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.
- MASOOD AHMAD DOGAR vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1541 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-26Read full judgment →
- MASOOD AHMAD alias SOODA vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2462 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-06Read full judgment →
- MASHOOQ ALI vs PIONEER STEEL MILLS LTD.1984 PLC 947 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-07-05Read full judgment →
- MASHAL vs FAZALE RABBI AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 1266 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
- Mas. NARGIS KHATOON vs PAKISTAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION AND OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 238 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-21Read full judgment →
- MAQSOODUL HASSAN SHAH vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2536 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
- MAQSOOD JAVED vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2923 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →
- MAQSOOD AHMAD vs Syed WASIUL DIN AHMAD1984 CLC 1869 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-03Read full judgment →
- MAQSOOD AHMAD BAIG vs MESSRS STAR PRINTING1984 PLC 1018 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-17Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL ELAHI vs S. ANWER TAUHEED1984 CLC 626 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comprises two first rent appeals challenging orders of the Rent Controller striking off the appellants' defence and ordering their ejectment due to non-compliance with tentative rent orders. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller was bound to record formal evidence or conduct a detailed inquiry before passing a tentative rent order under the relevant rent ordinance, and whether non-compliance warrants striking off the defense. The court held that the Rent Controller conducted a sufficient summary inquiry by considering the tenants' objections, and that recording formal evidence was unnecessary where the tenants made only vague assertions without laying a proper foundation. The court ruled that where a tentative rent order is legal, non-compliance renders the tenant's defense liable to be struck off ipso facto. The appeals were dismissed in limine, granting the tenants time to vacate.
Questions settled- Whether the Rent Controller is required to record formal evidence before passing a tentative rent order?
- Does non-compliance with a legal tentative rent order render the tenant's defense liable to be struck off?
- Whether a summary enquiry by considering objections satisfies the legal requirements prior to a tentative rent order?
- MAQBOOL AHMAD vs MILLAT TRACTORS LTD. AND OTHER1984 PLC 61 · Labour Court · 1983-06-04Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL AHMAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SUKKUR AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 127 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1983-04-11Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL AHMAD AND OTHERS vs MUMTAZ ALI1984 CLC 948 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-14Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL AHMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1172 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL AHMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 983 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by leave against the judgment of the High Court upholding the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for murder and other offences arising out of a deadly armed clash. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the plea of self-defence in a sudden fight taken by the appellants was properly evaluated, especially considering the acquittal of certain co-accused and the omission of injuries sustained by the appellants in the first information report. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal regarding the conviction, holding that the defence version was implausible, that the occurrence took place inside the complainant's ahata where the appellants were the aggressors, and that the nature and intensity of the injuries sustained by the victims established a determined attack inconsistent with private defence. However, noting that no fatal injury was attributed to one of the appellants, his death sentence was commuted to imprisonment for life. The key principle laid down is that the plea of self-defence fails where the physical evidence, the scene of occurrence, and the nature of injuries inflicted on the victims clearly demonstrate an unprovoked and determined assault rather than a genuine apprehension of death or grievous hurt.
Questions settled- Whether the plea of self-defence can be sustained when the physical evidence and the scene of occurrence establish that the accused were the aggressors?
- Does the omission of injuries sustained by the accused in the first information report vitiate the prosecution case when the presence of the injured witnesses is unquestionable?
- Whether the acquittal of some co-accused necessarily discredits the ocular testimony against the remaining convicted appellants?
- Is there scope for reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life when no fatal injury is attributed to a particular appellant?
- MANZUR alias MAMI and anothers vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2562 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-06Read full judgment →
- MANZOORA vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, KABIRWALA AND1984 SCMR 1191 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 27-11-1983, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition. The petitioner, a temporary lessee of State land whose lease was briefly extended, challenged the subsequent allotment of the said land to respondent No. 3 under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme, claiming entitlement to proprietary rights under a 1979 notification. The core legal question is whether the petitioner possessed a legally enforceable right to the transfer of the State land under the relevant law. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had no right to the transfer of the land in question under the relevant law, thereby refusing leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that temporary lessees of State land do not acquire an automatic right to proprietary transfer or allotment overriding lawful allotments made under specific schemes like the Islamabad Oustees Scheme.
