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.
- MUHAMMAD SARAJ vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2361 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALIM AND OTHERS vs COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION No, 4 AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding compensation for land acquired for the Tarbela Dam project under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The core legal question was whether the Reference Court's decree incorrectly omitted certain Khasra numbers from the classification of land, and whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Reference Court's judgment was clear and unambiguous regarding the classification of the acquired land. The Court affirmed that where a judgment or decree contains clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions, the appropriate legal remedy is to seek correction under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, rather than pursuing an appeal on the basis of such alleged omissions. The principle laid down is that appellate courts will not interfere with a decree where the lower court has adequately addressed the evidence and provided a clear, reasoned determination on the classification of the acquired property.
Questions settled- Is an appeal the appropriate remedy for correcting clerical or arithmetical mistakes in a judgment and decree?
- Can a court correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in a judgment or decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does a Reference Court's failure to incorporate specific Khasra numbers in a decree constitute a ground for appeal if the judgment itself is clear and unambiguous?
- MUHAMMAD SALEH vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 297 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs WAPDA AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 1531 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3086 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs THE STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 2083 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9 read with Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, by the Sessions Judge, Karachi/F.E.R. Tribunal, for possessing foreign currency. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was found in possession of 1,117 Saudi Riyals without lawful authority. The core legal question was whether mere possession of foreign currency constitutes an offence under Section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and whether the conviction could be sustained when the specific ingredients of the charged section were not established. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 9, noting that there was no evidence the appellant was an authorized dealer or that he had failed to offer the currency for sale as required by the relevant notification. Furthermore, the Court observed that the appellant was not charged under Section 4, which governs unauthorized dealings. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, holding that mere possession of foreign currency does not, by itself, constitute an offence under Section 9 of the Act. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Does the mere possession of foreign currency constitute an offence under Section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947?
- Is the prosecution required to prove that an accused failed to offer foreign exchange for sale to the State Bank to secure a conviction under Section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish the specific ingredients of the section under which the charge was framed?
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs MUKHTAR KHAN AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 390 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL1984 MLD 490 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND and 5 others1984 MLD 319 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM LODHI AND 8 OTHERS vs Sh. FAZAL-UR-REHM AN & SONS1984 PLC 819 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM KHAN vs GENERAL MANAGER, INTERNATIONAL BEVERAGES1984 PLC 810 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Saleem And An Other vs The State Bank Of PakistanPTCL 1984 (CL) 399 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM alias SEEMA vs SARDAR KHAN THROUGH HIS LEGAL1984 PLD Lahore 179 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises from execution proceedings concerning an ejectment order passed under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The core legal questions were whether the death of a landlord during execution proceedings deprives successors of the benefit of an eviction order based on personal requirement; whether premises described as part of a factory fall outside the Ordinance's jurisdiction; and whether a change in ownership of the underlying land renders an eviction order unenforceable. The Court held that execution proceedings do not abate upon the landlord's death, as the right to possession vests in the heirs. It further determined that the premises constituted a "building" under the Ordinance, and the tenant was estopped from challenging the landlord's title or the validity of the tenancy. The key principles laid down are that an ejectment order for personal need obtained during the landlord's lifetime is heritable and enforceable by legal representatives, and that a tenant cannot deny the landlord's title during the continuance of the tenancy, nor can they challenge the decree's validity in execution proceedings unless it is a nullity.
Questions settled- Does the death of a landlord during execution proceedings abate an ejectment order based on personal requirement?
- Can a tenant challenge the Rent Controller's jurisdiction in execution proceedings by claiming the premises are part of a factory?
- Does a change in ownership of the land underlying a rented building affect the executability of an eviction order against the tenant?
- Is a tenant estopped from denying the landlord's title during the continuance of the tenancy?
