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.

• NAZIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 PLD Lahore 509 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-08Read full judgment →
• NAZIR HUSSAIN vs TAJ MUHAMMAD and another1984 SCMR 1218 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-29
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantrelationship of landlord and tenantdefault in rentregistered sale deedconcurrent findingspetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an ejectment petition filed by the respondents against the petitioner under section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, alleging default in rent payment and the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship based on a registered sale deed. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment, which decision was successively upheld by the Additional District Judge in appeal and the Peshawar High Court in second appeal. The core legal question concerns the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant and whether the lower courts properly evaluated the oral and documentary evidence in determining this relationship. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on proper appreciation of evidence, noting that the respondent established ownership via a registered sale deed and supporting testimony, whereas the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of inheritance or ownership through a dower deed. Leave to appeal was refused and the petition dismissed. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant, supported by documentary and oral evidence, will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court when the contesting party fails to substantiate its contrary claims.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant?
  • Does the failure to produce a claimed dower deed undermine a tenant's denial of the landlord-tenant relationship?
  • Is a registered sale deed sufficient to support a finding of ownership in rent restriction proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• NAZIR HUSSAIN SHAH AND 5 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2025 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-27Read full judgment →
• NAZIR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3223 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
• NAZIR AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 728 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-20Read full judgment →
• Nazir and 2 others vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1582 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-09Read full judgment →
• NAZIR AHMED vs Seth K A RIM1984 CLC 1118 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
• NAZIR AHMAD--Applicant/Petitioner vs CHUTTO alias DADO1984 MLD 783 · Sindh High Court · 1984-07-04Read full judgment →
• NAZIR AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 972 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-20
  criminal appealmurderocular testimonyidentification doubtbenefit of doubtacquittalappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, by special leave, arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the appellant's death sentence for murder. The prosecution case alleged that the appellant entered the house of the deceased at night, lit a torch, engaged in a dialogue, and fatally shot the deceased due to a family dispute over the marriage of the deceased's daughter. The Supreme Court re-appraised the ocular testimony and identified serious flaws concerning the identification of the assailant at night, the artificial introduction of a lighted torch and dialogue to establish identity, the false implication and subsequent dropping of a second accused, and unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report. Holding that the evidence left grave doubt regarding the true identity of the assailant and that an assassin would not ordinarily proclaim his identity, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the identification of an accused at night solely through a lighted torch and alleged voice recognition is sufficient to sustain a capital conviction?
  • Does the false implication or doubtful identification of a co-accused cast serious doubt on the entire prosecution case against the main accused?
  • Whether an assassin stealthily committing a crime at night would normally proclaim his name and identity to the victims?
  Read full judgment →
• NAZIR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLD Lahore 392 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
• NAZIR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD FIAZ1984 PLD Lahore 149 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-21Read full judgment →
• NAZIR AHMAD vs MAHMOOD AHMAD and others1984 CLC 2658 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-26Read full judgment →
• NAZIR AHMAD SWATI vs ESTABLISHMENT SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 183 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-10-31Read full judgment →
• NAZIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS KOHINOOR MILLS1984 PLC 888 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-06-17Read full judgment →
• NAZIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER vs GHULAM RASUL AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-03
  settlement propertynature of propertyintra-court appealwrit petitiontransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from civil petitions for leave to appeal against judgments of the Lahore High Court concerning the disputed nature of a property in Faisalabad, previously transferred as a house to the predecessor of the private respondents and subsequently auctioned as a shop to the petitioners. The core legal question involved whether the High Court and settlement authorities correctly determined the property to be a house, and whether an intra-court appeal was competent against the dismissal of the writ petition. The Supreme Court held that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the High Court rightly concluded upon thorough examination of evidence that the property was a house, and that the intra-court appeal was barred under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming that findings of fact by tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction based on proper reasoning do not warrant interference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an intra-court appeal is competent against an order dismissing a writ petition arising from proceedings where the original order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was appealable?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a factual determination made by a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction regarding the character of a disputed property?
  • Whether the prior transfer of a property as a house holds the field when subsequent settlement proceedings establish its correct character?
  Read full judgment →
• NAZIR AHMAD AND 3 OTHERS vs THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY, IRRIGATION AND 7 OTHERS1984 PLC 467 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
• NAZIM KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1092 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-12
  criminal appealdying declarationchance witnessessafe administration of criminal justicebenefit of doubtabscondencecorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of three brothers under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, where the trial court and High Court had reached conflicting conclusions regarding the reliability of evidence. The core legal question concerned whether the conviction was based on established principles for the safe administration of criminal justice, specifically regarding the credibility of chance witnesses, the integrity of a dying declaration, and the weight of abscondence as corroborative evidence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution case suffered from serious infirmities. The Court found that the dying declaration was suspect, having been recorded at a police station in the presence of relatives, and that the eye-witnesses were unreliable chance witnesses whose testimony contained material contradictions. The Court rejected the High Court's hypothesis that such contradictions were merely police recording errors. Emphasizing that the benefit of reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused, the Court set aside the convictions. The judgment reaffirms that abscondence alone cannot corroborate a weak case and that dying declarations recorded in the presence of interested relatives are less credible.

  Questions settled

  • Is a dying declaration recorded at a police station in the presence of relatives considered reliable?
  • Does the abscondence of an accused provide sufficient corroboration for a conviction when the prosecution case is otherwise weak?
  • Should material contradictions in witness statements be excused as mere misunderstandings by the police officer recording the statement?
  • What is the evidentiary value of the testimony of chance witnesses in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• NAZIM HUSSAIN vs MESSRS SHAH BOTTLERS LTD., LAHORE1984 PLC 480 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-08-08Read full judgment →
• NAZIM ALI ZAIDI vs KAREEM JEE IBRAHIM JEE & SONS, KARACHI and another1984 MLD 773 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-25Read full judgment →
• NAZIM ALI vs MANAGEMENT OF UNITED BANK LTD.1984 PLC 1557 · Labour Court · 1982-08-01Read full judgment →
• NAZEER HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2683 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-27Read full judgment →
• NAZEER alias JEERA vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2455 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-09Read full judgment →
• NAZEER AHMAD and 5 others vs GHULAM MEHDI and 9 others1984 MLD 849 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-21Read full judgment →
• NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1678 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-09Read full judgment →
• NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA and others1984 SCMR 1317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-07
  settlement lawproperty transfervertical divisionP.T.D.N.C.H. Formremandleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of property portions within a Sarai in Sargodha under settlement laws. Initially, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred specific ground-floor and first-floor rooms to the petitioner and respondent, respectively. Following an appeal, the petitioner obtained a vertical division of the property, cancelling the respondent's transfer. After protracted litigation, including a remand by the High Court, the Settlement Commissioner set aside the vertical division and restored the original transfer order, citing that the rooms in the respondent's occupation had been improperly transferred to the petitioner, who lacked access to the first floor. The petitioner challenged this in the High Court, which upheld the Settlement Commissioner's decision. The Supreme Court, in this petition for leave to appeal, rejected the petitioner's arguments regarding the respondent's failure to file a transfer form, noting the petitioner's own admission of the respondent's N.C.H. Form filing. The Court further held that the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Document (P.T.D.) did not preclude the settlement authorities from reopening the matter under the circumstances. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can settlement authorities reopen a transfer matter after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Document?
  • Does an admission in a memorandum of appeal regarding the filing of a transfer form preclude a party from later contesting that the form was not filed?
  Read full judgment →
• NAZAR MUHAMMAD BAJWA vs THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY, FOOD DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 683 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
• NAZAR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs SAMI KHAN AND OTHERS1984 CLC 305 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-24Read full judgment →
• NAZAR ABBAS SHAH vs UNITED BANK LTD. AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLC 1011 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-06Read full judgment →
• NAZAKAT ALI vs ASHIQ HUSSAIN AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 188 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-30
  criminal leave to appealmurderacquittalfalse implicationocular testimonycorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court acquitting the respondents who had been previously convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Ghazanfar Ali. The core legal question concerns the sustainability of the acquittal order and whether the High Court rightly appreciated the evidence, particularly given the false implication of one of the accused and other material discrepancies in the prosecution case. The Supreme Court held that the false implication of an accused person and the fabrication of recoveries react on the prosecution case as a whole, rendering ocular testimony untrustworthy without reliable corroboration. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the false implication of one accused affects the credibility of the prosecution case as a whole against the remaining co-accused?
  • Can ocular testimony be relied upon without corroboration when material doubts are cast on the presence of eyewitnesses?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court judgment of acquittal based on a proper appraisal of evidence and doubtful circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• NAWAZISH KHAN KHANZADA vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 2037 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-04Read full judgment →
• NAWAB KARIM vs MOEENA AKHLAQUE1984 CLC 3154 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-12Read full judgment →
• NAWAB DIN vs GHULAM DIN AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1523 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
• NAWAB DIN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3089 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-07Read full judgment →
• NAWAB BEGUM and another vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and another1984 SCMR 1202 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-14
  settlement caseurban propertytransfer of propertydiscretionary jurisdictionwrit jurisdictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises out of an urban settlement dispute concerning the transfer of a building to the Lahore Municipal Corporation for use as a school, against which the petitioners sought the transfer of a small portion in their possession through a C.H. Form. The Lahore High Court refused to grant relief in its writ jurisdiction, holding that the portion was inseparable from the main building and that its transfer for residential purposes would be detrimental to the school. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the transfer of the property in preference to a local institution. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's refusal to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction was fully justified given that the C.H. Form covered only a part of the school building. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that the discretionary writ jurisdiction of the High Court will not be interfered with where the refusal to grant relief is justified by the indivisible nature of the public property in dispute, and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court's refusal to grant relief in its discretionary writ jurisdiction is justified when the property in dispute is indivisible and meant for a public school?
  • Does a C.H. Form application for a part of a building override the transfer of the main building as an inseparable school property?
  • When will the Supreme Court refuse to grant leave to appeal in urban settlement matters concerning discretionary relief?
  Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL WORKERS' UNION (C.B.A.) NATIONAL SILK AND RAYON MILLS, FAISALABAD vs NATIONAL SILK MILLS LABOUR UNION AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1319 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• NATIONAL SAVINGS STAFF UNION (REGD.), LAHORE REGION, LAHORE vs THE CHIEF DIRECTOR, CENTRAL DIRECTORATE OF NATIONAL SAVINGS, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLC 1278 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• NATIONAL RADIO TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION vs THE CHAIRMAN, LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1135 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-15
  Industrial Relations Ordinanceinterpretation of settlementhouse rent allowancebasic wagesreference for interpretationleave to appealdefence establishment exemption
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, National Radio and Telecommunication Corporation (N.R.T.C.), sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of its constitutional petition by the Peshawar High Court, which had upheld the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. A settlement regarding house rent allowance had been reached between the petitioner and the respondent workers' union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. A dispute arose over the interpretation of 'basic wages' in the settlement, prompting the respondent to file a reference under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The petitioner objected, claiming exemption under section 1(3)(a) of the Ordinance as an establishment rendering services connected with defence, and argued that section 34 rather than section 50 was the proper remedy. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to produce evidence before the lower forums to substantiate its factual plea of exemption, noting its prior conduct of negotiating under the Ordinance. It further held that a reference under section 50 was competent for interpreting the disputed settlement clause, and that 'basic wages' had a clear identity distinct from the minimum of the revised national pay scale. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an establishment rendering services in connection with defence is exempt from the application of the Industrial Relations Ordinance under section 1(3)(a) when it has previously participated in proceedings under the same Ordinance?
  • Is a reference under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance competent for resolving a dispute regarding the interpretation of a settlement?
  • Can the expression 'basic wages' in a settlement between an employer and a collective bargaining agent be construed to mean the minimum of the revised national pay scale?
  Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL POLICE FOUNDATION COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. vs BOARD OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLD Lahore 191 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-29
  land acquisitionwithdrawal from acquisitionBoard of Revenueex officio Secretarymala fidepleading requirementsnecessary partyconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order 1981 challenged a memorandum issued by the Member (Revenue and Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, withdrawing land acquisition proceedings initiated for the petitioner-Society under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The petitioner argued that only the Provincial Government, not the Board of Revenue, possessed the authority to withdraw from acquisition under Section 48 of the Act, and further alleged that the withdrawal order was passed mala fide under the influence of an interested official. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the Senior Member of the Board of Revenue was ex officio Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Revenue Department, the withdrawal order was validly passed on behalf of the Government under Section 48. The Court also rejected the allegations of mala fide due to a failure to name or implead the specific officer alleged to have exercised undue influence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of withdrawal from land acquisition under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is valid if passed by an ex officio Secretary to the Government acting in his capacity as Member, Board of Revenue?
  • Can a plea of mala fide against an official decision succeed without impleading the specific person alleged to have exerted undue influence?
  • Whether vague and indefinite allegations of mala fide are sufficient to warrant a judicial inquiry into Government files?
  Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL MOTORS LTD. vs S. ABBAS HAIDER JAFRI1984 PLC 733 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-05-10Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES (PAKISTAN) LTD. vs EMPLOYEES' UNION1984 PLC 1642 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1983-08-27Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION LTD. vs Syed ALMAS NAQVI1984 PLC 804 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-28Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION LTD. vs STANDARD INSURANCE CO. LTD.1984 CLC 286 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-04
  joinder of partiesnecessary partyco-extensive liabilitysurety and principal debtorbank guaranteemobilisation advanceOrder I Rule 10 CPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment from the Sindh High Court addresses an application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, moved by the defendant guarantor in a suit for recovery based on a bank guarantee. The plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendant surety without joining the principal debtor, Integrated Construction Services, claiming that the surety's liability is co-extensive. The core legal question was whether the principal debtor is a necessary or proper party to the suit when the liability itself is contested and premised on the alleged breach of the principal contract. The court held that while a surety's liability is co-extensive, a right of action against the surety only arises once a default by the principal debtor is established or adjudicated. Because the underlying liability is genuinely contested and the acts of the principal debtor form the very foundation of the claim, the principal debtor is a necessary party to avoid multiplicity of suits and conflicting judgments. The court accordingly allowed the application to implead the principal debtor as a defendant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the principal debtor is a necessary party in a suit against a surety where the underlying liability is seriously contested?
  • Does a cause of action against a surety arise before the default of the principal debtor is established or adjudicated?
  • Can a court order the impleadment of a party under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 despite the plaintiff's opposition as dominus litis?
  Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION Co. (PAK.) LTD.GENERAL EMPLOYEES' UNION (C. B.1984 PLC 1393 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-05-30Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA KAMAL KHAN1984 PLC 445 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD HALEEM CHOHAN1984 PLC 557 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-23Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, HYDERABAD vs GHULAM MUSTAFA LARIK AND 41984 PLC 1448 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, FAISALABAD vs SALEEM GUL1984 PLC 1219 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
• National Bank Of Pakistan vs Taj MuhammadPTCL 1984 (CL) 330 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs Syed ISHRAT ALI1984 CLC 1907 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-08Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs Qazi KHAN MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 1335 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-12Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs N/A1984 SCMR 1436 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-29
  locus standi of complainant counselconduct of prosecutionSpecial JudgePublic Prosecutorre-summoning of witnessescriminal trialleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court upholding the decision of a Special Judge, which held that the counsel for the complainant in a case under section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, is not competent to independently file an application for the re-summoning of prosecution witnesses under section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a private complainant's counsel possesses the independent locus standi to conduct the prosecution or file applications in trials before a Special Judge without the active direction or authorization of the Public Prosecutor. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that under section 6(1) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, prosecutions before a Special Judge must be conducted by the appointed Public Prosecutor, and private counsel can only assist and not act independently, to avoid confusion. The key principle laid down is that while criminal acts offend both society and the individual, the State's representative alone remains in charge of the prosecution, though the State may appoint a complainant's counsel as a Special Public Prosecutor in suitable cases where necessary.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the counsel for a private complainant has the independent locus standi to file applications and conduct prosecution in a trial before a Special Judge?
  • Does section 6(1) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, require the prosecution before a Special Judge to be exclusively conducted by a Public Prosecutor?
  • Can a private counsel act independently of the Public Prosecutor in criminal proceedings without a formal appointment as a Special Public Prosecutor?
  • What is the role of a complainant's counsel vis-a-vis the Public Prosecutor during the conduct of a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs MUHAMMAD SAEED AKHTAR1984 PLC 759 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-14Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs MUHAMMAD RASHID /(1984 PLC 79 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-09-14Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs Mst. SUHAIL BI AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 1936 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-19Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs Mian ABDUL MAJID and 2 others1984 CLC 2893 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-25Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs Messrs ASIFOO ENTERPRISES and 4 others1984 MLD 852 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs MASTER RUBBER & TYRE Co. LTD. AND 41984 CLC 3497 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-13Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs MAHBOOB OIL MILLS AND 4 OTHERS1984 CLC 1853 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-06Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs HUMAYUN SULTAN MUFTI1984 CLC 1401 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-15
  banking suitreturn of plaintpecuniary jurisdictiontransferred suitleave to defendacknowledgment of liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the order of the Judge Special Court (Banking) returning a plaint for presentation in the proper court due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, after determining that the principal amount claimed was below the threshold of one lakh rupees. The core legal question was whether the Special Court correctly exercised its power under Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to return the plaint upon recalculation of interest and whether the suit was properly valued at the time of its initial institution. The Sindh High Court held that Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was inapplicable because the suit was not originally instituted in the Special Court, but rather transferred to it from the High Court where its institution was competent and lawful. Furthermore, the court held that the Special Court erred in determining the jurisdictional value without framing preliminary issues, recording evidence, or considering the specific acknowledgments of liability pleaded in the plaint. The appeal was accepted, the impugned order set aside, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to a suit that was originally instituted competently in one court and subsequently transferred to a Special Court?
  • Can a Special Court return a plaint for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction based solely on a freshly requested statement of account without framing issues or recording evidence?
  • Whether the valuation of a suit for jurisdictional purposes must account for written acknowledgments of liability pleaded in the plaint?
  Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs BABY AFSHAN and 3 others1984 MLD 722 · Sindh High Court · 1984-07-04Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs AZ1ZULLAH HASSAN and 2 others1984 MLD 1035 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE1984 CLC 1178 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-22Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs AMIN AHMED--Defendant1984 MLD 682 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-07Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs ABDUR RASHID KHAN1984 PLC 679 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs ABDUL HANIF through his Legal Heirs1984 MLD 645 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN LAHORE AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQ1984 PLC 455 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-04Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS vs SAADAT HASAN1984 PLC 1432 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-25Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL AND GRINDLAYS BANK LTD.Decree Holder vs N. P. MIRANDA AND 21984 CLC 2106 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-06
  execution of decreebanking recovery of loansspecial court jurisdictiondefinition of loanborrowerfraud and conspiracy
  Summary & questions settled

  This execution application was filed by a banking company to execute a decree passed against its employees and another person who had defrauded the bank through a conspiracy, resulting in a joint and several liability to compensate the bank. A question arose regarding the maintainability of the execution application before the High Court in view of the Banking (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, which transferred execution proceedings of decrees to Special Courts. The court held that the Special Court lacked jurisdiction because the liability of the defendants arose from fraud and conspiracy rather than a commercial transaction of a 'loan' or a relationship of lender and borrower as contemplated under the Ordinance. Consequently, the High Court ruled that it retained the competence and jurisdiction to execute the decree under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The key principle laid down is that liabilities arising out of tortious acts like fraud and criminal conspiracy do not constitute a 'loan' or create a 'borrower' status under the Banking (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979.

  Questions settled

  • Does a liability arising from fraud and conspiracy constitute a loan under the Banking (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does a Special Court established under the Banking (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 have jurisdiction to execute a decree founded on a tortious act rather than a commercial loan transaction?
  • Can employees who defraud a bank be classified as borrowers within the meaning of the Banking (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• NASRULLAH KHAN vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (HQR), OFFICE OF DIRECTOR, FLOODS, I & P DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 613 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-11-03Read full judgment →
• NASRIN BEGUM vs DIL MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLD SC (A J & K) 27 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-12-11Read full judgment →
• NASIRA NASIM vs SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (GENERAL), PAKISTAN1984 PLC 157 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-08-13Read full judgment →
• NASIR IFTIKHAR vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 638 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-28
  criminal appealmurderocular evidencehostile witnessappreciation of evidencecommon intentionmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant contended that since the High Court had acquitted his co-accused by rejecting the prosecution evidence, the same evidence should have been discarded regarding him. The core legal question was whether a conviction could be sustained based on the testimony of a single eyewitness when other prosecution witnesses had turned hostile and the co-accused was acquitted. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conviction was properly recorded. The Court affirmed that the testimony of a disinterested eyewitness, which remained unshaken during cross-examination and aligned with medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries, provided a sufficient basis for conviction. The Court emphasized that the rejection of evidence against one accused does not automatically invalidate the entire prosecution case against another, provided the remaining evidence is credible and corroborated. The Court found the eyewitness account reliable and the motive established, thereby upholding the lower court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of a single eyewitness if other prosecution witnesses have turned hostile?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused based on the rejection of prosecution evidence automatically entitle the remaining accused to an acquittal?
  • Is the testimony of an eyewitness sufficient to support a conviction when corroborated by medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• NASIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1123 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
• NASIR HAMAD vs THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION and another1984 SCMR 1367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-20
  premature retirementPakistan Broadcasting Corporationcivil servantmaster and servantbar of jurisdictionservice matterleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the petitioner against his premature retirement from the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation. The petitioner, who originally served in Radio Pakistan and was later transferred to the newly established Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation under the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Act 1973, was retired by the Chairman of the Corporation under the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Employees (Retirement from Service) Regulations 1980 after completing 25 years of qualifying service overall. The core legal questions involve whether the 25 years of service required for premature retirement under the 1980 Regulations must be served exclusively within the Corporation or could include prior service in Radio Pakistan, whether the Chairman of the Corporation was the competent authority, and whether the petition was barred by Article 13 of the Provisional Constitution Order. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these important questions, holding that the legal issues raised merit detailed consideration by the Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the 25 years of service qualifying for pension under the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Employees (Retirementจาก Service) Regulations 1980 must be accumulated exclusively within the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation or can include prior service rendered in Radio Pakistan?
  • Whether the Chairman of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation is the competent authority to retire an employee whose prior service was rendered under the Federal Government in Radio Pakistan?
  • Whether a writ petition challenging an order of premature retirement of an employee transferred from Radio Pakistan to the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation is barred by Article 13 of the Provisional Constitution Order?
  Read full judgment →
• NASIR ALI vs KOH-I-NOOR TEXTILE MILLS LTD., FAISALABAD1984 PLC 631 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
• NASIR AHMAD vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION_CHAIRMAN,PAKISTAN BROADCASTING.CORPORATION AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 372 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• NAZAR MASIH vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3151 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
• Nasir A. Sheikh vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Lahore.PTCL 1984 (CL) 159 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-09Read full judgment →
• NASIM SHAH vs MUHAMMAD ALI BATALVI1984 CLC 3157 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-07
  second appealejectmentpersonal requirementlandlord and tenantspecial attorneyburden of proofpleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 arises from an ejectment order concurrently passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court against the tenant on the grounds of default in rent and personal requirement of the landlord. The core legal question is whether the personal requirement of the landlord can be validly proved through a special attorney when the landlord himself does not appear as a witness. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fide personal requirement of the landlord are unassailable in second appeal, and that the testimony of the special attorney sufficiently established the requirement. The court also reiterated that parties cannot set up a case not pleaded in their written statement, in accordance with the principle of secundum allegata probatta.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the personal requirement of a landlord can be proved through a special attorney when the landlord fails to appear as a witness?
  • Is the High Court competent in second appeal to reverse concurrent findings of fact by re-assessing evidence?
  • Can a party be permitted to lead evidence on a fact not alleged in their written statement?
  Read full judgment →
• NASIM IQBAL AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2060 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
• NASIM HASSAN and 14 others vs KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION and 2 others1984 CLC 2896 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-18Read full judgment →
• NASIB KHAN vs MUHAMMAD SHAFFI, S. H. 0.1984 P Cr. L J 933 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-08Read full judgment →
• NASEER HYDER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1267 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-06Read full judgment →
• NASEER HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 PLD Lahore 67 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-05Read full judgment →
• NASEER AHMED vs Hafiz MUHAMMAD AHMED AND 17 OTHERS1984 CLC 340 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-14
  Temporary injunctionRestrictive covenantNuisanceEasement rightsPrivacyPrima facie caseCommercial use of residential propertyBreach of covenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, filed under Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980, challenged an interim injunction granted by a single judge of the Sindh High Court. The original suit sought a declaration that plots in Malir Township were for residential use, a permanent injunction against commercial use, and damages. The appellant, an allottee, was restrained from operating a washing factory on his residential plots. The High Court, on appeal, set aside the temporary injunction. It held that a breach of restrictive covenants in a lease primarily creates a cause of action for the lessor (Karachi Development Authority in this case), not adjoining lessees, unless their rights are tangibly infringed. Furthermore, allegations of apprehended nuisance, infringement of easements of light and air, or violation of privacy require specific facts and evidence to establish a prima facie case for an interim prohibitive order. The court found that the facts alleged did not make out a prima facie case to prohibit a lawful trade by ad interim injunction.

