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.
- Mst. BARKAT BIBI vs WEST PAKISTAN PROVINCE AND OTHERS1984 CLC 2314 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Regular First Appeal challenges the dismissal of the plaintiff-appellant's suit for possession, mesne profits, and compensation regarding land taken into possession by the Canal Department in 1952 following a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, without any subsequent notification under section 6. The core legal questions involve whether the appellant proved her ownership and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The Lahore High Court held that the appellant's ownership was sufficiently established through sale-deeds, admissions by the respondents' own witness, and inter partes judgments, and that the suit was within limitation as continuing negotiations extended the cause of action. The court set aside the trial court's judgment, decreed the suit for possession, awarded mesne profits and compensation for digging, and established that public authorities cannot unlawfully retain citizen property and defeat claims through technical pleas of limitation and unproved ownership.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff's ownership of land is established when the acquiring department admits possession and negotiates compensation without claiming independent title?
- Does the limitation period for a suit for possession and mesne profits start from the date of initial dispossession or from the date when settlement negotiations finally fail?
- Whether civil courts retain jurisdiction in land disputes where acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were initiated but never completed with a section 6 notification?
- Mst. BARK AT JAN vs ZAROO KHAN1984 CLC 1300 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. BAQREEDAN vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND 7 owns1984 SCMR 474 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a High Court judgment concerning the transfer of evacuee residential property in Lahore under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal questions were whether the appellant's second revision petition remained competent despite the promulgation of Ordinance II of 1962, whether the issuance of a Provisional Transfer Order (P.T.O.) barred further appellate or revisional scrutiny, and whether participation in an 'earmarking' scheme precluded the appellant from seeking transfer under Scheme No. 1. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner had validly assumed jurisdiction before the Ordinance's promulgation, rendering the revision competent. It further held that the issuance of a P.T.O. does not extinguish statutory rights to appeal or revision, as such rights are inherent until the transfer is finalized. Finally, the Court ruled that participation in an earmarking scheme does not per se bar a claimant from seeking transfer under other schemes unless a vested right has already been perfected by an earlier transferee. The appeal was allowed, restoring the Settlement Commissioner's order.
Questions settled- Does the issuance of a Provisional Transfer Order (P.T.O.) deprive an aggrieved party of their statutory right to appeal or revision?
- Does participation in an earmarking scheme under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, automatically disqualify a claimant from seeking transfer under other schemes?
- Can a revision petition be considered validly pending if the authority assumed jurisdiction before the promulgation of an ordinance that removed such revisional powers?
- Mst. BAKHTINA vs Haji SALTNAT AND 2 OTHERS1984SCMR 234 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court which set aside a Sessions Judge's order arraying two private respondents as accused and converting the petitioner from an accused into a prosecution witness. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a revision against the Sessions Judge's order in a case involving offences under the Hudood Ordinance, given the revisional jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court under Article 203-DD of the Constitution. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether exclusive jurisdiction vested in the Federal Shariat Court rather than the High Court, and whether the High Court's order improperly stifled the petitioner's separate private complaint. The Court held that the arguable questions regarding jurisdictional competence warrant a full hearing and accordingly granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition against an order passed by a Sessions Judge in a criminal case relating to the enforcement of Hudood?
- Does the Federal Shariat Court possess exclusive revisional jurisdiction under Article 203-DD of the Constitution over orders passed by criminal courts under laws relating to Hudood?
- Can a Sessions Judge lawfully permit an accused person to be converted into a prosecution witness upon the request of a Public Prosecutor?
- Mst. AZIZ BEGUM vs ABDUL MAJEED1984 CLC 3503 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. AZIZ A and anothers vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2910 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. AZEEMAN vs ALLAH DITTA1984 CLC 1415 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. ASGHARI BEGUM ANSARI vs AHSAN MOQUIM ANSARI AND 7 OTHERS1984 CLC 762 · Sindh High Court · 1983-07-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. ASGHARI BEGUM and 5 others vs ALI REHMAN and 2 others1984 MLD 756 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. ANWARI BEGUM vs NOOR HASSAN1984 CLC 265 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This First Rent Appeal challenged the Rent Controller's order rejecting an ejectment application filed by a landlady against her tenant. The landlady sought eviction on grounds of nuisance, property damage, personal requirement, and default in rent payment. The Court examined the evidence regarding each ground. Regarding nuisance and property damage, the Court found the landlady's evidence vague and unsubstantiated, affirming the Rent Controller's findings. On personal requirement, the Court held that the landlady failed to prove bona fide need, noting that other tenements in the building had fallen vacant and were re-let to new tenants instead of being occupied by her family. Regarding rent default, the Court rejected the landlady's claim, finding the tenant's oral testimony supported by documentary evidence—specifically a money order accepted without protest and various cheques—while the landlady's testimony was inconsistent. The Court held that where a landlord fails to prove the necessity of the specific premises occupied by the tenant and fails to substantiate claims of default against documentary evidence, the ejectment application must be dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a landlord claim personal requirement for a specific tenement when other similar units in the same building have fallen vacant and were re-let to new tenants?