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM alias BHOLA vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 428 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM AKHTAR vs FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 2430 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALAHUDDIN KHAN vs MUHAMMAD NAZIR SIDDIQI AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 583 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which held that a pronouncement of talaq became effective after ninety days even if notice under section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 was not served upon the Chairman. The core legal question was whether a divorce (talaq) becomes effective without sending a notice to the Chairman of the Union Committee pursuant to section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's view was erroneous, reiterating its prior settled jurisprudence that a talaq only becomes effective after notice is given to the Chairman and the prescribed reconciliation period expires, and failure to notify implies revocation. However, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal given the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The key principle laid down is that under section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, failure to give notice of talaq to the Chairman renders the divorce ineffective and implies revocation by the husband.
Questions settled- Does a pronouncement of talaq become effective without sending a notice to the Chairman under section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
- What is the legal effect of a husband's failure to give notice of talaq to the Chairman under section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
- Does the absence of notice of divorce to the Chairman imply the revocation of talaq by the husband?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs Mst. SUGHRAN BIBI1984 CLC 1717 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAFDAR vs ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT, LAHORE1984 SCMR 1508 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. The core legal question addressed was whether an appeal filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation could be entertained in the absence of a formal application for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation by a period of six days. Given that the petitioner failed to file any application seeking condonation of this delay, the Court determined that it could not exercise its discretion to extend the time. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as time-barred, with no order as to costs. The principle laid down is that the Court cannot condone a delay in filing an appeal where the appellant has failed to formally move an application for such condonation, thereby rendering the appeal liable to dismissal on the grounds of limitation.
Questions settled- Can an appeal be entertained by the Supreme Court if it is filed beyond the limitation period without an application for condonation of delay?
- Is a formal application for condonation of delay required when an appeal is filed after the expiry of the limitation period?
- MUHAMMAD SAFDAR ALI vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.1984 PLC 698 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAEED vs Mst. SHAKILA1984 CLC 1337 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAEED vs Mst. SAMINA LATIF1984 SCMR 1394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court in a guardianship dispute concerning the custody of two minor sons. The core legal question revolves around the custody of minor children under the age of seven and the visitation rights of the father. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the welfare of minor boys under seven years presumptively lies with their mother, the visitation rights granted to the father—permitting him to meet his sons for only two hours once a month—were grossly inadequate and required modification to prevent the estrangement of the children. The key principle laid down is that visitation rights for a non-custodial parent must be meaningful and sufficient, allowing adequate time for interaction, meals, and outings, provided it serves the welfare of the minors and is balanced with the custodial parent's rights.
Questions settled- Whether the welfare of minor boys under seven years of age lies with their mother?
- Can visitation rights granted to a non-custodial father be modified by the Supreme Court if found to be inadequate?
- What is the extent of visitation rights that should reasonably be granted to a non-custodial parent in guardianship matters?
- MUHAMMAD SAEED KHAN AND OTHERS vs ABDUL REHMAN AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 21 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which partly allowed a regular second appeal concerning an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller. The respondents had filed a suit for a declaration that the eviction order was collusive and void, and that they were owners in possession of the suit property. The trial court decreed the suit, but the district judge reversed the findings and dismissed it on first appeal. In the second appeal, the High Court modified the decree, granting a permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from executing the ejectment order against respondents Nos. 1 and 2, finding as a matter of fact that the said respondents were in actual possession rather than the tenant against whom eviction was ordered. The Supreme Court heard the petition and held that the High Court's decision rested on a pure finding of fact regarding possession, which raised no question of law and did not violate any established principles regarding second appeals against judgments of variance. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with findings of fact in a regular second appeal against a judgment of variance?
- Does an ejectment order passed against a tenant operate against third parties found to be in actual possession of the property?
- Can a second appeal be maintained on questions of fact where no substantial question of law is raised?
