1984 PLC 1082 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER vs NOOR MUHAMMAD1984 PLC 1041 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD1984 PLC 605 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER vs MUKHTAR AHMAD1984 PLC 1097 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER vs JAVED AKHTAR1984 PLC 1098 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER vs ABDUL LATIF1984 PLC 937 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGBR vs RAEES AHMAD1984 PLC 1062 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION (ICHHRA DEPOT) LAHORE AND ANOTHER vs JAVED IQBAL1984 PLC 1414 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, LAHORE vs WALTER L. MALL1984 SCMR 251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a dispute over whether a piece of land forms part of Khasra No. 673 or Khasra No. 674. The petitioner claimed the land under Khasra No. 674, while the respondent claimed it was included in Khasra No. 673 purchased via a registered sale-deed and a subsequent rectification deed. The trial court dismissed the respondent's suit for permanent injunction, but the appellate court ruled in favor of the respondent, and the revision was dismissed. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court found the record and the Local Commissioner's report inconclusive regarding the precise demarcation of the disputed land. Consequently, with the agreement of the parties' counsel, the Supreme Court set aside the lower decisions, converted the petition into an appeal, and remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh determination and further evidence.
Questions settled- Whether the disputed land forms a part of Khasra No. 673 or Khasra No. 674?
- Can a case be remanded to the trial court for fresh determination when the appellate court's report and record are inconclusive?
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD/Pb. vs G. T. S. LABOUR UNION AND OTHERS1984 PLC 59 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →