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.

• PAKISTAN OILFIELDS LTD. vs SULTAN MAHMOOD1984 PLC 808 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-25Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd. vs Mst. AYESHABI and 2 others1984 CLC 2941 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION vs S. TASLIM HAIDER1984 PLC 671 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-12-11Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION vs S. M. SIBTAIN1984 PLC 821 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-18Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION vs MANSOOR KHAN /1984 PLC 1033 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-09
  income tax assessmentfree reservesconstitutional petitionultra vireswithdrawal of petitionres judicatalegislative competence
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged income-tax assessment orders levied on the "free reserves" of the Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation. The petitioner contended that the legislation taxing these reserves was ultra vires the Constitution of 1962, arguing that "free reserves" did not fall within the constitutional definition of "income." The Court addressed preliminary objections regarding laches, the maintainability of the petition due to a pending reference, and the effect of withdrawing a previous petition. The Court held that the legislation taxing "free reserves" was intra vires, as the term "income" in a constitutional context must be construed liberally to encompass any profit or gain actually received, including unappropriated profits retained as reserves. Furthermore, the Court established that the withdrawal of a petition under Order XXIII, Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, without an express order refusing permission to file a fresh petition, does not bar a subsequent constitutional petition on the same cause of action. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withdrawal of a petition under Order XXIII, Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, without an express refusal of permission, bar a subsequent petition on the same cause of action?
  • Can the legislature validly impose income tax on the "free reserves" of a corporation under the Constitution of 1962?
  • Does the pendency of a reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act 1922 bar a constitutional petition challenging the vires of the taxing legislation?
  Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. vs MAHBOOB INDUSTRIES LTD. AND 10 OTHERS1984 PLD Karachi 82 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-22
  foreign currency loanrate of exchangenull and voiddecree preparationstatutory interpretationretrospective effect
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the preparation of a decree following a judgment in a suit for the recovery of a foreign currency loan. The core legal question was whether a decree should be signed and prepared when the underlying judgment, which determined the applicable rate of exchange for loan repayment, had been rendered null and void by the subsequent promulgation of the Foreign Currency Loans (Rate of Exchange) Order 1982. The court held that the decree could not be prepared or signed. The ratio of the decision is that because Clause 4(2) of the Foreign Currency Loans (Rate of Exchange) Order 1982 explicitly declares any judgment or decree inconsistent with the Order to be null and void, the judgment in question lost its legal existence upon the commencement of the Order. Consequently, a decree cannot be drawn up based on a non-existent judgment. The key principle laid down is that where a statutory provision renders a judgment null and void, the court is precluded from preparing or signing a decree based on that judgment, regardless of procedural rules requiring decrees to follow judgments.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court prepare and sign a decree based on a judgment that has been rendered null and void by a subsequent legislative order?
  • Does the Foreign Currency Loans (Rate of Exchange) Order 1982 apply to judgments passed before its commencement?
  • What is the effect of an inconsistency between a court judgment and the Foreign Currency Loans (Rate of Exchange) Order 1982?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Industrial Credit And Investment Corp. Ltd. vs Mahboob IndustriesPTCL 1984 (CL) 181 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-22Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN ENGINEERING Co. LTD. QABOOL SHAH vs QABOOL SHAH PAKISTAN1984 PLC 912 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• PAKISTAN ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL CONSTRUCTORS LTD. vs CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 325 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-19Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN DAY MEMORIAL COMMITTEE AND ANOTHER vs MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ &1984 CLC 3332 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-20
  restoration of appealdismissal for non-prosecutionsufficient causenegligence of counselabsence of appellantappellate court discretioncivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil miscellaneous petition sought the restoration of an appeal that was dismissed for non-prosecution after the appellants and their counsel failed to appear at the appointed time on the fixed date of hearing. The core legal questions centered on whether an appeal can be decided on merits in the absence of the appellant, and whether sufficient cause was shown by the appellants and their counsel for their non-appearance to warrant the re-admission of the appeal under Order XLI Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Lahore High Court held that an appellate court has the discretion to dismiss an appeal in default or adjourn it when the appellant is absent, and cannot decide the appeal on merits in such absence. The Court further held that neither the appellants nor their counsel provided a sufficient and satisfactory explanation for their absence, and filing a restoration petition on the same day does not automatically entitle a party to restoration without establishing sufficient cause. The key principles laid down include that government bodies are not entitled to preferential treatment regarding procedural diligence, negligence of counsel without special circumstances does not excuse default, and the absence of both the party and counsel without cogent explanation precludes the restoration of a dismissed appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can decide an appeal on its merits in the absence of the appellant?