  Questions settled

  • Who has a cause of action to resist the breach of a restrictive covenant in a lease deed?
  • What is required to establish a prima facie case for an ad interim injunction based on apprehended nuisance?
  • What is required to establish a prima facie case for an ad interim injunction based on infringement of easement rights?
  • What is required to establish a prima facie case for an ad interim injunction based on violation of privacy?
  • Can an ad interim injunction be granted to prohibit a lawful trade without a clear prima facie case?
  Read full judgment →
• NASEER AHMAD vs ARSHAD AHMAD1984 PLD Supreme Court 403 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-05
  pre-emptionwaiver of rightpredatory rightagricultural landconduct-based waiverforeclosure of pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land. The petitioner sought to pre-empt a sale, alleging the sale price was fictitiously inflated. The respondent-vendee contended that the petitioner had waived his right of pre-emption by refusing an offer to purchase the land at the same price through a Panchayat prior to the sale. The trial court and the district court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the absence of a formal notice under Section 19 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, precluded a finding of waiver. However, the High Court reversed this, relying on the principle that pre-emption rights can be waived through conduct. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the right of pre-emption can be waived before the actual sale, either by express refusal or clear conduct indicating a lack of interest. The Court emphasized that pre-emption is a predatory right, and statutory provisions regarding waiver should be interpreted broadly to prevent mala fide litigation where pre-emptors wait for property values to appreciate before filing suit.

  Questions settled

  • Can a right of pre-emption be waived before the actual sale of the property takes place?
  • Is a formal notice under Section 19 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, the exclusive method for establishing the waiver of a pre-emption right?
  • Does the conduct of a pre-emptor, such as refusing a prior offer to purchase, constitute a valid waiver of the right of pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• NASEER AHMAD and 5 others vs THE ST ATE1984 MLD 1461 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-24Read full judgment →
• NASEEBULLAH vs SUBEDAR JAN MUHAMMAD1984 SCMR 13 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-18
  nomination paperselection disputerejected nominationproposer signatureconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition is directed against the order of the High Court of Baluchistan which allowed a constitutional petition and set aside the orders of the Returning Officer and the appellate authority rejecting respondent No. 3's nomination papers. The core legal question concerned the validity of the rejection of nomination papers based on a purported mismatch between the proposer's signatures in English and those on his Identity Card, despite the proposer filing unchallenged affidavits affirming his signatures. The Supreme Court held that since the proposer's affidavit owning his signatures went unchallenged by the election authorities before the High Court, the matter resolved itself into a question of fact, and the High Court rightly granted relief. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the decision to set aside the rejection and order a fresh election.

  Questions settled

  • Whether nomination papers can be rejected solely on the ground of a signature mismatch when the proposer files an unchallenged affidavit owning the signature?
  • Does an unchallenged affidavit regarding the identity of a proposer convert the matter into a question of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• NASEEB AHMAD KHAN vs DIRECTOR, EXCISE AND TAXATION, MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN1984 PLC (C. S.) 713 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
• NASARULLAH vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2983 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-12Read full judgment →
• NASAR vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2541 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
• NANHEY KHAN AND ANOTHER vs Mst. AMJADI BEGUM1984 CLC 1950 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-01Read full judgment →
• NAMOOS KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF N.W. F. P. THROUGH SECRETARY, HOME1984 CLC 129 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-05-23Read full judgment →
• NAJMUDDIN vs Mst. MAHETALAT AND OTHERS1984 CLC 657 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
• NAJA BA T vs MUHAMMAD KHAN and another1984 SCMR 1524 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-23
  bailZinaHudood Ordinanceleave to appealadulterycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court granting bail to two respondents accused of committing Zina. The petitioner, the brother of the alleged victim, challenged the bail grant, arguing that the offence was prima facie established by the Chemical Examiner’s report confirming the presence of semen and witness testimony. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in granting bail given the evidence presented. The Supreme Court observed that while the Chemical Examiner’s report indicated the presence of semen, the alleged victim was a married woman whose husband had raised no grievance regarding her conduct despite allegations of long-term adultery. Furthermore, the Court noted a background of enmity between the alleged victim and her close relatives. Finding no legal infirmity in the High Court's order, the Supreme Court held that the circumstances did not warrant interference with the discretion exercised by the High Court in granting bail. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the bail order.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of semen in a Chemical Examiner's report automatically necessitate the cancellation of bail in a Zina case?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's discretion to grant bail where no legal infirmity is demonstrated?