- MUHAMMAD SAEED KHADIM vs UNITED INDUSTRIES LTD., FAISALABAD1984 PLC 422 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAEED AND OTHERS vs THE STATE AND OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 1373 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAEED AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 33(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging an order of the High Court dated 13th April 1983, which refused to transfer a criminal case pending before a Special Magistrate, WAPDA, Lahore. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in declining to transfer the case despite personal allegations leveled against the Special Magistrate by the petitioners. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked substance and dismissed it, reasoning that it was entirely open to the High Court to accept the explanation provided by the Special Magistrate regarding the personal allegations, particularly when the High Court itself remained unconvinced as to the genuineness of the petitioners' allegations. The key principle laid down is that a superior court's evaluation of the genuineness of allegations against a trial judge and the acceptance of the judge's explanation are valid grounds for refusing the transfer of a case.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to transfer a case when it is not convinced about the genuineness of personal allegations leveled against the trial magistrate?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in accepting a Special Magistrate's explanation regarding allegations of bias?
- MUHAMMAD SAEED AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR AND 7 OTHERS1984 CLC 3284 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAEED AND 6 OTHERS vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Supreme Court 29 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's dismissal of a quashment application regarding criminal proceedings initiated via a private complaint under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions involved whether the Additional Sessions Judge had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and whether the proceedings constituted an abuse of the court's process given the prior police cancellation of the case. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, accepted it, and quashed the criminal proceedings. The Court held that where a private complaint is filed with significant inconsistencies compared to previous statements recorded under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and where the circumstances indicate the litigation is motivated by malice or bad blood rather than a genuine grievance, the court must exercise its inherent powers to prevent the abuse of the process of law and protect the accused from unnecessary harassment.
Questions settled- Does an Additional Sessions Judge have jurisdiction to entertain a private complaint if the alleged offence occurred in a different district?
- Can criminal proceedings be quashed if they are found to be an abuse of the process of the court?
- Is a private complaint maintainable after the police have cancelled the case based on the same facts?
- MUHAMMAD SAEED AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Lahore 323 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, which issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioners following a private complaint alleging murder. The core legal question was whether the trial court committed a material irregularity by failing to examine specific witnesses cited in the complaint during the inquiry conducted under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether such an omission invalidated the finding of a prima facie case. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Additional Sessions Judge acted within his discretion. The judgment clarifies that the primary object of an inquiry under Section 202 is not a full-dress rehearsal for trial or a determination of guilt, but rather a limited exercise to ascertain whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the accused. Consequently, the court is not obligated to examine every witness cited by the complainant if the evidence already produced is sufficient to establish a prima facie case, and the trial court's decision to proceed based on available evidence did not constitute a perversity warranting revisional interference.
Questions settled- What is the primary objective of an inquiry conducted under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a trial court legally obligated to examine all witnesses cited in a private complaint during the inquiry stage under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the failure to examine specific witnesses during a Section 202 inquiry constitute a material irregularity if a prima facie case is otherwise established?
- MUHAMMAD SAEED alias SAEE AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 112 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAEED AKHTAR vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 1188 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-12-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs ZAHEER AHMAD1984 CLC 2236 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2574 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs PROJECT MANAGER, SUGAR MILLS, SERAI NAURANG1984 PLC 323 · Labour Court · 1917-05-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs PIR DAD1984 SCMR 1413 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had upheld a decree for the recovery of Rs. 20,000 based on a pronote. The petitioner (defendant) contended that the pronote did not represent a loan but was instead security for the sale consideration of 20 Kanals of land transferred to the respondent (plaintiff) via mutation. The petitioner argued that the High Court misread the evidence by ignoring material proving the pronote was satisfied upon the transfer of land. The Supreme Court examined the record and found no evidence supporting the petitioner's claim that the pronote was executed in lieu of the land transfer. The Court held that if the pronote had been executed for the land's consideration, it would logically have been satisfied or returned at the time of the mutation. Finding no merit in the contention that the lower courts misread the evidence, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the judgment below.
Questions settled- Does a pronote executed for consideration remain valid if the underlying transaction is claimed to be a land sale?
- Can a court infer that a pronote was satisfied if the defendant fails to produce evidence of its cancellation upon a subsequent land transfer?
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs MINISTRY OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS and others1984 SCMR 1255 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the High Court order dismissing his writ petition regarding the cancellation of the allotment of an evacuee trust property. The allotment of the shop in dispute was cancelled by the Assistant Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property Board, due to a violation of allotment terms, and the property was ordered to be auctioned. The petitioner's departmental appeal and subsequent revision before the Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs, were both dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the cancellation orders were mala fide and that he was condemned unheard. The Court held that allegations of mala fide are questions of fact requiring evidence which cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction, and noted that the record established the petitioner was indeed afforded an opportunity of hearing, thereby satisfying the rule of audi alteram partem. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings and dismissed the petition, ruling that the Secretary provided cogent reasons for rejecting the revision.
Questions settled- Whether allegations of mala fide can be resolved as a question of fact in writ jurisdiction without considering evidence?
- Whether the rule of audi alteram partem is satisfied when an opportunity of hearing is provided during departmental revision proceedings?
- Whether an allotment of evacuee trust property can be cancelled for violation of allotment terms?
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs MANZOOR HUSSAIN1984 SCMR 1347 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from concurrent orders of ejectment passed against the petitioner-tenant by the Rent Controller and upheld by the Sind High Court. The petitioner resisted the ejectment application on the grounds of default in rent and personal need by denying the landlord's title and the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant, asserting instead that he might be a trespasser. The core legal question was whether a tenant who admits the landlord's transfer of property from Settlement authorities can challenge the landlord's title based on pending civil litigation without revocation of the transfer, and thereby deny the tenancy. The Supreme Court held that since the transfer in favour of the respondent remained valid and unrevoked, the petitioner could not deny the landlord's title, nor could the rent forums go behind the transfer document. The Court affirmed that an occupant of the premises at the time of transfer is liable to pay rent and cannot evade ejectment proceedings by raising a belated plea of trespasser status.
Questions settled- Can a tenant deny the title of a landlord who is a transferee from the Settlement authorities on the basis of pending civil litigation without proving revocation of the transfer?
- Whether an occupant of premises at the time of transfer by Settlement authorities can avoid ejectment proceedings by claiming the status of a trespasser?
- Can rent forums go behind a transfer document issued by the Settlement authorities during ejectment proceedings?
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD AND 31984 PLD Peshawar 184 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs HUSSAIN INDUSTRIES LTD1984 PLC 1471 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 465 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arises from the conviction of the appellants for the murder of Muhammad Siddiq and the attempted murder of Naseer Ahmad. The core legal question concerns the reliability of ocular testimony, specifically whether the evidence of a witness who makes concessions in favour of certain accused should be discarded entirely, and whether the First Information Report (F.I.R.) was recorded after preliminary investigation at the crime scene. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions, holding that the testimony of an injured witness who turns hostile or makes concessions need not be discarded in its entirety; rather, it should be evaluated alongside other evidence. The Court found that the ocular testimony of the deceased's widow, corroborated by other witnesses and physical evidence, was sufficient to establish guilt despite the concessions made by the injured witness. The Court affirmed that the presence of natural witnesses and corroborative evidence, such as the recovery of blood-stained weapons and clothing, sustains the conviction, and technical arguments regarding the timing of the F.I.R. registration do not invalidate the prosecution's case when the evidence is otherwise credible.
Questions settled- Should the entire testimony of a witness be discarded if they make concessions in favour of some accused?
- Does the registration of an F.I.R. after a preliminary police visit to the scene automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
- Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of a natural witness when other witnesses have turned hostile or made concessions?
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1080 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for review of a judgment in a criminal case involving a conviction for murder. The core legal question presented by the petitioner's counsel concerned the appropriate sentencing classification under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically whether an accused, having been granted the benefit of Exception 2 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, should be convicted under the first part or the second part of Section 304. During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel, after reviewing relevant precedents of the Supreme Court, abandoned the argument regarding the legal classification of the conviction and instead restricted the petition to a plea for the reduction of the sentence. Upon consideration of the arguments and the circumstances of the case, the Court found no valid justification for reviewing the judgment on any of the grounds raised. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, thereby maintaining the original conviction and sentence as determined in the earlier proceedings.
Questions settled- Does the benefit of Exception 2 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 mandate a conviction under the second part of Section 304 rather than the first part?
- Are there sufficient grounds for a review petition when the petitioner abandons the legal argument regarding conviction classification and seeks only a reduction in sentence?
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ and others vs Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR and others1984 SCMR 1513 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court which dismissed a civil revision petition arising out of a pre-emption suit. The suit for pre-emption of land was decreed in favour of the respondents and upheld through successive appeals before the appellate court and the High Court. The core legal question raised before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners, as vendee-defendants, were entitled to compensation for a fruit garden planted on the disputed land. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was a concurrent finding of fact that the garden in existence was prior to the sale, rendering any claim of compensation based on planting it as tenants futile and without basis. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding pre-emption and improvements made on the land, unsupported by evidentiary basis, do not warrant interference by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether compensation can be claimed for a fruit garden allegedly planted by a vendee prior to a pre-emption sale?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding improvements made on pre-empted land?
- Can a vendee claim tenant status for planting a garden when no factual basis exists on the record?
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ and 3 others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2944 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADDIQUE vs TAJ BIBI1984 CLC 2120 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SACHAL alias Sachoo vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2172 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SABIR vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, POPULATION PLANNING, LAHORE1984 PLC (C. S.) 383 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SABIR HUSSAIN and others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2231 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 915 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs THE GARRISON ENGINEER (AIR), P. A. F. BASE, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 702 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND 191 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 98 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-08-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs MUHAMMAD MAQSOOD AHMAD and others1984 SCMR 1273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a rent matter where the petitioner tenant challenged the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the High Court. The respondent landlord had sought eviction of the petitioner from a shop on the grounds of default in payment of rent and personal requirement. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground of default, which decision was upheld by the appellate court and subsequently by the High Court in limine. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether any question of law warranted interference with the concurrent findings of the lower forums. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to raise any substantial question of law or point out any flaw in the impugned judgment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as without merit, while granting the tenant two months to vacate the premises upon the undertaking to hand over vacant possession and clear all outstanding rent.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of lower rent forums on the question of default warrant interference in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Can a tenant be granted time to vacate premises upon a voluntary undertaking given to the court?
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs MUHAMMAD AKHTAR and others1984 SCMR 14 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the acquittal of respondents in a murder case involving the deaths of two individuals and injuries to others. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appraisal of evidence, specifically regarding the reliability of ocular testimony and the prosecution's version of events. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The courts below found significant discrepancies in the prosecution's narrative, including the timing of the incident, the presence of witnesses, and the medical evidence regarding the victims' injuries and stomach contents. The key principle laid down is that where ocular testimony is found to be unreliable and contradicted by material circumstances—such as the timing of the F.I.R., the medical evidence, and the absence of corroborating physical evidence—an acquittal is justified. The Supreme Court emphasized that the mere occurrence of an incident in daylight does not substitute for credible evidence of guilt, and appellate courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on a sound appraisal of evidence.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal where the ocular testimony is found to be unreliable and contradicted by medical evidence?
- Does the mere fact that an incident occurred in daylight establish the guilt of the accused if the prosecution's version of events is otherwise improbable?
- Is the failure of the prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the deceased a ground for doubting the prosecution's version of the occurrence?
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs Mst.AHMAD B1 BEGUM and 7 others1984 MLD 322 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs Mst. BEGUM JAN AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2970 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses two distinct constitutional petitions. The first matter, authored by Nasir Aslam Zahid, J., involves a tenant challenging an interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 16(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, which fixed tentative rent and directed deposit of arrears. The court held that a constitutional petition against a tentative rent fixation order is premature when the tenant's defense has not yet been struck off, and that a complete and adequate remedy is available by way of an appeal under Section 21(1) of the Ordinance against the final ejectment order where the interlocutory order can be challenged. The second matter, authored by Gul Zarin Kiani, J., arises from a writ petition regarding the appointment of a Lambardar under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules 1968. The court held that an heir entitled to succeed to the office of Lambardar under the rule of primogeniture can be ignored by the appointing authority on the ground of his absence from the estate if such absence hinders the performance of his duties, and that no person has a vested right to be appointed as a Lambardar.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a tentative rent fixation order passed under Section 16(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 before the defense of the tenant is struck off?
- Can an eligible heir claiming the office of Lambardar under the rule of primogeniture be ignored on the ground of his continuous absence from the estate?
- Does any person have a vested right to be appointed to the office of Lambardar?
- Whether the legality of an interlocutory order fixing tentative rent can be challenged in an appeal filed against the final ejectment order under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs Mst. AHMAD BI BEGUM and 7 others1984 MLD 675 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ AND ANOTHERS vs ALLAH YAR1984 CLC 1189 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAZA vs KHAN MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1588 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two criminal appeals arising from a single judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a murder case. The primary legal question was whether the ocular testimony of two witnesses, who were related to the deceased, was sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder, and whether the mitigating circumstances justified a reduction in the death sentence. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of the related witnesses was reliable and sufficient to sustain the conviction, as they lacked direct hostility toward the appellant that would motivate them to falsely implicate him. The Court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but found that prior disputes regarding property at a brick-kiln constituted a mitigating circumstance. Consequently, the Court reduced the appellant's sentence from death to imprisonment for life. Regarding the complainant's appeal against the acquittal of co-accused, the Court found no cogent grounds to interfere with the High Court's acquittal, thereby upholding the lower court's decision. The principle established is that ocular testimony from related witnesses is admissible and sufficient for conviction if credible and free from direct enmity.
Questions settled- Can the ocular testimony of witnesses related to the deceased be sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
- Does the existence of a prior property dispute between the parties constitute a mitigating circumstance for sentencing in a murder case?
- Is it appropriate for an appellate court to interfere with an acquittal where no cogent reasons are provided by the appellant?
- MUHAMMAD RAZA TAGHAVI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1193 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAUF vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION1984 PLC 977 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-08-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RASHID KHAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 93 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-06-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RASHID AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1499 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-03-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RASHID AGHA vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 678 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 445 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs SERVIS INDUSTRIES LTD.1984 PLC 1230 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs Agha RAHIMUD DIN and 9 others1984 MLD 183 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs ABDUR REHMAN AND OTHERPLD 1984 Rev. 16 Punjab · Board of Revenue · 1983-08-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1630 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-31Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND OTHERS vs THE STATE and Others1984 PLD Supreme Court 184 · Shariat Appellate BenchRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND ANOTHER vs INAYATULLAH1984 CLC 1942 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-31Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2052 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAIS KHAN AND OTHERS vs SHER ILYAS1984 SCMR 230 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These consolidated petitions for special leave to appeal were filed to challenge the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' revision applications and upheld the District Judge's dismissal of their pre-emption suit. The petitioners claimed a preferential right of pre-emption under MLR-115 on the ground that they were tenants of the disputed land. The trial court decreed the suit based on Khasra Girdawari entries, but the District Judge reversed this, finding that the Jamabandi record showed the land in possession of the owners and that the Khasra Girdawari entries had been corrected as incorrect. The Supreme Court held that the question of tenancy is a question of fact, and since no presumption of truth attaches to Khasra Girdawari entries, the finding of the lower appellate court based on the superior Jamabandi record was correct. The Court also declined to entertain a new plea regarding the respondent's co-sharer status that was not raised before the courts below. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a presumption of truth attaches to entries made in the Khasra Girdawari as opposed to the Jamabandi record?
- Can a new plea of fact or law regarding a party's status as a co-sharer be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court if it was not raised in the courts below?
- Whether a tenant's right of pre-emption under MLR-115 can be sustained when the Jamabandi record contradicts the claim of tenancy?
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1906 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL/D. C., MULTAN AND OTHERS1984 CLC 3263 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs DIRECTOR OF EXCISE AND TAXATION AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 826 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-07-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs BARKAT ALI AND OTHERS1984 CLC 3049 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the appellant obtained a consent decree conditional upon depositing the sale price by a specific date. The appellant failed to deposit the money in court by the deadline, instead claiming to have paid the vendee out of court and seeking subsequent certification. The trial court certified this payment, but the Additional District Judge, treating the challenge as a revision, set aside the certification and dismissed the suit. The High Court held that the second appeal was incompetent because the order passed by the Additional District Judge was in revision, not appeal. Furthermore, on merits, the Court affirmed that payment made out of court in a pre-emption decree, even if later certified, does not constitute lawful compliance with the requirements of Order XX, Rule 14, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court emphasized that a conditional decree remains inchoate until the condition is strictly satisfied, and failure to deposit the amount in court by the deadline results in the automatic dismissal of the suit.
Questions settled- Is an order relating to the payment or non-payment of money in compliance with a conditional pre-emption decree appealable?
- Can a payment made out of court be considered lawful compliance with the requirements of Order XX, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does a second appeal lie against an order passed by an Additional District Judge in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction?
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU &1984 PLC (C.S.) 176 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1983-10-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2283 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1816 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs SIND ALKALIS LTD. AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1532 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs NOOR AHMAD AND OTHERS1984 CLC 2046 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 2183 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs Mian MASOOD AHMAD and 6 others1984 MLD 502 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND1984 CLC 537 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-12-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ MALIK vs THE STATE1984 PLD Lahore 147 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ BHATTI vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY1984 SCMR 33(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which upheld the removal from service of the petitioner, a Sub-Engineer in the Lahore Municipal Corporation, on charges of misconduct and corruption relating to excessive and fictitious measurements. The core legal question concerned whether the departmental inquiry and subsequent removal order violated the principles of natural justice and rule 6(A) of the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960, by allegedly denying the petitioner copies of documents and opportunity to inspect the record. The Supreme Court held that all formalities of the departmental inquiry were duly fulfilled, the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself, and the rules were not violated, as the excess measurements were recorded in the Measurement Book and not seriously controverted. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that advance running bills do not cure the creation of false records for potential over-payments.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to supply copies of documents prior to replying to allegations vitiates a departmental inquiry under the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960?
- Does the issuance of running bills in advance absolve a government servant from recording excessive measurements in the Measurement Book?
- Whether the principles of natural justice are violated when a delinquent official is allowed full opportunity to defend himself and examine witnesses during a departmental inquiry?
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and others vs THE STATE and another1984 P Cr. L J 2158 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ AND OTHERS vs KHALID RAUF AND OTHERS1984 CLC 2135 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The writ petition challenges an appellate order passed by the Additional District Judge, Gujrat, which reversed the Rent Controller's decision and ordered the eviction of the petitioners-tenants from the disputed shop. The core legal questions involved whether a fresh ejectment petition was maintainable after the dismissal of a previous one in default, whether an unregistered rent note could be used for collateral purposes, and whether the wanton denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant results in the forfeiture of the tenant's defense regarding other grounds of ejectment. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the dismissal of a previous petition in default does not bar a fresh one for recurring grounds like personal need or reconstruction, that an unregistered rent note is admissible for collateral purposes to show the nature of possession, and that a tenant who falsely and wantonly denies the tenancy forfeits the right to contest remaining eviction grounds. The court affirmed that misdescription of a shop's serial number is immaterial when its physical identity is established.
Questions settled- Whether the dismissal of a previous ejectment petition in default precludes a landlord from filing a fresh petition on recurring grounds of personal need and reconstruction?
- Can an unregistered rent note be used for collateral purposes to determine the nature of a tenant's possession?
- Does the wanton and false denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant by a tenant result in the forfeiture of their defense regarding other grounds of eviction?
- Does a slight misdescription in the serial number of a rented property affect the landlord's right to seek eviction when the physical identity of the property is established?
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ AND ANOTHER vs WAPDA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER ,1984 PLC 1169 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and another vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1395 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 448 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell in favor of respondent No. 1. The petitioners challenged the concurrent findings of fact that their prior alleged agreement of purchase was a forgery and that their subsequent sale-deed was executed with notice of the earlier agreement. They also contended that the suit for specific performance simpliciter was defective for not seeking the cancellation of the registered sale-deed in their favor or possession as a consequential relief. The Supreme Court held that findings of fact regarding forgery will not normally be interfered with. The Court further held that a plaintiff who is not a party to a subsequent sale-deed is not obliged to seek its cancellation, and that a prayer for possession in a suit for specific performance sufficiently covers the relief claimed. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the forgery of an agreement to sell?
- Is a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance obliged to seek the cancellation of a subsequent sale-deed to which they were not a party?
- Does a suit for specific performance requiring possession as part of the claim fail for not seeking possession as a separate consequential relief?
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ alias FEEQA vs THE STATE1984 PLD Lahore 484 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFI vs Mst. RAZIA BEGUM1984 MLD 1192 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFI PATWARI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3181 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAF1Q vs BASHIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 476 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAEES vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 223 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from the conviction of the petitioner for attempted murder. The petitioner, along with several co-accused, was charged with attacking the complainant party following a property dispute. While the trial court acquitted the co-accused due to a lack of evidence regarding specific overt acts, it convicted the petitioner under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, finding him responsible for firing the shot that injured the victim. The conviction was subsequently upheld by the Sessions Judge and the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that his case was indistinguishable from the acquitted co-accused, suggesting he was singled out without corroboration. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that the petitioner was specifically identified in the F.I.R. and trial testimony as the individual who fired the effective shot and issued threats. The Court clarified that the acquittal of co-accused based on the absence of active roles does not invalidate the conviction of a principal assailant. Finding no misappreciation of evidence or violation of legal principles, the Court dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of co-accused for lack of specific overt acts necessarily invalidate the conviction of a principal assailant identified by witnesses?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. and trial evidence as the person who fired the effective shot?
- Is the Supreme Court required to reappraise evidence in a criminal appeal where the lower courts have not violated established principles of evidence appraisal?
- MUHAMMAD QAYYUM AND 34 OTHERS vs ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, S. G. A & I DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER ,1984 PLC (C. S.) 662 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD QASIM alias BAGGA vs THE STATE1984 PLD SC (A J & K) 21 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-12-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD QADIR AND 8 OTHERS vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, BAHAWALPUR1984 PLC 1329 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD PERVAIZ vs MESSRS EXON CHEMICALS (PAK) LTD.1984 PLC 786 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-05-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD PER VEZ AKHTAR vs D. I.-G. OF POLICE, RAWALPINDI RANGE AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 667 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NOOR vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN and others1984 SCMR 1237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an interim order passed by the Peshawar High Court in a Regular First Appeal arising from a suit filed under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The High Court had directed the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee equivalent to the decretal amount of Rs. 1,69,415 as a condition for the admission of the appeal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's exercise of discretion in requiring a bank guarantee rather than a cash deposit, or specifically the quantum of security, warranted interference by the appellate court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court acted within its statutory discretion. The Court affirmed that under Section 12(5) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, the normal condition for admitting an appeal is the deposit of the decretal amount in cash, though the Court retains discretion to accept other forms of security. The Supreme Court established that it will not normally interfere with the High Court's exercise of such discretion regarding the nature of security required for the admission of an appeal.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the discretion to accept security other than a cash deposit for the admission of an appeal under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion regarding the nature of security required for the admission of an appeal?
- Is a bank guarantee a valid form of security for the admission of an appeal under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?