Questions settled- Whether a temporary lessee of State land is entitled to the transfer of proprietary rights under a notification without statutory backing?
- Does a temporary leaseholder have a legal right to challenge the allotment of State land made under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme?
- MANZOOR vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1580 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-26Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1402 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-10Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 979 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs FAZAL HUSSAIN AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1027 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The dispute in this matter relates to agricultural land that was originally settled on an allottee and subsequently sold through intermediate transactions to the petitioner. Upon a complaint that the land was obtained in excess of the allottee's entitlement, the Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelled the allotment under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, declaring it void ab initio and directing its resumption and allotment to the first respondent. The petitioner challenged this cancellation through a writ petition, which the High Court dismissed, prompting the present petition before the Supreme Court. The core legal questions concern whether a bona fide purchaser for value without notice can claim protection under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 against the cancellation of a fraudulent or excess allotment, and whether such transactions are governed by the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a purchase of land is subject to the incidents of sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and that the equitable protection of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 does not apply to allotments that are void or constitute ill-gotten gains.
Questions settled- Whether a bona fide purchaser for value without notice is protected under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 when the underlying property allotment is cancelled as void ab initio under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
- Does an allotment of evacuee land made in excess of a claimant's entitlement exclude the applicability of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- Are transactions involving agricultural land allotments subject to the incidence of sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB ROAD TRASPORT BOARD, LAHORE1984 PLC 1190 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs BOARD OF ARBITRATORS, MARKET1984 CLC 1585 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-29Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN SHAH vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1984 PLC 761 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-14Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR ELAHI AND OTHERS vs SARDAR MUHAMMAD AND arms1984 SCMR 418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenges a Lahore High Court judgment upholding an ejectment order against the petitioners from a shop in Kasur. The Rent Controller had ordered ejectment based on default in rent payment, rejecting the petitioners' claim that they had been instructed by the landlords, via a postcard, to pay rent to a third party, Riaz Ahmad. The Rent Controller refused to allow the petitioners to examine a handwriting expert regarding the postcard's authenticity or to summon Riaz Ahmad as a witness. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller acted arbitrarily and perversely by denying the petitioners the opportunity to clarify these crucial factual issues. The Court emphasized that an ejectment order cannot be legally sustained without providing the tenant a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the alleged default. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' orders and remanded the case to the Rent Controller with directions to permit the handwriting expert's examination and to summon the witness, ensuring the legal requirement of a fair hearing is satisfied.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller refuse to allow a tenant to produce evidence, such as a handwriting expert, to disprove an allegation of rent default?
- Is an ejectment order valid if a tenant is denied a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the grounds for eviction?
- Does the arbitrary refusal to summon a material witness by a Rent Controller justify setting aside an ejectment order?
- MANZOOR CONSTRUCTION CO, LTD. vs UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING &1984 CLC 3347 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal against the order of the Civil Judge, Lahore, declining to order the filing of an arbitration agreement upon an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The appellant-firm had been awarded a construction contract by the respondent University, which was later abandoned. The appellant sought the release of its earnest money and submitted an undertaking not to prefer any claim for work done, after which it invoked the arbitration clause for various claims including losses and unpaid work. The trial court dismissed the application holding that the undertaking barred any further dispute. The core legal question was whether the undertaking given by the contractor constituted a sufficient cause under section 20(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, to bar reference to arbitration, or whether the validity and effect of such an undertaking was a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. The Lahore High Court held that the existence of a dispute regarding the validity of the undertaking, allegedly obtained under coercion, and its legal effect on the claims are matters for the arbitrator to decide as a judge of both fact and law. The court set aside the trial court's order and allowed the appeal, directing the agreement to be filed and the matter referred to arbitration.
Questions settled- Whether an undertaking given by a contractor not to prefer claims acts as a bar to filing an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- Can an arbitrator decide the legal validity and effect of an undertaking or admission claimed to have been obtained under coercion or duress?
- Does the question of whether an undertaking was procured under duress fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitrator as a judge of fact and law?
- Whether the existence of an arbitration clause in a contract excludes the necessity of filing a separate civil suit to challenge an incidental undertaking?
- MEHMOOD PERVEZNAZ vs 1VTH SIND LABOUR COURT AND OTHERS1984 PLC 36 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-04Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR and anothers vs The STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2272 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-11Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMED vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2780 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-02Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 152 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-09Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD vs NAZIR AHMAD KHAN1984 CLC 819 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD vs GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, JHANG AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 602 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD BHATTI vs GENERAL MUHAMMAD ZIAUL HAQ AND OTHERS1984 PLD Lahore 145 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
- MANZAR MASUD SHEIKH vs CHIEF SECRETARY, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD1984 CLC 2966 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-05-09Read full judgment →
- MANSOOlt SALEEM AIIMAD vs MALIK HUSSAIN1984 MLD 790 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
- MANSHA vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2480 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-08Read full judgment →
- MANSAF KHAN vs ALLAUDDIN1984 CLC 1959 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
- MANSAB ALI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1436 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-06Read full judgment →
- MANGIO vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1447 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
- MANAZIR-UR-HAQ vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.1984 PLC 1623 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-06-20Read full judgment →
- MANAGING DIRECTOR, PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COMPANY, LAHORE vs SHAN1984 PLC 1429 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MAMAN KHAN and others vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others1984 MLD 500 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-11Read full judgment →
- MALKA BEGUM vs MEHR ALI HASHMI1984 SCMR 755 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal addressed whether a tenant is liable to ejectment for default in rent payment when the tenant asserts a past practice of the landlord collecting rent at irregular intervals and fails to prove such practice. The core legal question was whether a tenant can successfully defend an ejectment petition for default by pleading a prevailing practice of lump-sum rent collection by the landlord's collector, despite the landlord's denial and lack of sufficient supporting evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the legal obligation to pay or tender rent rests upon the tenant and not the landlord to collect, the burden of proving a practice of deferred collection lies heavily on the tenant, and sporadic instances of delayed collections are insufficient to establish such a practice. The Court ruled that the tenant was in default, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the ejectment order passed by the Additional District Judge.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant is liable to ejectment on the ground of default when rent is not paid within the period prescribed by law?
- Does a past practice of collecting rent at intervals through a rent collector constitute a valid defense against an allegation of default?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish a prevailing practice of delayed rent collection by the landlord?
- Is a tender of rent made subsequent to the institution of an ejectment proceeding effective to cure a default?
- Malik Zawwar Hussain and Abdul Hamid Chaudhry, Members. Qari NOOR1984 PLC (C. S.) 631 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-24Read full judgment →
- Malik SHAH MUHAMMAD MOHSIN AND 2 OTHERS s vs THE CANAL VIEWPLD 1984 Rev. 21 Punjab · Board of Revenue · 1984-08-28Read full judgment →
- Malik SHAFI HYDER vs Mst. IQBAL BANO1984 CLC 2237 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →
- Malik SAKHAWAT ALI AND ANOTHER vs PROJECT MANAGER, M.L.C. THERMAL1984 PLC 856 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-08-29Read full judgment →
- Malik NOOR MUHAMMAD vs Mst. TASNEEM1984 PLD Karachi 124 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
- Malik NAWAB ALI BHATTI vs QAISER ALI and another1984 SCMR 1555 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court accepting a writ petition in an election matter. The petitioner, an Advocate, was elected as a member of the Zila Council against a special interest peasant seat, and later as Vice-Chairman of the District Council Okara. The respondent challenged the petitioner's initial election on the ground that being a practising lawyer, he was incompatible with engaging personally in cultivating land and thus unqualified to contest for a peasant seat. The High Court accepted the writ petition, relying on prior Supreme Court precedent holding that the position of a practising lawyer is incompatible with personal cultivation. The petitioner contended that even if carrying on another profession violates professional conduct rules, it does not legally deprive him of his actual status as a cultivator or his right to contest the election. The Supreme Court found the matter needs consideration and granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a practising lawyer can contest an election on a reserved seat for peasants?
- Does carrying on another profession in violation of professional conduct rules deprive a person of their status as a peasant for election purposes?
- What is the connotation of the term peasant in relation to personal cultivation of land?
- Malik MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 452 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-02-10Read full judgment →
- MALIK MUHAMMAD vs ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.1984 PLC 166 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-06Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD URFAN vs NORTHWEST FRONTIER. PROVINCE HTROUGH1984 PLD Supreme Court 253 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 22-12-1977. The core legal question concerns the legality of a government notification cancelling a newly allotted mining lease and restoring old leases based on an arbitration award, and whether a dispute regarding the refusal to renew a mining lease is referable to arbitration under Rule 77 of the Pakistan Mining Concession Rules, 1960. The Supreme Court held that a dispute regarding the refusal to renew a mining lease is not referable to arbitration under Rule 77, rendering the resulting arbitration award a nullity in that regard. However, the Court declined to interfere with the High Court's judgment setting aside the cancellation order because the appellant failed to raise procedural objections regarding the constitutional jurisdiction in the High Court, and unsettling the long-established positions and fresh mining rights validly created in favour of third parties would not advance the cause of justice. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a dispute concerning the refusal to renew a mining lease is referable to arbitration under Rule 77 of the Pakistan Mining Concession Rules 1960?
- Can the validity, effect, or existence of an arbitration award be challenged in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court rather than under the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Whether an arbitration clause in a mining lease survives the expiration of the lease period so as to govern disputes arising post-expiry?
- Are third parties who acquired independent rights prior to an arbitration reference bound by an arbitration award rendered in their absence?
- Malik MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs MESSRS GENERAL IRON STORES, SARGODHA1984 CLC 2418 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from an ejectment order sought by the petitioner against the respondent on the grounds of default and bona fide personal need. The Rent Controller accepted the petition, but the Appellate Authority set aside the order and dismissed the petition, concluding that the landlord failed to prove the bona fide and good faith of his requirement, having suppressed the material fact that he owned other commercial premises and was running flour chakkis. The Lahore High Court upheld the appellate decision, holding that while a landlord is not strictly required to specify the exact nature of the intended business in the ejectment petition, he must approach the court with clean hands and discharge the initial onus of proving the good faith of his requirement without suppressing material facts. Consequently, finding no jurisdictional error, the High Court dismissed the constitutional petition.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord seeking ejectment on the ground of personal need must establish the good faith of his requirement as a matter of fact?
- Does the suppression of material facts regarding other commercial properties owned by the landlord adversely affect the bona fides of an ejectment claim?
- Is it mandatory for a landlord to specify in the ejectment petition the exact nature of the business intended to be conducted in the disputed premises?
- When does the burden of proof shift to the tenant in an ejectment petition based on personal need?
- Malik MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs TOWN COMMITTEE, GHAKHAR AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1680 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C, S.) 820 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD ANWAR TIWANA vs MUHAMMAD SHER and others1984 SCMR 1525 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a grant of leave to appeal against concurrent findings regarding the pre-emption value of land. The core legal question concerned whether an apparent variance between two interlocutory orders of the District Judge vitiated the final determination of the property's market value. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the contention regarding the variance between the two orders lacked force, thereby dismissing the appeal and upholding the valuation determined by the Civil Judge and affirmed by the District Judge and the High Court. The key principle laid down is that prior observations or remands that do not preclude the final adjudication of market value based on evidence on record do not invalidate concurrent factual findings subsequently reached by lower courts.
Questions settled- Does an alleged variance between an initial remand order and a subsequent order of the District Judge invalidate the final determination of property value?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the market value of pre-empted land be maintained when established through proper remand proceedings?
- MALIK KHAN vs MUHAMMAD YAQUB AND OTHERS1984SCMR 198 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted two respondents, Muhammad Yaqub and Samandar Khan, of the murder of Amir Hussain, overturning their conviction by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in rejecting the ocular testimony of the complainant and a chance witness, given the lack of corroborative evidence and the presence of enmity. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, holding that the High Court was justified in its assessment. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish a common cause or conspiracy between the two accused, and the ocular testimony was tainted by the witnesses' existing enmities and lack of independent corroboration. The key principle laid down is that in capital cases relying solely on ocular evidence, such testimony must undergo the strictest scrutiny. Furthermore, where evidence of motive is weak and the joinder of accused appears artificial or contrived by interested parties, courts must be alert to the possibility of fabrication and should not interfere with a High Court's plausible acquittal.
Questions settled- Can a court rely on ocular testimony in a capital case without corroboration when the witnesses are shown to be interested or inimical?
- Is a High Court's acquittal liable to be set aside merely because another view of the evidence is possible?
- What is the standard of scrutiny required for ocular evidence in a capital case where the joinder of accused persons appears artificial?
- Malik JAVID AKBAR vs PUNJAB LOCAL COUNCILS ELECTION AUTHORITY AND 41984 CLC 153 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-14Read full judgment →
- Malik JAHANGIR KHAN AND OTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a judgment of the Punjab Administrative Tribunal regarding the seniority fixation of lawyer Magistrates absorbed into the Provincial Civil Service. The appellants, existing Provincial Civil Service members, contested the seniority granted to these magistrates, arguing that their absorption and subsequent seniority assignment violated the West Pakistan Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964, and the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The core legal question concerned whether the appeal before the Tribunal was time-barred, given that the appellants had knowledge of the impugned notification but failed to file their appeal within the prescribed statutory period or seek condonation of delay. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal correctly determined the appeal was barred by time. Emphasizing that the matter of condonation of delay lies within the Tribunal's discretion, the Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's refusal to condone the delay. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal without addressing the underlying merits of the seniority dispute, affirming the principle that procedural requirements regarding limitation must be strictly adhered to in service matters.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal filed before a Service Tribunal is maintainable if it is filed beyond the statutory limitation period without an application for condonation of delay?
- Does the discretion of a Service Tribunal to condone delay in filing an appeal constitute a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Is a representation to a higher authority required under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, when no such authority exists above the Provincial Governor?
- Malik INAYATULLAH vs THE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE1984 PLC (C. S.) 635 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-07-24Read full judgment →
- Malik GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3192 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-26Read full judgment →
- Malik GHULAM HAIDER AND 111 OTHERS vs COLLECTOR No, 3, ACQ. TARBELA1984 SCMR 29 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a regular first appeal by the Peshawar High Court, which denied compensation to the petitioners for the loss of earnings and trade following the acquisition of their village for the Tarbela Dam project. The petitioners, who were ferrymen and timber extractors, argued that their loss of livelihood was compensable under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The core legal question was whether the loss of professional earnings, unrelated to the specific immovable property acquired, fell within the scope of compensable damage under the Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the claim for loss of earnings was not compensable because it was not directly attributable to the acquisition of the petitioners' residential properties. The Court laid down the principle that for damage to be compensable under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the injurious effect must be directly, imminently, and substantially related to the specific land or property acquired, rather than being a consequential or indirect result of the overall project.
Questions settled- Does the Land Acquisition Act 1894 provide compensation for loss of earnings or trade that is not directly related to the specific property acquired?
- What is the scope of 'injurious affection' under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 regarding consequential loss of income?
- Must damage to a claimant's earnings be directly linked to the acquisition of their specific property to be compensable under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Malik FEROZ vs ABDUL QAYYUM1984 MLD 295 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-30Read full judgment →
- Malik FAZAL HUSSAIN vs Sardar ATTAULL Ali KHAN and another1984 SCMR 1346 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal seeking to challenge the judgment dated 16-1-1984 of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed a civil revision and upheld a decree for possession through pre-emption in favour of the respondent. The petitioner had purchased the land in dispute through a court decree, following which the respondents' pre-emption suit was decreed and the petitioner's subsequent appeal failed. In the High Court, the petitioner had pressed only the point regarding the pre-emption money, which was dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the point regarding the price, but instead attempted to raise a new point regarding the nature of the sale in his favour. The core legal question was whether a new point not pressed in the High Court could be raised for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner could not be permitted to raise a new point that was not pressed in the High Court. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a new point in a petition for leave to appeal that was not pressed before the High Court?
- Whether a decree for possession through pre-emption can be maintained when the underlying sale was made through a court decree?
- Malik AZIZ DIN and 3 others vs THE ST ATE1984 MLD 1285 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
- Malik AKBAR DIN vs RETURNING OFFICER AND 5 OTHERS1984 CLC 278 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
- Malik ABDUL RASHID vs MOHAMMAD GULFAM1984 CLC 2835 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →
- Malik ABBAS RAZA vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLD Quetta 163 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
- MAKHAN MAS1H AND OTHERS vs ACTING PRINCIPAL, F. C. COLLEGE AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1065 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their revision petition by the High Court, concerning the deduction of 5 percent from their monthly salaries as rent for residential buildings situated within F. C. College, Lahore, which had been nationalized under Martial Law Regulation No. 118. The core legal question was whether the Government was entitled to continue deducting rent from the salaries of the occupants while the title to the property remained sub judice in pending civil proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the deduction of rent should not be stopped, reasoning that if the Government succeeds in proving its title, accumulated arrears would be difficult for salaried employees to pay in a lump sum, whereas if the Government fails, the collected amounts can be refunded. The Court dismissed the petition while directing the Government to fulfill its obligation to maintain the residential buildings in a condition of perfect repair in exchange for the rent collected.
Questions settled- Can the Government deduct rent from the salaries of occupants of nationalized college residential buildings while the title to the property is sub judice?
- Whether the Supreme Court will restrain the collection of rent by the Government pending the final decision on property ownership in a civil suit?
- Does the receipt of rent by the Government impose a corresponding obligation to maintain the residential buildings in a condition of perfect repair?
- MAKHAN BANO vs Haji ABDUL GHANI1984 PLD Supreme Court 17 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The landlord (appellant) sought the eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of default in rent payment under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. The tenant had defaulted on rent payments from November 1973 onwards while the written lease agreement was active, challenged the landlord's title, and deferred paying rent by instituting an application under Section 13. He subsequently admitted the tenancy relationship. The Rent Controller and District Judge ordered eviction, but the High Court set aside the order by applying precedent regarding security deposit adjustments post-lease expiry. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's judgment, holding that default occurring during the currency of a lease agreement is not erased by its subsequent expiry. Further, the Court held that while a tenant's denial of the landlord's title does not independently constitute a statutory ground for eviction under the Ordinance, such contumacious conduct and refusal to pay rent disentitle the tenant to any equitable discretionary relief.
Questions settled- Does a tenant's denial of the landlord's title independently constitute a ground for eviction under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Can a default in rent payment that occurred during the currency of a written lease agreement be excused after the expiry of the agreement on the basis of security deposit adjustments?
- How does a tenant's denial of the landlord's title impact the exercise of discretionary relief regarding statutory rent default?
- Major (Rtd.) MAHFOOZ HASAN KHAN and otherss vs M.A.WAHEED and 21984 CLC 2626 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MAJOR (RETD.) MUHAMMAD YUSUF BAIG vs Mst. SAEEDA PARVEEN1984 CLC 668 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the orders of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside an ex parte decree for the recovery of dowry articles or money. The core legal question was whether substituted service by publication was validly ordered without first exhausting ordinary service, and whether the limitation period for setting aside the ex parte decree ran from the date of the decree or the date of knowledge. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court erred in ordering substituted service without sufficient grounds showing the defendant was avoiding service, rendering the publication ineffective. Consequently, under Article 164 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act 1908, time ran from the date the petitioner acquired knowledge of the decree. The High Court laid down the principle that substituted service cannot be ordered lightly without satisfying statutory prerequisites, and in the absence of valid service, limitation begins from the date of actual knowledge of the ex parte decree.
Questions settled- Can substituted service be ordered without first attempting ordinary service and without recording satisfaction that the defendant is avoiding service?
- What is the starting point of limitation for filing an application to set aside an ex parte decree when the defendant was not duly served?
- Does an unserved process and absence of proof of avoidance invalidate an order for substituted service by publication?
- MAJOR (RETD.) KHALILURREHMAN vs OVERSEAS PAKISTANIS1984 CLC 2168 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioner's services as a Training Officer (General) by the Overseas Pakistanis Foundation. The petitioner alleged the termination was illegal, mala fide, and arbitrary. The respondents contested the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the petitioner's employment was purely contractual, involving no statutory or constitutional safeguards, and that the writ jurisdiction could not be invoked to enforce private contractual rights. The Court examined the appointment terms, which permitted termination upon one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof. The Court held that the respondent is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1913, and the employment relationship was contractual in nature. Consequently, the Court determined that the writ jurisdiction under the Provisional Constitutional Order, 1981, could not be invoked to enforce contractual obligations or liabilities. The Court ruled that the petitioner's remedy, if any, lay in a civil suit for damages rather than a constitutional petition, and accordingly dismissed the petition in limine.
Questions settled- Is a writ petition maintainable for the enforcement of individual rights arising out of a purely contractual relationship?
- Can a constitutional petition be used to enforce contractual obligations and liabilities against a company registered under the Companies Act 1913?
- Does the termination of a contractual employee in accordance with the terms of their appointment letter provide grounds for a constitutional petition?
- MAJOR (RETD.) IQBAL AHMAD KHAN, MANAGER (SERVICES), KARACHI PIPE1984 P L C347 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1983-12-30Read full judgment →
- MAJNOO vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2069 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
- MAJEED ANWAR CHOUDHRY AND OTHERS vs DISTRICT JUDGE/EXOFFICIO1984 CLC 685 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MAJEED AMJAD vs FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1984 PLC 1185 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
- MAHMUD-UL-HASSAN A NSARI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND 9 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 772 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-01-15Read full judgment →
- MAHMUD AND 6 OTHERS vs Haji TAJDIN AND 8 OTHERS1984 CLC 97 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-15Read full judgment →
- MAHMOONA AND OTHERS vs ILAM DIN AND 6 OTHERS1984 PLD Lahore 228 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by petitioners claiming to be tenants of agricultural land owned by respondent No. 1, a civil servant, challenging orders passed by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, and the Member, Federal Land Commission under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 (Land Reforms Regulation, 1972). The Land Commission authorities had accepted the respondent's revision, excluding certain land from his ceiling calculation under paragraph 10, setting aside the resumption of excess land, and dismissing the petitioners' review petition. The core issue before the High Court was whether the petitioners, as sitting tenants, had locus standi as aggrieved persons to challenge the Land Commission's orders before excess land was surrendered and resumed. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that under paragraphs 8, 10, 11, 13, and 18 of MLR 115, a declarant's right to exercise choice of retention precedes resumption. A tenant's interest is purely contingent, remote, and uncertain until the land is finally resumed and vested in the Land Commission.
Questions settled- Whether tenants have locus standi as aggrieved persons to challenge land ceiling determination orders under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 before land is finally surrendered and resumed?
- Does a declarant's statutory right under Paragraph 11 of MLR 115 to choose which land to retain or surrender take precedence over prospective tenant rights under Paragraph 18?
- At what point in time does a tenant acquire a vested right in excess agricultural land under Land Reforms Regulation 1972 (MLR 115)?
- MAHMOODUL HASSAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1107 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under section 163 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a connected State revision regarding the disposal of confiscated property. The core legal question is whether a Special Judge who was previously prematurely retired for a cause under Martial Law Regulation No. 114 and subsequently reinstated suffers from a statutory disqualification under section 3(2)(b) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958, rendering him incompetent to try the case. The Lahore High Court accepted the appeal, holding that premature retirement for a cause amounts to 'removal' from service under section 3(2)(b), and the phrase 'at any time' means that a subsequent reinstatement does not wipe out the disqualification. Consequently, the trial conducted by the disqualified Special Judge was without jurisdiction, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and sentence. The key principle laid down is that the disqualification attaching to a government servant who has at any time been removed or dismissed—including premature retirement for cause—survives subsequent reinstatement and permanently bars appointment as a Special Judge.
Questions settled- Whether premature retirement for a cause amounts to removal or dismissal from service under section 3(2)(b) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958?
- Does the subsequent reinstatement of a government servant who was previously removed or dismissed wash off the disqualification to be appointed as a Special Judge?
- What is the legal effect of the words 'at any time' in section 3(2)(b) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 regarding past removal or dismissal?
- Does a Special Judge who suffers from a statutory disqualification under section 3(2) lack jurisdiction to try a case?
- MAHMOOD-UL-HASSAN vs ALI SHER and 2 others1984 MLD 1119 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-20Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD-UL-HASAN TIPPU vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD /1984 PLC 1037 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-20Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD ALI vs The STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1854 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD AHMED vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AHMED, ADVOCATE1984 CLC 1067 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-01-31Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 382 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD AHMAD vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION1984 PLC 758 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-15Read full judgment →
- MAHBOOB vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 263 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-27Read full judgment →
- MAHBOOB ALI vs ABDUL MANAN AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 1201 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal is directed against an order of the Rent Controller ordering the ejectment of the appellant-tenant from a shop on the ground of default in rent payment. The core legal question was whether an alleged established practice of the landlord accepting accumulated or lump-sum rent over periods of time can modify the statutory obligation of the tenant to pay rent on a monthly basis, thereby absolving the tenant from default. The court held that a tenant cannot contract out of statutory provisions or plead a practice of irregular payment to justify default, as the statutory obligation to tender rent monthly remains absolute and a landlord's mere tolerance or acceptance of delayed payments does not waive this requirement. The key principle laid down is that an alleged practice of paying and accepting accumulated rent cannot modify the statutory obligation of a tenant under the relevant rent laws to tender rent month to month, and a tenant who permits rent to accumulate does so at the peril of eviction.