- Does the acceptance of a money order by a landlord without protest or condition undermine a claim of rent default?
- Is a landlord's solitary oral testimony sufficient to prove rent default when contradicted by the tenant's oral testimony supported by documentary evidence?
- Mst. AMINA vs ABDUL QADIR AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 993 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the appellant, Mst. Amina, had been properly served before the cancellation of the Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) issued in her favour regarding a disputed house in Quetta. The appellant's transfer price was paid through compensation books later found to be bogus, prompting a demand notice sent by registered post which was returned unserved. The property was subsequently resumed and auctioned to the respondent without effective substituted service or notice of cancellation. After multiple remands, the Member, Board of Revenue, set aside the cancellation upon finding that service was defective and allowed the appellant to deposit the transfer price. The High Court, however, restored the cancellation via a constitutional petition, holding that service was valid under section 27 of the General Clauses Act. The Supreme Court held that since the registered notice returned unserved, substituted service under Settlement Scheme No. VIII and the Code of Civil Procedure was mandatory, and section 27 of the General Clauses Act was inapplicable. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the order of the Member, Board of Revenue.
Questions settled- Whether a demand notice returned unserved constitutes valid service under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
- Does section 27 of the General Clauses Act apply when a notice sent by registered post is returned unserved?
- Whether penal consequences for non-payment can follow without strict compliance with the demand notice requirements?
- Mst. ALLAH JIWAI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 129 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail application was filed by a female applicant facing trial under Sections 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, while married to the complainant, eloped and cohabited with the co-accused. The applicant contended that she was legally married to the co-accused, disputing the validity of her alleged marriage to the complainant. The High Court observed that the Sessions Judge erred in relying on the applicant's police statement to establish an admission of marriage, as such statements are inadmissible in evidence. The Court held that a claim of living together as husband and wife under a disputed marriage does not constitute an admission of adultery under Section 7 of the Ordinance. Furthermore, as a woman, the applicant's case fell within the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which favors the grant of bail to women in the absence of exceptional circumstances. Consequently, the Court granted bail, subject to the condition that no relation or friend of the co-accused stand as surety.
Questions settled- Can a statement made by an accused to the police be relied upon by a court to determine a bail application?
- Does a claim by an accused woman that she is living with a co-accused as his legally wedded wife amount to an admission of adultery under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- What is the scope of the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the grant of bail to female accused persons?
- Can a court impose conditions restricting who may stand as surety for a female accused to prevent her exploitation?
- Mst. AKHTAR BEGUM vs SECOND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and 2 others1984 MLD 690 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. AJAIB and others vs FAZAL DAD JANJUA1984 SCMR 1222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment and order of the Lahore High Court passed in civil revision, which set aside concurrent findings of the lower courts and remanded the matter for the appointment of a Survey Department expert as a Local Commissioner to determine whether the suit land was situate within Cantonment limits. The core legal question concerned the legality of the High Court's interference with concurrent findings of fact and the remand for expert local commission in a pre-emption suit. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was unexceptionable, ruling that the failure to properly determine the territorial limits through expert evidence constituted a material irregularity under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, justifying interference and remand. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact can be interfered with in civil revision on the ground of material irregularity?
- Can the High Court remand a case for the appointment of a Survey Department expert as a Local Commissioner to determine territorial jurisdiction?
- Does failure to appoint an expert local commissioner to resolve location disputes amount to a material irregularity under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Mst. AISHA BIBI vs Syed SAGHIRUL HASSAN and others1984 SCMR 1320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal arising from a dispute over the transfer of an evacuee property. The petitioner, Mst. Aisha Bibi, sought the transfer of House No. G/462, claiming entitlement based on her husband's prior possession of a different property, House No. E/97, which had been exchanged with the approval of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner in May 1959. The Settlement authorities and the High Court rejected her claim, ruling that because she occupied the disputed house after the crucial date of 20-12-1958, she was ineligible for transfer. The petitioner challenged this, relying on the precedent in Mst. Madina Begum v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner and others (PLD 1968 Lah. 945), which suggests that where an exchange of houses is approved by competent authorities, the original allotment date should be considered the date of allotment for the new property. The Supreme Court identified this as a significant legal question not previously settled by the Court and granted leave to appeal to determine whether the date of initial allotment applies in cases of authorized exchanges of evacuee property.
Questions settled- Does the date of initial allotment of a property apply to a new property acquired through an exchange approved by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner?
- Is a person who occupies an evacuee property after the crucial date of 20-12-1958 entitled to its transfer if they held a prior allotment for a different property?
- Mst MARIAM vs Mst. RUKHSAN A1984 MLD 304 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
- MRS. ZEHRA BEGUM vs MESSRS PAKISTAN BURMAHSHELL LTD_1984 PLD Supreme Court 38 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an eviction application filed by a landlady against her tenant under Section 15(2)(viii) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. The premises, originally containing a bungalow, had been demolished and leased out under a long-term registered lease deed for thirty years to set up a petrol pump and service station. The core legal question was whether the statutory ground of personal need under Section 15(2)(viii) overrides the express terms and duration of a valid, subsisting contractual lease agreement. The Supreme Court held that the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 protects and recognizes valid contractual tenancies. Where a landlord voluntarily barters away or waives the right to seek eviction for a fixed period under a valid lease contract for consideration, the statutory provisions do not override the covenant. Consequently, an eviction application on grounds of personal requirement during the currency of a binding lease is premature and unsustainable.
Questions settled- Does the ground of personal need under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 override the terms of a valid and subsisting long-term registered lease deed?
- Can a landlord seek ejectment on the ground of personal requirement during the currency of a fixed-term lease where the landlord waived such right under covenants?
- Can a respondent support the ultimate decree or order of a Rent Controller in appeal on grounds decided against them without filing cross-objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- MRS. ZAKRIA ARSHAD LODHI vs DIRECTOR, ARMY EDUCATION1984 PLC (C. S.) 533 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-12-19Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Yasmeen Nighat And Another vs National Bank Of Pakistan.PTCL 1984 (CL) 334 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-04-16Read full judgment →
- MRS. YASMEEN NIGHAT AND ANOTHER vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1984 PLD Peshawar 188 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenged an order of the Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar, transferring a banking recovery suit to the Special Judge, Banking Companies. The core legal question was whether the amendment introduced by the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983, which ousted the jurisdiction of civil courts over certain loan recovery suits and redirected them to Special Courts, applied retrospectively to pending suits. The Peshawar High Court held that changes to a forum or procedure are procedural in nature and operate retrospectively, and that section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 does not protect a vested right in procedure. The Court ruled that upon the ouster of civil court jurisdiction, pending suits automatically stand transferred to the newly constituted Special Courts, affirming the transfer order and dismissing the petition.
Questions settled- Whether the amendment ousting the jurisdiction of civil courts under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983 has retrospective effect?
- Does a litigant have a vested right in a procedural forum or mode of trial under section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897?
- What is the legal effect on pending suits in civil courts when their jurisdiction is abolished by a subsequent statutory amendment?
- MRS. S. J, USMANI vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECY., EDUCATION1984 SCMR 288 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding a dispute over seniority and the grant of a Selection Grade in the Education Department. The petitioner, a teacher, challenged the grant of Selection Grade to respondents based on a 1974 seniority list, while simultaneously challenging a subsequent 1980 seniority list that placed her junior to those same respondents. The Service Tribunal dismissed her appeal against the 1980 seniority list as time-barred, a decision that became final. Consequently, when the petitioner's appeal regarding the Selection Grade came for hearing, the Tribunal dismissed it, reasoning that the seniority issue was already settled by the finality of the earlier decision and that the Tribunal could not review its own previous order. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the grant of Selection Grade involved discretion based on seniority-cum-fitness. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding it justified as the seniority issue was res judicata and the grant of Selection Grade fell within the discretionary authority of the department. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a Service Tribunal reopen an issue of seniority that has been decided in a previous, final order?
- Is the grant of a Selection Grade based on seniority-cum-fitness a matter of administrative discretion?
- Does the failure to challenge a Service Tribunal's decision on seniority render that issue final and binding in subsequent related appeals?
- MRS. RAJU vs MUHAMMAD LATIF KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 2411 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-30Read full judgment →
- Mrs. RAFIQA IQBAL AHMAD and another vs MUHAMMAD ALI HYDER1984 CLC 2886 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition was filed by the defendants against an order of the Second Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, which allowed the plaintiff to withdraw his suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. The defendants contended that the trial court passed the order on the plaintiff's application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in their absence and without serving any notice. The High Court examined the scope of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, noting that because certain rights flow from an order permitting withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh suit, and because the court must be satisfied of specific statutory conditions, the defendant is entitled to a hearing. The High Court held that passing such an order without notice to the opposite party violates the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order, restored the suit, and remanded the application to the trial court for a fresh decision after providing notice to both parties.
Questions settled- Can a trial court permit a plaintiff to withdraw a suit with liberty to file a fresh suit without giving notice of the application to the defendant?
- Does the principle of natural justice apply to applications filed under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What is the legal consequence if an order allowing withdrawal of a suit with liberty to file a fresh suit is passed in the absence of the defendant?
- Mrs. NOOR JEHAN KIRMANI vs Mian BASHIR RAIDER1984 MLD 15 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-14Read full judgment →
- MRS. NASIM HABIB SAHIBZADA vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, LAHORE1984 PLC (C. S.) 754 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-01-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AN WAR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2067 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-19Read full judgment →
- MRS. NASEEM SADIQUE vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS1984 PLC 1679 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the order of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, which held that the petitioner, a nurse at the Railway Hassan Hospital, was a "civil servant" rather than a "workman" and thus barred from filing a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner qualified as a "workman" under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and whether the subsequent amendment to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, excluding hospital employees, rendered her petition non-maintainable. The Court held that the petitioner was a "workman" because her employment in a hospital did not constitute working in an "administrative, district or sub-divisional office" of the Railways, distinguishing her status from that of a civil servant. However, the Court ultimately ruled against the petitioner, holding that because she filed her grievance petition after the 1979 amendment to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, came into force, the forum under that Ordinance was no longer available. The principle established is that while a hospital employee may qualify as a "workman," the right to invoke labour law remedies is governed by the law in force at the time of filing.
Questions settled- Is a nurse employed in a railway hospital a 'workman' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?
- Does the amendment to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, excluding hospital employees, apply to a grievance petition filed after the amendment came into force?
- Does the definition of 'workman' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, require the performance of outdoor duties for all railway servants?
- Can a civil servant maintain a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- MRS. MUNAWAR SANNI vs DIRECTOR, ARMY EDUCATION1984 SCMR 35 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the dismissal of a constitutional petition filed by the appellant, a permanent Assistant School Mistress whose services were previously terminated by the Cantonment Board, an order declared illegal and without lawful authority by the High Court. Following her reinstatement, the Director, Federal Government Educational Institutions ordered payment of arrears of pay, which was subsequently modified and prohibited by the Director of Army Education following an opinion from the Law Division. The High Court dismissed her subsequent writ petition on the ground that the claim was a money claim suited for a civil court or service tribunal. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court noted that authorities are under a bounden obligation to satisfy lawful salary claims of a reinstated employee without driving them to litigation. With the Deputy Attorney-General conceding that the appellant was indeed entitled to the arrears of pay in question, the appellant's counsel did not press the appeal further. The Supreme Court accordingly disposed of the appeal based on the statements made.
Questions settled- Whether an employee reinstated after an unlawful termination is entitled to receive arrears of salary for the period kept out of service?
- Whether a constitutional petition under writ jurisdiction is an appropriate remedy to claim arrears of salary following reinstatement?
- Whether departmental authorities are bound to satisfy the salary claims of a reinstated employee without driving them to civil court or service tribunal litigation?
- MRS. MARIANA AMIN vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ AHMED1984 CLC 1848 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
- MRS. MAHMOODA K. SOZE vs DIRECTOR OF ARMY EDUCATION AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 293 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Service Tribunal denying relief to the appellant, a former school principal under the Cantonment Board whose services were later taken over by the Federal Government. The core legal question was whether the appellant, a Federal Government employee, was entitled as of right to the fixation of her pay in Grade-19 based on policy decisions and notifications issued by the Provincial Government, particularly when similar benefits were granted by the province to its own employees and certain counterparts. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that since the appellant was a Federal Government servant governed by the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and the Provincial Government notifications were not adopted by the Federal Government nor applicable to her as a matter of right, she could not claim Grade-19 pay scale merely because it was granted as a personal benefit to provincial employees or junior staff. The key principle laid down is that federal employees cannot claim the benefit of provincial government administrative concessions or notifications unless expressly adopted and extended by the Federal Government.
Questions settled- Whether a Federal Government servant can claim the benefit of a Provincial Government pay notification as a matter of right when it has not been adopted by the Federal Government?
- Does the placement of a junior employee in a higher pay scale by a provincial notification create an enforceable vested right for a federal employee?
- Can a prayer for the fixation of pay in a higher grade be claimed as a matter of right when the post's designated category does not fall within that grade?
- MRS. KAISER JEHAN BEGUM vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EAST), KARACHI1984 PTD 438 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-16Read full judgment →
- MRS. JOLLY SHAPUR PARDIV AL AND 4 OTHERS vs SYEDURREHMAN AND 31984 CLC 212 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-09Read full judgment →
- MRS. HAZARBAI MERCHANT AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL1984 SCMR 406 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and the Sind High Court directing the eviction of the petitioners, who were statutory tenants of a property in Karachi transferred to the respondent under the Settlement Scheme. Following protracted litigation culminating in a Supreme Court judgment restoring the respondent's Permanent Transfer Order, the respondent served a notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, demanding arrears of rent. The petitioners failed to pay the full demanded amount within the statutory period, instead depositing a lesser sum with the Rent Controller after deducting certain taxes and placing conditions on its withdrawal. The Rent Controller and High Court found the petitioners to be wilful defaulters. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that tenants are not entitled to unilaterally deduct disputed tax payments from the rent due under a Section 30 notice, and that failing to deposit the full rent due constitutes a valid ground for ejectment.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant receiving a notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 is entitled to deduct claimed tax payments from the arrears of rent due?
- Does the conditional deposit of a reduced sum of rent before the Rent Controller constitute a valid tender of rent to avoid ejectment?
- Whether the reversal of adverse settlement orders by the Supreme Court entitles the transferee landlord to claim arrears of rent from the date of the original transfer?
- MRS. HALIMAN HANIF MOONNO O vs Mst. ISMAT KAMAL AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 232 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dismissing civil miscellaneous applications for rehearing an appeal and condonation of delay. The core legal question concerns whether an ex parte appellate judgment passed without proper service of notice and due notice of the actual hearing date violates principles of natural justice and procedural law. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court erred in accelerating the hearing date without proper notice or personal service to the petitioner, rendering the ex parte order unsustainable. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court, and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on the regular second appeal after giving due notice to all parties.
Questions settled- Whether an ex parte appellate order passed without proper notice of the actual hearing date to a party is sustainable?
- Can a case be remanded for fresh decision when the appellate court accelerates a hearing date without notice?
- Whether a party is entitled to rehearing of an appeal when not duly served with the notice of hearing?
- MRS. FIZZA QASIM alias MRS. FAZEELA ZOHRAQASIM KHAN AND ANOTHER vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 25 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-05-16Read full judgment →
- Mrs. FARKHUNDA vs DOST MOHAMMAD1984 CLC 2725 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-10Read full judgment →
- Mrs. DEPHNE DeCRUZE vs Malik MUHAMMAD YUSUF1984 MLD 19 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
- MRS. BUSHRA AITZAZ AHSAN, LECTURER, LAHORE COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, LAHORE— vs THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE AND ANOTHER—1984 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-09Read full judgment →
- MRs. ALIMA AHMAD vs AMIR ALI1984 PLD Supreme Court 32 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by the landlord examines whether a tenant continuing in possession after the expiry of a written tenancy agreement is strictly bound by its terms regarding timely rent payment, and whether the Rent Controller's refusal to order ejectment was justified. The appellant-landlord sought eviction of the respondent-tenant alleging non-payment of rent. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, holding there was no wilful default due to the landlord's practice of accepting accumulated rent. The first appellate court reversed this finding, determining that the tenant had admittedly committed default. The High Court in second appeal restored the Rent Controller's order, ruling that the first appellate court improperly interfered with the Controller's discretion and that a landlord must serve notice before enforcing strict statutory timelines if past conduct induced a belief that delayed payments were acceptable. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court held that the tenant was clearly in default for multiple months without plausible explanation, and that the alleged practice of accepting accumulated rent could not excuse defaults occurring after explicit notice to pay promptly. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and ordered the tenant's ejectment.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant continuing in possession after the expiry of a written tenancy agreement is strictly bound by the terms regarding the payment of rent by a particular date?
- Does a landlord's past practice of accepting accumulated rent waive the statutory requirement of timely monthly rent payments after notice has been served requiring prompt payment?
- Whether the first appellate court is justified in reversing a Rent Controller's finding of fact regarding default in rent payment?
- MRs, SUGHRA BEGUM and 6 others vs JALALUDDIN1984 MLD 178 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-17Read full judgment →
- MRs, S AEED A vs MRs, KHALIDA REHMAN1984 MLD 143 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
- MRs, NADIRA BENAZIR BEGUM vs BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY and 2 others1984 MLD 1020 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-03Read full judgment →
- MRs, A HSAN ULLA H REH MA N I and 4 others vs Moulana MUHAMMAD IQBAL1984 MLD 216 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-15Read full judgment →
- MOOSA vs HAROON1984 MLD 704 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
- MOOSA BHA! (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) vs YOUSUF AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 3241 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
- Monopoly Law Authority, Islamabad. vs M/S. Majid Enterprises Ltd., Muridke.PTCL 1984 (CL) 437 · Monopoly Control Authority · 1974-09-19Read full judgment →
- MOINUDDIN SIDDIQUI vs SALEEM SIDDIQUI1984 CLC 2568 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
- MOHIUDD IN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1523 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-01Read full judgment →
- MOHIBULLAH AND OTHERS vs N.W. F. P. THROUGH THE CHIEF1984 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-04Read full judgment →
- MOHIBULLA H vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2744 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs Mst. HATUK1984 CLC 2682 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
- MOHABAT KHAN AND OTHERS vs MUHTAMIM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS1984 PLD Peshawar 48 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-12Read full judgment →
- MOGUL TOBACCO COMPANY LTD. vs PAKISTAN TABACCO BOARD AND 31984 PLD Karachi 155 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MITHA AND OTHERS vs HAQ NAWAZ AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 138 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1983-10-31Read full judgment →
- Mistri ABDUL HAMID vs Malik AMIR KHAN AND OTHERS1984 PLD Supreme Court 418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court concerning a pre-emption suit. The core legal questions involved the effect of a notification issued under section 7(2) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, which removed the right of pre-emption within municipal limits of Peshawar, and the subsequent rescission of that notification during the pendency of the appeal. The Supreme Court held that a notification withdrawing the right of pre-emption does not ipso facto cause pending suits or appeals to abate unless expressly provided by law or unless a formal order of dismissal is obtained from the court while the notification remains in force. Because the initial notification was rescinded before any such order of dismissal was obtained or the appeal abated, the pre-emptor's right of pre-emption was revived, and the High Court validly decided the appeal in favor of the pre-emptor. The key principle laid down is that executive notifications barring pre-emption rights do not automatically abate pending proceedings unless specific statutory language mandates abatement or the party obtains an explicit order of dismissal while the bar is active.
Questions settled- Whether a notification under section 7(2) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, taking away the right of pre-emption, causes pending suits and appeals to abate ipso facto?
- What is the effect of the subsequent rescission of a pre-emption exclusion notification on pending appeals where no order of dismissal was obtained while the exclusion was in force?
- Whether an executive notification barring pre-emption rights requires a formal order of the court to terminate pending proceedings?
- Miss WENDY ELAINE VINN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 248 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-08Read full judgment →
- Miss SHAMA AHSAN vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND 6 OTHERS1984 PLD Karachi 195 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-05Read full judgment →
- Miss SHAHIDA PARVEEN vs The VICE-CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE and another1984 MLD 444 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-22Read full judgment →
- Miss SAMAN AND ANOTHERS vs WALI MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 2362 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-18Read full judgment →
- Miss SABIHA NAZ vs THE DIRECTOR, TECHNICAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 627 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-07-19Read full judgment →
- Miss RAHILA MUMTAZ vs THE COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 53 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-19Read full judgment →
- Miss NA HEED DOST MUHAMMAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PESHAWAR AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 139 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-01-14Read full judgment →
- Miss MAHMOODA SULTANA vs CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 481 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
- Miss HAMEEDA KHATOON vs MESSRS ASPRO-NICHOLAS (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI1984 PLC 471 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →
- Miss GUL JESSA vs Mst. JAINAH BAI1984 CLC 497 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-07Read full judgment →
- Miss AFIFA vs M. A. SALEEM KHAN AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 1995 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-20Read full judgment →
- Miss ADEEBA ZAKIYAH vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PERSONNA L SERVICE, NAVAL1984 CLC 1331 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
- MISRY KHAN vs HUSSAIN INDUSTRIES LTD1984 PLC 1463 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-05-20Read full judgment →
- MISRI KHAN vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD THROUGH DISTRICT1984 PLC 452 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-31Read full judgment →
- MISRI KHAN vs Mst. SAKINA BEGUM AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 1019(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from concurrent findings of lower courts in a pre-emption matter. The petitioner, a pre-emptor, challenged the nature of a transaction, contending that it constituted a sale rather than an exchange. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the transaction in question was legally classified as an exchange or a sale, a determination which would dictate the applicability of pre-emption rights. Upon review of the record and hearing arguments from counsel, the Supreme Court observed that all lower courts had concurrently determined the transaction to be an exchange. The Court held that the petition raised no substantial question of law and that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of the transaction were not open to interference in the current proceedings. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of a significant legal question.
Questions settled- Does a transaction classified as an exchange rather than a sale attract the right of pre-emption?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a petition for leave to appeal?