  • Is the absence of a complaint from a husband regarding his wife's alleged adultery a relevant factor in bail proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• NAIMUDDIN vs ZIAUDDINPLD 1984 Karachi .441 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-21Read full judgment →
• NAIMAT ULLAH and others vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1984 SCMR 1376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-02
  leave to appealnationalization of educational institutionsupgrading of postsservice lawdiscrimination in promotion
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, appointed as lecturers in Municipal Degree College, Burewala in 1964, challenged a Government of Punjab notification dated 19-3-1977 regarding the upgrading and allocation of posts for Assistant Professors and Professors following the nationalization of the college. They contended that the notification violated the terms of nationalization and provincialization and unlawfully discriminated against the staff of provincialized and nationalized colleges by allocating only two posts of professors to provincialized colleges instead of the eleven posts to which they were allegedly entitled. The core legal question concerned whether the notification discriminating against the staff of nationalized and provincialized colleges regarding the allocation of upgraded posts was lawful. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the contention regarding discrimination and contravention of the nationalization scheme, holding that the petition raised substantial questions requiring a full hearing and ordering leave upon payment of security.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the government notification allocating upgraded posts contravenes the terms of nationalization of colleges?
  • Does the allocation of a disproportionate number of professor posts to provincialized colleges amount to unlawful discrimination against their staff?
  Read full judgment →
• NAIMAT SIDDIQUE vs FAROOQ UMAR AND OTHERS1984 CLC 969 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-18
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentunregistered leasewater chargesstatutory tenancyconstitutional petitionurban rent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an appellate order directing the petitioner's eviction from commercial premises. The landlord sought eviction on grounds of default in rent and water charges. The petitioner argued that the lease agreement, being unregistered, could not be relied upon to prove rent payment terms, and that the ejectment application was premature. The Court held that while the unregistered lease agreement expired, the tenancy continued under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Consequently, the rights and liabilities of the parties were governed by the Ordinance rather than the expired agreement. The Court determined that the tenant failed to pay rent within the statutory sixty-day period prescribed by the Ordinance and neglected to pay water charges for over thirty months. The Court affirmed that failure to pay water charges, which are deemed rent under the Ordinance, constitutes a valid ground for eviction. The petition was dismissed, upholding the finding of default. The judgment clarifies that after a lease expires, statutory provisions override expired contractual terms regarding rent payment timelines.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unregistered lease agreement for one year or more create enforceable rights or interests beyond the statutory period?
  • Are the rights and liabilities of a tenant governed by an expired lease agreement or by the provisions of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Can a tenant be evicted for default if water charges, which are deemed rent under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, remain unpaid for a significant period?
  • Does the failure to pay rent within the sixty-day statutory period prescribed by the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 constitute a valid ground for eviction?
  Read full judgment →
• NAIM UDDIN vs Mst. MAHETALAT AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 638 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
• NAIM METAL & PLASTIC WORKS AND ANOTHER vs Mst. AZRA VAQAR1984 CLC 1073 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-22
  ejectmentbona fide personal requirementresidential buildingcommercial purposeSind Rented Premises Ordinancedefault in rentalteration of premises
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 arose from an order of the Rent Controller allowing an ejectment application filed by the respondent against the appellants in respect of a residential house. The core legal questions involved whether the premises were let out for commercial or residential purposes, whether alterations made by the appellants impaired the utility or value of the building, and whether the respondent established a bona fide personal requirement. The Sindh High Court held that the premises, described as a house in the sale deed and situated in a residential area, were used partly for business and partly for residence, thus qualifying as a residential building rather than a non-residential building. The Court further held that the landlord proved bona fide personal requirement through unrebutted evidence and that the Rent Controller's finding on material impairment was based on no evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the ejectment order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a building let out for composite purposes, partly for business and partly for residence, constitutes a non-residential building under the rent laws?
  • Can a residential building be converted to commercial use without the written consent of the landlord and permission of the Rent Controller?
  • Is an ejectment order sustainable when the finding of material impairment of the building is based on no evidence?
  • Whether the landlord has established a bona fide personal requirement for the residential premises when the evidence regarding living as a licensee and revocation of licence remains unrebutted?
  Read full judgment →