Questions settled- Can an alleged practice of accepting accumulated rent modify the statutory obligation of a tenant to pay rent on a monthly basis?
- Does a landlord's acceptance of rent at irregular intervals establish a practice of irregular payment that excuses future defaults?
- Is a tenant considered a defaulter under the rent laws for failing to pay monthly rent despite previous lump-sum acceptances by the landlord?
- MAHBOOB ALI AND OTHERS vs Mst. SHARIFAN BIBI AND OTHERS1984 PLD Lahore 287 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →
- MAHBOOB ALI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 581 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and sentencing of the appellants to life imprisonment under sections 302/307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Mushtaq Ahmad, which was upheld by the Lahore High Court. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to examine whether the compounding of the offence could be considered as a relevant circumstance for reducing the sentence or setting the appellants at liberty. The Supreme Court reviewed the eyewitness testimony, medical evidence showing injuries on the injured witness and the deceased, the strong motive of avenging a brother's murder, and the abscondence of the appellants, and concluded that the conviction was well-founded. The Court held that while compromise has been recognized in capital cases to alter death sentences to life imprisonment, there is no legal provision permitting the setting at liberty of convicts where a death sentence was not passed, notwithstanding observations by the Federal Shariat Court regarding section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, but the appellants were granted the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Questions settled- Whether the compounding of an offence can be considered as a relevant circumstance to set appellants at liberty where a death sentence was not passed?
- Does the provision of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code provide for composition of the offence of murder in the absence of statutory amendment?
- Whether the testimony of an injured witness is sufficiently corroborated by medical evidence to sustain a conviction for murder?
- Maharaj SITARAM PUJARI vs ALIMUDDIN1984 CLC 1806 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-15Read full judgment →
- Mahammad Khushnood vs The StatePTCL 1984 (CL) 260 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-13Read full judgment →
- Mahammad Abdullah. Authority vs Monopoly ControlPTCL 1984 (CL) 363 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-18Read full judgment →
- MAD AJAB AND OTHERS vs AWAL BADSHAH1984 SCMR 440 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal concerns a property dispute where the plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership over land, asserting that the right to redeem a 1911 mortgage had expired due to the passage of sixty years. The core legal question was whether the appellants could introduce fresh mutation records at the Supreme Court stage to argue that the original mortgage was redeemed in 1962 and a new mortgage created, thereby extending the limitation period. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants were precluded from advancing a new case based on evidence not produced in the lower courts. The Court affirmed that once a mortgage is created, it remains in existence until terminated by law or agreement. Furthermore, the mere addition of a mortgage charge does not automatically constitute a new mortgage or extinguish the original one. The Court emphasized that appellate powers to admit additional evidence should be exercised sparingly and cannot be used by unsuccessful litigants to patch up weak parts of their case or introduce entirely new pleas at the final stage of proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a party introduce new evidence at the Supreme Court stage to support a plea not raised in the lower courts?
- Does the creation of an additional mortgage charge automatically extinguish the original mortgage?
- Is a mortgagee entitled to claim ownership of mortgaged land if the right to redeem has expired due to the passage of time?
- MA KTABA ISHAATEADAB AND ANOTHER vs THE MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK1984 CLC 374 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-11Read full judgment →
- M.SHARIF vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2315 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-23Read full judgment →
- M.SHAR IF vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2315 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-23Read full judgment →
- M.K. ABBASI vs Ch. ABDUL AZIZ1984 MLD 246 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-20Read full judgment →
- M.I.R. HASHMI and anothers vs PROVINCE OF SIND through Secretary to Government of Sind, Education Department, Karachi and another1984 CLC 2925 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-15Read full judgment →