- MISRI and 3 others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2832 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
- MISKEEN MASIH vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2861 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-23Read full judgment →
- MISBAH MUNIR vs ELECTION AUTHORITY, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 12 OTHERS1984 CLC 543 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
- MISAL KHAN vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 485 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an order of the Peshawar High Court, which set aside the acquittal of the appellant by the trial court and convicted him for murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the trial court's finding that the prosecution witnesses were interested and inimical, and that the ocular testimony lacked independent corroboration. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal. The Supreme Court observed that the trial court's reasons for disbelieving the witnesses—including the failure to explain the exact time of the occurrence, the doubtful circumstances of the police arrival, and the lack of independent corroboration for interested witnesses—were cogent and legally sound. Furthermore, the High Court had inconsistently accepted the alibi of co-accused while relying on the same testimony to convict the appellant. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that where ocular testimony is interested and inimical, it cannot be accepted against an accused without independent corroboration. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court convict an accused based on ocular testimony that the trial court found to be interested and inimical without independent corroboration?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to establish the specific time of an occurrence in the FIR cast doubt on the reliability of the prosecution case?
- Is the abscondence of an accused sufficient to prove guilt if the prosecution fails to establish the fact of abscondence on the record?
- Mirza YOUSUF MUSTAFA BAIG vs Mst. RAZIA BEGUM1984 SCMR 498 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Sind High Court, which affirmed an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller against a tenant. The core legal question was whether the landlady’s claim of personal bona fide requirement for the residential premises was sufficiently established, particularly in light of the tenant's contention that the landlady failed to prove she was residing in rented accommodation. The Supreme Court held that the ejectment order was valid, noting that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the landlady's bona fide requirement were supported by sufficient evidence. The Court rejected the tenant's argument as irrelevant, emphasizing that the absence of proof regarding the landlady's current rented status did not negate her established need for the premises, especially given the lack of evidence that she owned alternative accommodation. The key principle laid down is that a landlord's bona fide requirement for personal use is not defeated solely by a failure to prove current residence in rented property, provided the requirement is otherwise substantiated by evidence.
Questions settled- Is a landlord required to prove they are currently residing in rented accommodation to establish a bona fide requirement for their own property?
- Can an ejectment order be sustained based on concurrent findings of fact regarding personal bona fide requirement?
- Does the failure to produce evidence of alternative ownership by the landlord support a tenant's defense against eviction for personal use?
- Mirza TAHIR ALI BAIG vs S.K. SURKI1984 MLD 936 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
- Mirza NAZAR ALI BAIG vs Syed HAMID REHMANI and 3 others1984 MLD 961 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
- MIRZA KHAN vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1006 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, a Guard Commander in the Rangers, for the murder of a colleague and attempted murder of two others. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony, the consistency of medical evidence with the prosecution's narrative, and the impact of a failed motive on the sentencing. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular evidence of the eyewitnesses credible and rejecting arguments regarding forensic delays and site plan discrepancies. However, the Court held that while the prosecution is not strictly required to prove motive, the introduction of a falsified or doubtful motive during trial warrants a reduction in sentence. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction under Sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The judgment affirms the principle that while a failure to prove motive does not invalidate reliable ocular evidence, a falsified motive may serve as a mitigating factor for sentencing purposes.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove a motive for a crime necessitate the rejection of otherwise reliable ocular evidence?
- Can a falsified or doubtful motive introduced by the prosecution serve as a mitigating factor for sentencing?
- Does the delay in sending crime empties to a forensic laboratory automatically render the recovery evidence doubtful?
- Mirza JALEEL AHMAD vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 339 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AN WAR vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1399 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-18Read full judgment →
- Mirza HASHIM BAIG vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 1587 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-04Read full judgment →
- Mirza HAFEEZ AHMAD vs DAD MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 3207 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
- Mirza FARZAND BEG . vs MUHAMMAD AMIN KHAN AND OTHERS1984 CLC 934 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
- Mirza FARRUKH BEG vs SUBDIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, CENTRAL, KARACHI AND OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 111 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-03Read full judgment →
- Mirza ATTA MUHAMMAD vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, UNJAB AND 21984 PLC (C. S.) 746 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-01-08Read full judgment →
- MIRZA ABDUL SALAM vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 4 OTHERS1984 CLC 1291 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-14Read full judgment →
- MIRPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MIRPUR vs Ch. ALI MUHAMMAD1984 CLC 732 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-12-23Read full judgment →
- MIRO KHAN AND 3 OTHERS vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1567 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-15Read full judgment →
- MIRAN BAKHSH vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1620 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-25Read full judgment →
- MIRAN BAKHSH AND OTHERS vs DIN MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 738 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a regular first appeal before the High Court, which determined that the existing issues did not adequately address the real controversy between the parties. Consequently, the High Court exercised its discretion to frame a new, specific issue and directed the trial court to record evidence on this issue and transmit its findings back to the High Court. The petitioners challenged this procedural order before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court acted correctly in directing the framing of a new issue and the recording of additional evidence to resolve the true controversy in a pending appeal. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order, finding it to be just, fair, and properly aimed at clarifying the dispute between the parties. The Court held that appellate courts possess the authority to direct the framing of necessary issues and the recording of additional evidence when such steps are essential to determine the real controversy, and it declined to interfere with the High Court's exercise of this procedural discretion.