  • Does the filing of a restoration petition on the same day as the dismissal in default constitute a sufficient ground in itself for the restoration of the appeal?
  • Whether a government or public committee is entitled to preferential treatment in civil procedural matters regarding delays and default in appearance?
  • What constitutes sufficient cause for the non-appearance of a counsel engaged in inquiries before another forum at the time fixed for hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN CENTRAL HOMOEPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL BOARD, KARACHI vs Syed ASHFAQ KAZMI AND 4 OTHERS1984 CLC 2117 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-21Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN BEVERAGE LTD. vs THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (FOOD) and another1984 CLC 2687 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-27Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER vs ALI KAUSAR1984 PLD Supreme Court 354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-29
  temporary employeeFederal Public Service Commissionconditional appointmentconstitutional guaranteetermination of serviceprobationercivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, which dismissed an appeal and upheld a decree declaring the termination of the respondent's temporary service as an Assistant Drilling Engineer to be illegal. The respondent was appointed temporarily subject to the approval of the Federal Public Service Commission, and upon being found unfit by the Commission, his services were terminated. The core legal question was whether a temporary employee whose appointment is conditional upon the approval of the Public Service Commission is entitled to constitutional guarantees against dismissal or removal without a show-cause notice. The Supreme Court held that the employment was tentative and incomplete until the fulfillment of the condition regarding the Commission's approval, and therefore the constitutional guarantees were not attracted. The Court laid down the principle that where an appointment is made subject to a precedent condition such as the approval of a service commission, the non-fulfillment of that condition brings the employment to an end without requiring formal disciplinary proceedings or attracting constitutional protections.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employment made subject to the approval of the Federal Public Service Commission is amenable to constitutional guarantees against termination?
  • Does the termination of a tentative employee upon failing to secure approval from the Public Service Commission amount to dismissal or removal from service requiring formal disciplinary proceedings?
  • What is the legal effect of terms such as 'until further orders' when the appointment is expressly subject to a precedent condition of suitability?
  • Whether the advice of the Federal Public Service Commission is binding on the Government when the department has left the retention of an employee to the Commission's determination?
  Read full judgment →
• PAK ELEKTRON LTD. AND ANOTHER vs RAFIQ HUSSAIN SHAH1984 PLC 1213 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
• PAK AMERICAN FERTILIZERS LTD., MIANWALI vs AM IR ABDULLAH KHAN AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2170 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-28
  export taxtaxing statute interpretationcorporate personalityparent and subsidiary companymanufacturer vs exporterOrder XVII Rule 3 CPCLand Revenue Act bar of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular First Appeal was filed by Pak American Fertilizers Ltd. against a trial court decree ordering it to pay Rs. 3,25,270 with interest as arrears of export tax on fertilizers to a lessee of the Zila Council. The appellant argued that it was merely a manufacturer, while an independent corporate entity, National Fertilizer Marketing Ltd., handled marketing and export. The core legal questions were whether the appellant as a manufacturer could be held liable for tax imposed specifically on the exporter, and whether separate state-owned corporate entities could be treated as one for tax liability. The High Court accepted the appeal and set aside the decree. The Court held that taxing statutes must be strictly construed, and 'production' cannot be equated with 'export'. Furthermore, a parent company and its subsidiary (or distinct government-owned corporations) remain separate juristic entities, and the acts or tax liabilities of one cannot automatically be attributed to the other.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tax levied on the export of goods can be recovered from a manufacturer that does not export the goods?
  • Whether two separate government-owned corporate bodies can be treated as a single juristic entity to shift tax liability from one to the other?
  • Does Section 172(2)(xv) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 bar a civil suit for the recovery of taxes imposed by a local body?
  • Must a taxing statute or notification be strictly construed against the taxing authority?
  Read full judgment →
• PAHORA vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES) AND OTHERS1984 CLC 2230 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-18Read full judgment →
• PAHLAJ RAI and 5 others vs Mst. MJMTIAZI BEGUM1984 MLD 1027 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-27Read full judgment →
• PACKAGES LTD., LAHORE AMANAT ALI vs AMANAT ALI PACKAGES LTD., LAHORE1984 PLC 919 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• PACKAGES LTD. vs SARDAR MASIH1984 PLC 607 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-22Read full judgment →
• PACKAGES LTD. vs KHYBER ELECTRIC LAMPS MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.1984 PLD Peshawar 133 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-27Read full judgment →
• PACKAGES LIMITED vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF CHUGHTAI and others1984 MLD 1488 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-01Read full judgment →
• Packages Limited vs Khyber Electric Lamps Manu Facturing CompanyPTCL 1984 (CL) 273 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• P. N. P. RICE MILLS, DHAUNKAL vs MUHAMMAD AKHTAR1984 PLC 873 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
• OWNERS BUS No, FDC-8297 vs KHADIM HUSSAIN1984 PLC 1176 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
• OSMAN vs ABDUL HAQ1984 MLD 619 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-26Read full judgment →
• ORIENTAL SHIPPING COMPANY LTD. vs M. V. MONTE CRISTO AND OTHERS1984 CLC 2265 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-05-01
  admiralty jurisdictionmaritime lienshipping agentdisbursementssupply of necessariesaction in remchange of ownershiplimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an admiralty suit filed by a shipping agent for the recovery of disbursements made on behalf of a vessel against the ship and subsequent purchasers. The core legal questions relate to whether a shipping agent's claim for disbursements creates a maritime lien that travels with the ship upon a change of ownership, whether the suit is maintainable under the Admiralty Court Act 1861, and whether the plaintiff successfully proved the incurred expenses. The court held that claims for building, equipping, repairing, or supplying necessaries to a ship under sections 4 and 5 of the Admiralty Court Act 1861 do not confer a maritime lien, particularly when the ship is not under arrest at the institution of the cause and the owner is domiciled within jurisdiction. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to prove the disbursements through admissible evidence and account books. The suit was consequently dismissed as not maintainable against the contesting defendants.

  Questions settled

  • Does a claim for necessaries or repairs supplied to a ship create a maritime lien under the Admiralty Court Act 1861?
  • Whether a suit in rem under the Admiralty Court Act 1861 is maintainable against a ship that has changed ownership when the cause of action accrued against the previous owner?
  • Can unverified bills and documents be admitted as proof of disbursements without producing account books and the primary makers of the documents?
  • Does the limitation period for a shipping agent's recovery suit fall under Article 61 or Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• ORIENT MATCH FACTORY LTD. AND ANOTHER vs Syed NAZIR HUSSAIN NAQVI1984 PLC 1234 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-13Read full judgment →
• OMAR vs SANJAR (REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS)1984 CLC 2675 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
• OIL & GAS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD SHAFT1984 PLC 1153 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• OFFICERS ASSOCIATION vs MECHANISED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN LTD., LAHORE1984 PLC 1566 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1984-07-22Read full judgment →
• OBYAR AND ANOTHER vs THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, RAWALPINDI AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Lahore 162 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-30
  clemency powersArticle 45justiciabilityIslamic injunctionsmercy petitioncommutation of sentencemartial lawjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the President of Pakistan's rejection of a mercy petition seeking the commutation of death sentences awarded by a Special Military Court. The petitioners argued that the President, under Article 45 of the Constitution, was obligated to exercise clemency powers in accordance with the principles of Qur'an and Sunnah, specifically regarding the compoundability of offences following a compromise with the heirs of the deceased. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine. The Court held that the power of the President to grant pardon, reprieve, or commute sentences under Article 45 is unfettered and not justiciable. The Court emphasized that it cannot enforce Islamic injunctions as law until they are formally enacted by the legislature. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Federal Shariat Court's declaration regarding the repugnancy of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code was sub judice and suspended, thus not constituting the law of the land. Finally, the Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the President's official acts or to suspend sentences passed by Military Courts.

  Questions settled

  • Is the exercise of power by the President under Article 45 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 justiciable?
  • Can the High Court direct the President to exercise clemency powers based on principles of Qur'an and Sunnah before such principles are enacted as law?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to suspend the execution of a sentence passed by a Special Military Court?
  • Is the definition of 'law' in the Constitution confined to statute law?
  Read full judgment →
• OBAIDUR REHMAN vs THE STATE1984 PLD Federal Shariat Court 128 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-05-15Read full judgment →
• NUSRAT PARVEEN vs MUHAMMAD HANIF1984 MLD 1136 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
• NUSRAT PARVEEN vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM1984 MLD 498 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
• NURUL HAQ vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Supreme Court 75 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-08
  Martial Law Regulation 114Co-operative societyCorporation serviceGovernment serviceConstitutional petitionService lawStatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition against the appellant's retirement under Martial Law Regulation No. 114. The core legal question was whether the appellant, employed by the Frontier Co-operative Bank, qualified as a "person in government service" or "person in corporation service" under the Regulation. The Supreme Court held that the appellant had ceased to be a government servant upon his permanent transfer to the bank in 1949. Crucially, the Court determined that a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, does not constitute a "corporation" as defined in Martial Law Regulation No. 114, because it is a voluntary organization, not an institution set up or established by the government or by a special statute. Consequently, the appellant was not amenable to the Regulation. The Court ruled that actions taken without jurisdiction under such regulations are not saved by validating provisions. The appeal was allowed, and the removal order was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Does a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, qualify as a 'corporation' under Martial Law Regulation No. 114?
  • Is an employee of a co-operative society considered a 'person in government service' or 'person in corporation service' for the purposes of Martial Law Regulation No. 114?
  • Can actions taken without jurisdiction under Martial Law Regulation No. 114 be saved by validating provisions of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Not vs Not1984 PTD (Trib.) 79 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1983-10-01Read full judgment →
• NOORUDDIN HUSSAIN AND ANOTHERS vs DIAMOND VACUUM BOTTLE1984 CLC 1549 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-31Read full judgment →
• NOORA AND OTHERS vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS1984 CLC 267 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-18Read full judgment →
• NOORA alias Noor vs TUFAIL1984 MLD 1138 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-17Read full judgment →
• NOOR ZAMAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2468 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-28Read full judgment →
• NOOR SILK MILLS LTD. vs INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2048 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-01Read full judgment →
• NOOR SAMAND vs ISMAIL AND OTHERS1984 CLC 2185 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-27Read full judgment →
• NOOR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1343 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-26Read full judgment →
• NOOR MUHAMMAD vs SHAKEELUDDIN AHMED and another1984 P Cr. L J 2161 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
• NOOR MUHAMMAD vs SHAH MUHAMMAD AND 8 OTHERS1984 CLC 405 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-08Read full judgment →
• NOOR MUHAMMAD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 5 OTHERS1984 CLC 177 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
• NOOR MUHAMMAD vs PUNJAB GOVERNMENT1984 CLC 478 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
• NOOR MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM and others1984 SCMR 1530 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-28
  pre-emptionrejection of plaintprobable value depositcivil petition for leave to appealconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal seeking to assail the concurrent findings of the lower courts and the High Court, which upheld the rejection of the petitioner's plaint. The core legal question concerns the legality of the rejection of a plaint under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, due to the failure of the plaintiff to deposit the one-fifth probable value within the stipulated time. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error in the concurrent findings recorded by the three preceding forums regarding the failure to deposit the requisite amount. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the principle that failure to comply with statutory deposit requirements under pre-emption law justifies the rejection of the plaint.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaint can be rejected under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 for failure to deposit the one-fifth probable value in time?
  • Can concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the non-compliance of statutory deposit requirements be successfully assailed without showing a legal error?
  Read full judgment →
• NOOR MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH AND 9 OTHERS1984 CLC 1328 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
• NOOR MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH AND 7 OTHERS1984 SCMR 1578 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-18
  election disputeZilla CouncildisqualificationGovernment servantretrospective removalnomination papersElection Tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's judgment dismissing his writ petition against an order of the Election Tribunal, Faisalabad. The petitioner had been declared elected as a member of the Zilla Council on 28-09-1983. Respondent No. 1 challenged the election on the ground that the petitioner was a Government servant on election day and thus disqualified. The petitioner, a Zilladar, had been absent since 29-07-1981, dismissed on 19-10-1983 retrospectively, and later had the penalty altered in appeal on 23-01-1984 to removal from service with retrospective effect from 29-07-1981 under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that on the actual day of the election (28-09-1983), no order terminating his service had yet been passed, meaning he was undeniably in Government service on that crucial date. A subsequent retrospective order of removal cannot cure an existing statutory disqualification on election day, rendering the election void.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retrospective order of removal from Government service cure a candidate's disqualification existing on the date of the election?
  • Whether an employee remains in Government service for election purposes if no termination order has been passed prior to or on the election day?
  • Does an Election Tribunal rightly declare an election void if the winning candidate was an un-terminated Government servant on the polling date?
  Read full judgment →
• NOOR MUHAMMAD vs KHALIL AHMAD QURESUI1984 MLD 748 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-23Read full judgment →
• NOOR MUHAMMAD vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD1984 CLC 1183 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-09Read full judgment →
• NOOR MUHAMMAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/CONTROLLING AUTHORITY,1984 PLD Lahore 15 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
• NOOR MUHAMMAD vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 51984 PLC (C. S.) 211 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• NOOR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs HASHMAT ALI AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 621 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-15
  second appealconcurrent findingsbona fide personal requirementejectmentappraisal of evidenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court which set aside concurrent findings of the lower courts and allowed the respondents' ejectment application based on personal bona fide need. The core legal question concerns the limits of the High Court's jurisdiction in second appeal to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's personal requirement under rent laws, and whether minor discrepancies in evidence constitute material contradictions. The Supreme Court held that where the lower courts committed a fallacy in appraising evidence by treating minor discrepancies as vital contradictions while ignoring the core question of reasonable requirement, the High Court was justified in re-examining the evidence and reversing the finding. The Court affirmed that while concurrent findings of fact are normally sacrosanct in second appeal, a material mistaken assumption or flawed approach to evidence warrants interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal?
  • Do minor discrepancies in the statements of landlords regarding family members constitute material contradictions defeating a claim of bona fide requirement?
  • When does an error in appraising evidence by lower courts justify re-examination of facts by an appellate court?
  Read full judgment →
• NOOR MUHAMMAD and others vs FAZLA and others1984 MLD 93 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
• NOOR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD BHAI1984 CLC 2443 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-21Read full judgment →
• NOOR MUHAMMAD and 6 others vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND and 6 others1984 MLD 1216 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
• NOOR MUHAMMAD alias NOORA vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2028 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-22Read full judgment →
• NOOR MUHAMMAD alias NOOR A vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1075 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-19Read full judgment →
• NOOR MUHAM MAD vs DISTRICT JUDGE, BAHAWALPUR AND 2 OF HERS1984 CLC 1446 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-16Read full judgment →
• NOOR KHAN vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND omits1984 SCMR 681 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-17
  leave to appealpre-emptionAdvocate-on-Recordrecord of the petitiondiscretionary reliefconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition in a pre-emption matter decided by the Board of Revenue. During the hearing, the Supreme Court noted that the petitioner failed to place all necessary and relevant documents on the record, highlighting the duty of the Advocate-on-Record to ensure all relevant certified copies are provided. The Court observed that the failure to produce essential trial court documents before the High Court and this Court contravenes procedural rules and spirit. Holding that such conduct disentitles the party to discretionary relief, the Court declined to grant leave to appeal on this ground alone, while also noting that the petition lacked merits based on the available material. The key principle laid down is that the failure of an Advocate-on-Record to place essential and relevant documents on the record constitutes a valid ground for refusing discretionary relief.

  Questions settled

  • Is it the duty of the Advocate-on-Record to place all necessary and relevant documents on the record of the petition?
  • Does the failure to produce relevant documents before the High Court and the Supreme Court disentitle a petitioner to discretionary relief?
  • Can leave to appeal be refused solely on the ground of failure to supply the necessary record by the Advocate-on-Record?
  Read full judgment →
• NOOR HUSSAIN and others vs Mst. FATIMA and others1984 MLD 438 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
• NOOR DIN and anothers vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2616 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
• Noor Din and another vs The StatePTCL 1984 (CL) 266 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
• Noor Din And An Other vs The State.PTCL 1984 (CL) 266 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
• NOOR ARMED AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2081 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-15Read full judgment →
• NOOR AND 66 OTHERS vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE1984 PLC 755 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• NOOR ALI and another vs NOOR HUSSAIN1984 MLD 1100 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
• NOOR AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1608 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
• NOOR AHMAD SHAH AND 2 OTHERS vs AMANULLAH KHAN AND 9 OTHERS1984 PLD Rev. 5 · Board of Revenue · 1978-12-06Read full judgment →
• NOOR AHMAD AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 956 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-02Read full judgment →
• NOOR AHMAD and 3 others vs KABIR and 8 others1984 MLD 460 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-25Read full judgment →
• NIZAM SILK HOUSE vs CHAIRMAN, SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION and others1984 SCMR 1341 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-26
  specific performancevoid ab initiopublic utility landalienation of landcontract enforceabilityland revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Sind High Court, which had dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal and confirmed the dismissal of a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The petitioner had entered into an agreement to purchase land from the West Pakistan Road Transport Corporation, but the sale was aborted because the Deputy Commissioner refused permission, citing that the land was granted to the Corporation for public utility purposes and could not be alienated. The petitioner's suit for specific performance or damages was dismissed by the trial court and the High Court, which held that the land was granted for a specific public purpose and the sale was void ab initio. The Supreme Court reviewed the record and upheld the lower courts' findings, confirming that the land was indeed granted for public utility purposes, such as constructing garages and workshops, and was required to revert to the Government if not used for those purposes. Consequently, the contract was unenforceable, and the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contract for the sale of land be enforced if the land was granted for a specific public utility purpose and the sale violates that condition?
  • Does a suit for specific performance lie when the underlying agreement for the sale of land is void ab initio?
  • Is land granted to a public corporation for a specific purpose subject to reversion to the Government if the purpose is no longer served?
  Read full judgment →
• NIZAM DIN and 3 others vs KHAN MUHAMMAD1984 MLD 404 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-19Read full judgment →
• NIZAM and 2 others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2610 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
• NISAR alias NISARI AND ANOTHER vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLD Supreme Court 373 · Shariat Appellate BenchRead full judgment →
• NISAR ALI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 425 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-03Read full judgment →
• NISAR AHMAD vs AHMED HASSAN1984 CLC 3140 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-13Read full judgment →
• NISAR AHMAD AND OTHERS vs DISTRICT JUDGE, MUZAFFARGARH AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-09
  leave to appealevictionlandlord and tenantrelationship of landlord and tenantconstitutional jurisdictionplenary jurisdictionrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, occupants of a property in Muzaffargarh, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the District Judge. The respondent-landlord had sought eviction on grounds of default, damage, and personal need, while petitioner Nisar Ahmad denied the landlord-tenant relationship, claiming to be a co-sharer based on a will executed by the widow of a co-transferee's brother. The Rent Controller and District Judge both found against the petitioners and held the relationship existed. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller's finding on the disputed title and relationship could be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction, and how a claim based on a will should be addressed. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller acted within jurisdiction in deciding the existence of the relationship and such finding was not open to reversal in constitutional jurisdiction, but modified the order to allow the petitioner an opportunity to establish his claim of title in a court of plenary jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the finding of a Rent Controller regarding the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant is amenable to interference in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Can a tenant who claims title to the property under a will be relegated to a court of plenary jurisdiction to establish his claim?
  • Does the Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to decide the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant after inviting evidence from both parties?
  Read full judgment →
• NISAR AHMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs DISTRICT JUDGE, MUZAFFARGARH AND OTHERS1984 CLC 2130 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-27Read full judgment →
• NIKHAT RIAZ vs MANZOOR HASSAN AZMI1984 MLD 214 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-31Read full judgment →
• NIAZUL HAQ vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1273 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
• NIAZ MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE and another1984 P Cr. L J 2676 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
• NIAZ MUHAMMAD alias Niazoo and 3 others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2550 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
• NIAZ MUHA MMAD alias NAZOON vs ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT1984 P Cr. L J 1350 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• NIAZ HUSSAIN vs SECRETARY-GENERAL, MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND 51984 PLC (C. S.) 366 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-01-02Read full judgment →
• NIAZ ALI and other vs SULTAN ALI and other1984 SCMR 1542 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-10
  mukhbari applicationsettlement authoritiesintra-court appealleave to appealwrit petitionland claims
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of Intra-Court Appeals by the High Court. The petitioners had originally filed mukhbari applications against the respondents regarding land claims in Village Zafarwal, which were dismissed by the relevant Settlement authorities. Aggrieved by these decisions, the petitioners sought relief through writ petitions in the High Court, which were subsequently dismissed by a learned Single Judge. Further appeals filed by the petitioners in the form of Intra-Court Appeals were also dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the arguments presented by the petitioners' counsel. The Court observed that the petitioners' mukhbari applications had been consistently rejected by the Settlement authorities and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any valid grounds for the High Court to have decided otherwise. Finding no merit in the petitions or any justification for interference with the impugned judgment of the High Court, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal in both petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dismissal of a mukhbari application by Settlement authorities provide sufficient grounds for Supreme Court interference after concurrent findings by the High Court?
  • Is leave to appeal warranted when a petitioner fails to establish any legal error in the impugned judgment of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• NIAZ AHMED vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 126 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-10-22Read full judgment →
• NIAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1054 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-21
  right to counselfair trialadjournmentstate-appointed counselcriminal proceduretransfer of casespeedy trial
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, facing a murder trial, challenged the proceedings of the Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, who refused to grant adjournments when the petitioner's counsel fell ill and subsequently when his replacement counsel was busy elsewhere. The trial court proceeded to record all remaining prosecution evidence in a single day, appointing a counsel at State expense who had insufficient time to prepare. The core legal question was whether the trial court's haste in proceeding without affording the accused a reasonable opportunity to be defended by counsel of his choice violated statutory rights and judicial norms. The Court held that the trial court acted with undue haste, violating the accused's statutory right to be defended by counsel under Section 340, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the High Court Rules and Orders. The Court emphasized that speedy disposal cannot come at the cost of justice. Consequently, the proceedings were quashed, a fresh trial was ordered, and the case was transferred to an Additional Sessions Judge to ensure a fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the appointment of a counsel at State expense on the day of trial, without sufficient time for preparation, violate the accused's right to a fair trial?
  • Is a trial court justified in refusing an adjournment when the accused's chosen counsel is unavailable due to illness or prior professional engagements?
  • What is the minimum time required for a State-appointed counsel to prepare a defense in a capital case?
  • Can a trial court's proceedings be quashed if the court acts with undue haste in recording evidence to the detriment of the accused's defense?
  Read full judgment →
• NIAZ AHMAD AND OTHERS vs GHULAM ABBAS BHATTI AND OTHRRS1984 SCMR 236 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-16
  ejectmenttenancy agreementoral leaserent restrictionregistered instrumentbona fide personal use
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed an application for the ejectment of a tenant. The petitioners sought eviction for bona fide personal use, but the tenant successfully argued that the tenancy, based on an oral agreement for ten years, was still subsisting, rendering the application premature under the first proviso to Section 13(3)(ii)(c) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The petitioners contended that the oral lease was invalid under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, which requires a registered instrument for leases exceeding one year, and thus the proviso protecting the tenant should not apply. The High Court rejected this, holding that the Rent Restriction Ordinance overrides the Transfer of Property Act regarding ejectment procedures. The Supreme Court, noting the legal significance of whether general laws governing the validity of tenancy agreements are excluded by the Rent Restriction Ordinance, granted leave to appeal. The Court specifically identified the need to re-examine the correctness of the precedent established in Muhammad Yousaf v. Muhammad Ahmad.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Rent Restriction Ordinance exclude the application of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 regarding the validity of tenancy agreements?
  • Is an oral agreement for a lease exceeding one year valid for the purpose of claiming protection under the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
  • Must a tenancy agreement conform to general laws like the Transfer of Property Act 1882 to be considered a valid agreement under the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• NIAZ AHMAD AND OTHERS vs GHULAM ABBAS BHATTI AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1089 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-16
  ejectmentdefault in rentpersonal needspecified period tenancyleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants filed an application for the ejectment of respondent No. 1 from a shop on the grounds of personal need and default in rent payment. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, and subsequent appeals and writ petitions filed by the appellants in the Lahore High Court were also dismissed. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the application of the rent restriction law and tenancy agreements. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below established the existence of a valid agreement for a specified tenancy period of ten years during which eviction could not be sought, and further noted that the appellants failed to establish their bona fide personal requirement for the premises. Consequently, the Supreme Court withdrew the leave to appeal and dismissed the proceedings, affirming the lower courts' decisions upholding the tenancy.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord seek ejectment of a tenant before the expiry of a tenancy agreed upon for a specified period?
  • Whether oral evidence is admissible to prove a tenancy agreement when its existence is contested?
  • Does the failure to establish bona fide personal requirement defeat an ejectment application?
  Read full judgment →
• NIAZ AHM AD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1420 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-18Read full judgment →
• NIAMAT KHAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1201 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-16Read full judgment →
• NIAMAT AND ANOTHER vs ALLAH BANDA AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 321 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-09
  evacuee propertysettlement authoritiesfindings of factwrit jurisdictionconstitutional petitiontampering of recordabatement of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal examines whether the High Court of Lahore was justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Settlement Authorities regarding the transfer of evacuee property under extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. The core legal question concerns the limits of writ jurisdiction in reversing findings of fact involving disputed records and alleged tampering by settlement officials. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with well-considered findings of fact by specialized settlement authorities, which were supported by survey registers and evidence of continuous possession, especially where the auction purchaser's bid-sheet contained material discrepancies and tampering. The Court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of fact recorded by specialized administrative tribunals based on record custodianship should not be lightly disturbed under constitutional jurisdiction unless the conclusions are perverse or based on no evidence. Furthermore, technical objections regarding the abatement of appeals due to delayed substitution of legal representatives in the Supreme Court are governed by specific court rules rather than automatic provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by Settlement Authorities in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does an appeal before the Supreme Court automatically abate upon the death of a respondent if legal representatives are not impleaded within time?
  • How should admissions made by an illiterate litigant resulting from departmental tampering of records be construed?
  Read full judgment →
• NIAMAT ALI vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1984 PLC (C. S.) 725 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-01-08Read full judgment →
• NAZRA AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1387 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-31Read full judgment →
• NAZIR vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2175 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
• NAZIR MASIH KHOKHAR vs DIRECTOR OF FOOD, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1498 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-19Read full judgment →