Questions settled- Can a High Court direct the framing of a new issue during the pendency of a regular first appeal?
- Is an appellate court empowered to order the trial court to record additional evidence on a newly framed issue?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's procedural order aimed at clarifying the real controversy between parties?
- MIRAN BAKHSH AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1086 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of a jail petition filed by Miran Bakhsh against his conviction for double murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and a criminal petition filed by the complainant against the acquittal of a co-accused, Muhammad Iqbal. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular testimony, medical evidence contradictions, and corroboration through recoveries. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that minor discrepancies or speculative arguments regarding the time of occurrence and medical direction do not warrant interference with concurrent findings of fact when independent eye-witnesses and forensic evidence corroborate the guilt of the petitioner. Furthermore, an acquittal based on medical evidence contradicting alleged sharp weapon injuries is well-founded. The Court laid down that concurrent findings based on credible independent eye-witness accounts supported by ballistic and medical evidence will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court, and benefit of doubt is rightly extended where medical evidence directly contradicts the weapon attribution of a co-accused.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will reappraise evidence in a criminal petition against conviction when independent eye-witnesses and forensic corroboration exist?
- Does a contradiction between medical evidence and the ocular version regarding the direction of a firearm injury warrant setting aside a conviction?
- Is an acquittal justified when the medical examination reveals no injuries corresponding to the specific weapon attributed to the accused?
- MIR ZAMAN vs KHUDA DAD and others1984 SCMR 1298 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition by the Peshawar High Court, which had held on a preliminary objection that it lacked jurisdiction to issue process to the Federally Administered Tribunal Area under its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. The underlying matter involved a challenge to a Jirga verdict for the recovery of money, which had been approved by the Political Agent and affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner. The Supreme Court examined the facts, noting that the Jirga was constituted pursuant to a written agreement signed by the petitioner, who had nominated members, undertaken to abide by the decision, admitted receipt of the amount, and signed the unanimous recommendation of the Jirga. The Court held that notwithstanding any pending constitutional question regarding territorial jurisdiction in another matter, the instant case was not a fit one for the grant of leave to appeal. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Peshawar High Court has jurisdiction to issue process to the Federally Administered Tribunal Area under its extraordinary jurisdiction?
- Is a petition challenging a Jirga verdict a fit case for grant of leave when the petitioner participated in the agreement and signed the recommendation?
- Mir RASOOL BUX TALPUR vs THE OFFICERONSPECIAL DUTY, FEDERAL LAND1984 PLD Karachi 153 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-13Read full judgment →
- Mir MUHAMMAD MURTAZA vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 748 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which dismissed an application for the restoration of a writ petition previously dismissed in default for non-prosecution. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient cause was shown for the restoration of the writ petition, taking into account the non-appearance of the petitioner's counsel due to professional engagements elsewhere and the alleged lack of service of notice. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner and his counsel failed to exercise due diligence and did not take proper interest in prosecuting the petition, noting prior instances of default and adjournments. The Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the refusal by the High Court to restore the writ petition was justified given the conduct of the petitioner.
Questions settled- Whether non-service of notice to a party constitutes sufficient ground for the restoration of a writ petition dismissed in default?
- Does the absence of counsel due to professional engagement elsewhere justify the restoration of a matter dismissed for non-prosecution?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's discretion in refusing to restore a writ petition marked by a history of lack of due diligence?
- Mir MUHAMMAD HASSAN (Minor) and another vs THE OFFICER ON SPECIAL1984 MLD 393(2) · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
- Mir MUHAMMAD HAMZA vs ELECTION AUTHORITY FOR BALUCHISTAN LOCAL1984 CLC 318 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-11-27Read full judgment →
- MIR MUHAMMAD and 4 others vs CUSTODIAN, E.P. SIND and 6 others1984 MLD 615 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-21Read full judgment →
- Mir JAN MUHAMMAD TALPUR vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER,HYDERABAD1984 CLC 617 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-01Read full judgment →
- MIR HASSAN RIND and 31 others vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD and 19 others1984 MLD 1229 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-04Read full judgment →
- Mir DOST vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2835 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →