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.
- M.F.CORPORATION vs AKHTARUNNISA alias NAHID AKHTAR1984 CLC 2617 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-22Read full judgment →
- M.A. TAHIR ISPHANI vs DISTRICT JUDGE and others1984 SCMR 1417 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition against his ejectment from a commercial shop. The petitioner, a tenant of Shop No. 63/7 Bank Road, Rawalpindi for approximately sixteen years, faced ejectment proceedings initiated by the respondent-landlord, a lawyer, who sought the premises for personal use as an office. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment, and the District Judge dismissed the subsequent appeal. The High Court also dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the demised premises was required by the respondent in good faith for use as his office, given its location in a commercial area and the tenant's offer to construct an alternative room on the first floor. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by all lower forums regarding the landlord's personal need were unexceptionable and dismissed the petition, ruling that the landlord's requirement was established in good faith.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the personal need of a landlord for a rented premises can be interfered with?
- Does the location of a shop in a commercial area negate the landlord's good faith requirement for an office?
- Is a landlord bound to accept an offer by a tenant to construct an alternative room on the first floor in lieu of evicting the tenant from the ground floor shop?
- M. Z. QURESHI AND ANOTHER vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN1984 PLC 1197 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- M. YOUSUF vs WALI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 1690 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 challenged an order of the Rent Controller rejecting an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which sought to set aside an ex parte ejectment order on the ground of fraud. The core legal question was whether an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is maintainable before a Rent Controller in proceedings under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The High Court held that the Rent Controller possesses only limited powers of a civil court under section 20 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and the remaining powers—including section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—are not applicable to rent proceedings. Consequently, a separate civil suit challenging an order on such grounds is not barred, and the application under section 12(2) was rightly rejected as non-maintainable. Furthermore, because the appellant had already filed a statutory appeal against the ex parte order, the present appeal had become redundant and was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is maintainable in proceedings before a Rent Controller under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Does section 20 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 confer all powers of a civil court upon the Rent Controller or only specific enumerated powers?
- Is a separate civil suit challenging an order of the Rent Controller on grounds mentioned in section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 barred?
- M. YAZDANI vs Mst. ZAINAB BAI1984 CLC 2058 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
- M. SHAFI KHALIQUE vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 30 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-10-05Read full judgment →
- M. SHAFI KHALIQUE vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 939 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an accountant in the Pakistan Embassy at The Hague, challenged an order of the Federal Service Tribunal denying him arrears of pay for the intervening period following his reinstatement into service. The petitioner had been dismissed from service after failing to report for duty upon the expiry of his leave and transfer notice, but the Tribunal had substituted his dismissal with censure and stoppage of increments on lenient grounds while withholding back benefits. The core legal question was whether a reinstated civil servant whose dismissal was not held to be wholly illegal or unjustifiable is legally entitled to back benefits and arrears of pay as a matter of right. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that under Fundamental Rule 54, the competent authority or tribunal has the discretion to grant or withhold pay and allowances for the period of absence when a dismissal is not found to be wholly unjustifiable. The Court affirmed that the petitioner had no absolute right to arrears, thereby dismissing the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant reinstated into service is entitled to arrears of pay for the intervening period as a matter of right when the dismissal is not held to be wholly unjustifiable?
- Does Fundamental Rule 54 grant discretion to withhold pay and allowances for the period of absence when a government servant is reinstated?
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal substitute the penalty of dismissal with censure and stoppage of increments while denying back benefits?
- M. MUZAFFAR WAFFA vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU &1984 PLD SC (A J & K) 70 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- M. MURTAZA ISFAHANI AND 3 OTHERS vs NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION LTD.1984 PLC 130 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
- M. M. ISPAHANI LTD. vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND 4 OTHERS1984 PLC 1050 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
- M. M. ISPAHANI LTD. vs MASOOD AHMAD AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 978 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the High Court dismissing the petitioner-company's second appeal in a rent matter. The respondent-landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant from the disputed premises on the ground of personal requirement to start a timber business following the takeover of his previous business by the Provincial Government. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, but the appellate court reversed the decision and ordered ejectment. The High Court upheld the appellate order, noting inter alia that the petitioner's authorised agent confirmed the shifting of the petitioner's office and business to another city during proceedings. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the High Court's consideration of evidence and findings of fact regarding personal requirement. The Supreme Court held that the controversy was one of fact, that the evidence had been duly considered by the High Court, and that no case was made out for interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing that concurrent findings of fact on personal requirement in rent matters will not be interfered with where evidence has been properly evaluated.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can examine an authorised agent of a party to ascertain facts in a second appeal?
- Does a demand for higher rent necessarily debar a landlord from seeking ejectment for personal use?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding personal requirement in rent matters?
- M. M. ISPAHANI LTD. vs H AFEEZULLA H QURESHI1984 PLC 1287 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-21Read full judgment →
- M. M. ALI RAUF vs MRS. SHAMSUDDIN AHMAD AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 777 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal through special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a Letters Patent Appeal concerning an urban settlement case over a bungalow in Gulberg, Lahore. The core legal question revolves around whether the disputed property was legally acquired by the Lahore Improvement Trust and whether it formed part of the sanctioned development schemes, thereby ceasing to be evacuee property prior to its transfer to the respondents' predecessor-in-interest. The Supreme Court considered a detailed enquiry report submitted by the Custodian of Evacuee Property pursuant to an earlier remand order. The court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the Special Tribunal and the High Court—supported by official maps, survey records, and a 1954 Collector's Award—established that the property was indeed included within the lawfully approved and executed development scheme. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the property was validly acquired and not part of the compensation pool.
Questions settled- Whether a property forms part of an acquired development scheme when notifications refer to Khasra numbers with 'Min' designations?
- Can questions of fact regarding the boundaries of an acquired development scheme be re-agitated before the Supreme Court after an enquiry report by the Custodian?
- Whether reduction in the total area of a town development scheme from its original plan affects the legality of acquisition for portions lying within the modified scheme boundaries?
- M. IQBAL vs KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD.1984 PLD Karachi 183 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
- M. AMIR MUHAMMAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DERA GHAZI KHAN and others1984 SCMR 1375 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a civil servant, challenged his compulsory retirement from service after completing 25 years of qualifying service. The Deputy Commissioner, Dera Ghazi Khan, had ordered this retirement in the public interest under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974. The petitioner's appeal to the Commissioner was dismissed, as was his subsequent appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the Deputy Commissioner lacked the authority to retire him because a District Advisory Committee, acting under the Interim Constitution of 1972, had previously recommended his retention. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, clarifying that the previous recommendation was made under a superseded legal framework. The Court held that the retirement action was taken under a new statute enacted in 1974, which operated independently of the prior constitutional provisions. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the argument that the petitioner was entitled to a hearing prior to the issuance of the retirement order, noting that the petitioner failed to cite any legal authority mandating such a hearing. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a recommendation for retention by a committee under a previous constitutional regime preclude compulsory retirement under a subsequent statute?
- Is a civil servant entitled to a hearing before being compulsorily retired under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974?
- M. A. NIAZI vs PRESIDENT CANTONMENT BOARD MULTAN1984 CLC 2652 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-26Read full judgment →
- M UHAMMAD YOUSAF & Co. vs MESSRS UNITED VEGETABLE GHEE MILLS AND OTHERS1984 CLC 360 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-19Read full judgment →
- M UHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs THB CHIEF SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION1984 SCMR 58(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises out of the transfer of a bungalow under urban settlement laws, specifically concerning a disputed unit treated consistently by settlement authorities as an outhouse of the bungalow. The core legal question is whether the settlement authorities were justified in refusing to divide the property into a separately transferable unit based on its location and completeness. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the refusal by the settlement authorities to divide the property to preserve the unity of the bungalow was not without lawful authority, and accordingly dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that courts will not interfere with the discretionary refusal of settlement authorities to partition an integrated property unless such refusal is shown to be without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether settlement authorities are bound to separately transfer an outhouse of a bungalow if it is complete by itself?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the refusal of settlement authorities to divide an integrated property?
- Is the refusal of settlement authorities to break the unity of a bungalow considered lawful authority?
- M s. KHURSHID BEGUM AND 5 OTHERS vs EGUM AFROZ BOOKHARI AND 71984 CLC 1833 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-02Read full judgment →
- M ASHOOQ ALI vs PIONEER STEEL MILLS LTD.1984 PLC 43 · Labour Court · 1983-05-28Read full judgment →
- LYALLPUR CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIESAND OTHERS1984 CLC 944 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-15Read full judgment →
- LUQMAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2663 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
- LUQMAN QADIR vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BUILDINGS AND ROADS DIVISION, MARDAN1984 PLC 297 · Labour Court · 1979-09-17Read full judgment →
- LUQMAN AND OTHERS vs GUL MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 63 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the heirs of Pira, challenging the inheritance mutation of 1936 and an earlier land allotment mutation from 1923, following ejectment proceedings initiated against them by a vendee, Gul Muhammad. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could challenge land mutations dating back several decades, particularly after the predecessor-in-interest had unsuccessfully exhausted appellate remedies regarding the disputed land in 1969. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had dismissed the suit. The Court held that the suit was barred by limitation, emphasizing that it was too late to challenge such old entries based on a mere assertion of lack of knowledge. Furthermore, the Court noted the petitioners' failure to explain why the matter was not pursued further after the dismissal of the second revision by the Member, Board of Revenue, in 1969. The principle laid down is that stale claims regarding long-standing mutation entries cannot be reopened, especially when previous litigation regarding the same subject matter has reached finality.
Questions settled- Can land mutation entries from several decades prior be challenged on the basis of lack of knowledge?
- Does the failure to pursue further litigation after the dismissal of a revision petition bar subsequent suits regarding the same subject matter?
- Is a suit challenging long-standing mutation entries maintainable when concurrent findings of lower courts establish it is barred by time?
- LUCAS alias LUCI AND OTHERS vs S. M. NASIM, MEMBER (REVENUE),BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Supreme Court 227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition in a land tenancy dispute. The key legal question was whether a landlord, seeking to eject a tenant-at-will on the ground of default in payment of rent under Paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 (MLR 115), must first obtain an independent decree for arrears of rent in a separate suit before instituting ejectment proceedings. Analyzing the evolution of tenancy legislation—including the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887 and the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act 1950—the Supreme Court held that a landlord is not required to file two separate suits. Ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent can be sought directly in a single suit before a Revenue Court. Additionally, the Court confirmed that the Board of Revenue retains revisional jurisdiction under Paragraph 25(7) of MLR 115. The appeal was allowed, and the Collector's eviction order was restored.
Questions settled- Must a landlord obtain an independent decree for arrears of rent before seeking the ejectment of a tenant-at-will on the ground of default under Paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972?
- Can a landlord join the relief of recovery of rent and ejectment of a tenant in a single suit before a Revenue Court?
- Does the Board of Revenue have revisional jurisdiction over orders passed by a Collector or Commissioner under Paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972?
- LT.COMMDR. Syed ASKARI HASAN vs Mst. ZUBEDA KHANAM1984 SCMR 542 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that vacated a stay of execution in an ejectment proceeding. The petitioner, a tenant, failed to deposit monthly rent by the specific deadline set by the High Court in its stay order, leading the High Court to vacate the stay on the assumption that non-compliance with such conditions automatically necessitated the vacation of the stay. The core legal question was whether the High Court, acting as an appellate authority under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, lacked the discretion to condone a delay in rent deposit or modify its own stay order conditions. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its assumption. It clarified that the power to grant a stay under Section 21(2) of the Ordinance is wide and untrammeled, containing no automatic penalty for non-compliance. Consequently, the Court established that the appellate authority retains the discretion to consider applications for condonation of delay and should decide such matters on their merits rather than treating non-compliance as an automatic forfeiture of the stay.
Questions settled- Does the failure to comply with conditions of a stay order granted under Section 21(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 automatically require the vacation of the stay?
- Does an appellate authority under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 have the discretion to condone a delay in the deposit of rent required by a stay order?
- Are the powers of an appellate authority to grant a stay under Section 21(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 subject to strict statutory penalties for non-compliance?
- Lt.Commander Syed ASKARI HASAN vs BASHIR AHMAD JHUMRA and another1984 MLD 343 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-14Read full judgment →
- LT.COL. MAHMOOD KHAN DURRANI vs Syed NOSHAB ALI1984 CLC 620 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-30Read full judgment →
- LT.CoL. (RETD.) P. G. BRAGANZA vs THE BORDER AREA ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE1984 CLC 1479 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the cancellation of land allotted to a retired Army officer under the Border Area Allotment Regulation (Martial Law Regulation No. 9 of 1959). The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of the petition filed by an attorney and whether the petitioner’s permanent migration to Australia violated the mandatory residence conditions of the allotment. The Court held that the petition was maintainable, emphasizing that procedural technicalities should not defeat the ends of justice where the principal ratifies the attorney's actions. On the merits, the Court upheld the cancellation, ruling that the Border Area Scheme required allottees to reside on the land to provide leadership and security. The petitioner’s admitted absence constituted a breach of these conditions. The Court further established that it would not issue a writ where the underlying breach of law is continuing, as doing so would be a futile exercise that could be immediately nullified by a fresh, valid order, and that petitioners seeking discretionary relief must approach the Court with clean hands.
Questions settled- Can a constitutional petition be maintained if filed by an attorney whose power of attorney did not explicitly mention the filing of writ petitions?
- Does the Border Area Allotment Regulation (Martial Law Regulation No. 9 of 1959) require an allottee to personally reside on the allotted land?
- Should the High Court issue a writ if the underlying breach of law is continuing and would inevitably lead to the same result upon re-adjudication?
- Can a petitioner who has violated the conditions of a statutory land allotment scheme successfully invoke the court's discretionary constitutional jurisdiction?
- LT.-COL. (RETD.) FATEH KHAN vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND ANOTHER ,1984 PLC (C. S.) 36 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-10-01Read full judgment →
- Lt. Commander Syed ASKARI HASSAN vs BASHIR AHMAD JHUMRA and another1984 MLD 366 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-07Read full judgment →
- LOISIF STAVGIANOUDAKIS and 7 others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2437 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-04Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT HUSSAIN vs GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE1984 PLC 1184 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT ALI vs FIRDAUS BEGUM1984 CLC 1139 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-16Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT ALI and others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2913 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-16Read full judgment →
- LEVER BROTHERS PAKISTAN LTD. vs MUHAMMAD SULE MAN AND OTHBRS1984 PLC 115 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
- LEVER BROTHERS (PAKISTAN) LTD. AND 9 OTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 227 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-27Read full judgment →
- Lever Brother (Pakistan) Limited, Karachi And 9 Other. vs Government Of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance And Two OtherPTCL 1984 (CL) 229 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- LEEMON and anothers vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2690 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
- LAUNG KHAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1478 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
- LATIF HAROON HAMID and 3 others vs DIRECTORGENERAL_COMMISSIONER, EXCISE & TAXATION and 2 others1984 CLC 2727 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, RAWALPINDI AND ANOTHER vs SAHIB DAD1984 SCMR 579 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Land Acquisition Collector and the Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi, challenging a judgment of the Lahore High Court that dismissed their Regular First Appeal on the ground of a deficiently stamped memorandum of appeal under section 8 of the Court Fees Act. The core legal questions involve the applicability of section 8 of the Court Fees Act to appeals filed by the State against land compensation awards and whether an appellant should be granted an opportunity to make up a bona fide deficiency in court-fee pursuant to principles under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the questions raised require fuller examination and a more authoritative pronouncement.
Questions settled- Whether section 8 of the Court Fees Act is applicable to an appeal filed by the State against the determination of compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act?
- Should an appellant be provided an opportunity to make good a bona fide deficiency in court-fee on a memorandum of appeal?
- Whether the principles enshrined in Order VII Rule 11 read with sections 107 and 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to appeals regarding court-fee deficiencies?
- LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR No, VI, TARBELA DAM RESETTLEMENT1984 PLD Peshawar 9 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-08-15Read full judgment →
- LALA vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION, SARGODHA AND 171984 CLC 2400 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
- LAL ZAR1N vs NIAZ MUHAMMAD KHAN (THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES)1984 PLD Peshawar 46 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-09Read full judgment →
- LAL SHAH vs The STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2739 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →
- LAL MALOOK vs Syed MAZHAR ALI1984 CLC 2000 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
- LAL KHAN vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 412 (2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application for post-arrest bail. The petitioner, Lal Khan, was accused alongside six others of offences under sections 307, 149, 147, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner inflicted hatchet blows using the reverse side of the weapon upon two individuals, Aslam and Khadim Hussain, causing grievous injuries to both, with one injury specifically declared dangerous to life. The Supreme Court examined the allegations and the nature of the injuries sustained by the victims. The Court held that the High Court was justified in refusing bail given the severity of the injuries attributed to the petitioner. Consequently, the Supreme Court determined that the case was not a fit one for the grant of leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, thereby upholding the denial of bail.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to bail when attributed with injuries declared dangerous to life?
- Does the infliction of grievous injuries with a weapon justify the refusal of bail in offences under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- LAL KHAN vs REHMAT1984 SCMR 1281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner instituted a suit for possession through pre-emption of land measuring 4 kanals 16 marlas, claiming a superior right based on relationship with the vendor and alleging that the disputed transaction of exchange was given that colour to defeat his pre-emption right. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the petitioner had no superior right. Subsequent appeals and a civil revision before the District Judge and the High Court were also dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the core legal question concerned whether the lower courts correctly evaluated the nature of the transaction through the mutations in question to deny the petitioner's pre-emption claim. The Supreme Court held that the transaction, when examined alongside related mutations, established that the respondent had acquired the land through a valid exchange of properties. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that concurrent findings regarding the true nature of a property transaction based on evidence will not be disturbed when the transaction is proved to be a genuine exchange rather than a sale subject to pre-emption.
Questions settled- Does a transaction framed as an exchange of land defeat a suit for possession through pre-emption?
- Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the nature of a land transaction warrant interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
- LAL KHAN ETC. vs SAJWAR ETC.1984 CLC 922 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-23Read full judgment →
- LAL DIN AND OTHERS vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 623 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal in limine of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the Commissioner's order setting aside the selection of the petitioners as qanoongo candidates. The core legal questions involve the competency of a representation against a departmental selection, the authority of the Commissioner to interfere and remand the matter, and whether candidates omitted from consideration are entitled to relief. The Supreme Court held that the Commissioner acted lawfully in remanding the matter for fresh consideration upon discovering that eligible candidates, such as Ishaque Masih, were completely ignored by the Selection Committee and that mandatory rules and principles of natural justice were violated. The Court ruled that no injustice is done by a remand directing reconsideration where the initial selection process was flawed by procedural omissions. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that proper selection procedures and the right to be considered must be upheld.
Questions settled- Whether a representation is competent against a departmental selection where no right of appeal or review exists under the law?
- Does the Commissioner have the authority to remand a matter for fresh consideration upon finding procedural omissions in a departmental selection?
- Is a selection sustainable when an eligible candidate has been totally ignored from consideration by the Selection Committee?
- LAL CHAND AND 2 OTHERS vs OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY,FEDERAL LAND1984 CLC 2396 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner and the Federal Land Commission declaring certain land alienations void. The core legal questions were whether a gift by a Hindu required registration under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, and whether land authorities could inquire into the bona fides of transfers (gifts or exchanges) made to legal heirs under the proviso to paragraph 7(1)(b) of the Regulation. The Court held that gifts by a Hindu do not require registration if other evidence establishes the transaction. Regarding the second issue, the Court ruled that the proviso to paragraph 7(1)(b) protects transfers made to legal heirs from being declared void on the ground of lack of bona fides. The Court interpreted the term 'otherwise' in the proviso as extending to all modes of transfer, including exchanges. Consequently, the impugned orders were declared to be without lawful authority, as the authorities lacked the jurisdiction to invalidate these transactions based on a lack of bona fides.
Questions settled- Does a gift made by a Hindu require a registered instrument to be valid under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
- Can the Land Commission inquire into the bona fides of a transfer of land made by a declarant to his legal heirs under the proviso to paragraph 7(1)(b) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
- Does the word 'otherwise' in the proviso to paragraph 7(1)(b) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, include transactions of exchange?
- LAL BUX and 2 others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2826 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-04Read full judgment →
- LAKHOMAL vs Seth AWAT RAI1984 CLC 108 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-23Read full judgment →
- LAKA KHAN vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD/1984 PLC 56 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-29Read full judgment →
- LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION vs Mian MUHAMMAD RAFI1984 CLC 3111 · Lahore High Court · 1974-03-25Read full judgment →
- LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs SUNBEAM CORPORATION (REGD.)1984 PLD Lahore 430 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
- LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WASA) vs MUHAMMAD SARWAR1984 PLC 686 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-07Read full judgment →
- LABOUR UNION vs RACHNA TEXTILE MILLS, GUJAR KHAN1984 PLC 1136 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-06Read full judgment →
- Labour Appellate Tribunal PunABDUL HAMID vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT1984 PLC 932 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- LABHA MASIH vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1492 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-25Read full judgment →
- LABHA and anothers vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's judgment maintaining the convictions and sentences of the appellants, Labha and Nazir, for the murder of Muhammad Sharif. The prosecution alleged the appellants killed the deceased over a dispute regarding a cattle-shed. The trial court and High Court relied primarily on the deceased's dying declaration, as other evidence, including the testimony of the complainant and the recovery of the weapon, was discarded. The Supreme Court examined whether the dying declaration alone sufficed for conviction and whether common intention under section 34 was established. The Court held that the dying declaration was unimpeachable, having been recorded by a Magistrate with medical certification of the deceased's fitness. However, regarding the appellant Nazir, the Court found no evidence of prior common intention, ruling that the stabbing was Labha's individual, sudden act. Consequently, Nazir was acquitted. Regarding Labha, the Court, noting a compromise reached between the parties to prevent further family feuds, commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment, applying the principles established in previous Supreme Court precedents regarding pardons.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of a dying declaration?
- Does the act of holding a victim while another commits a stabbing necessarily establish common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment based on a compromise between the parties?
- KOHINOOR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD1984 PLC 1032 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-24Read full judgment →
- KISHAN LAL vs SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATON COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 49 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition arises from an order of the High Court at Karachi dismissing a writ petition concerning whether property bearing No. C. S. No. D/58-1658 Sonar Bazar, Hyderabad is evacuee property. The core legal question involves the determination of the property's status in light of a previous non-evacuee declaration given to the husband of the registered owner and its subsequent consistent treatment as evacuee property since 1953. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the registered female owner could not benefit from the non-evacuee declaration given solely to her husband without proof of benami ownership, and that the property's consistent treatment as evacuee property since 1953 precluded it from being treated as non-evacuee under section 3-A of Act XII of 1957. The key principle laid down is that property consistently treated as evacuee property by the authorities retains that status, and a non-evacuee declaration granted to a spouse does not automatically extend to the registered female owner in the absence of established benami status.
Questions settled- Does a non-evacuee declaration granted in favor of a husband automatically enure to the benefit of his wife who is the registered owner of the property?
- Can property consistently treated as evacuee property since 1953 be classified as non-evacuee?
- KISHAN CHAND vs GUL MUHAMMAD1984 CLC 1041 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-18Read full judgment →
- KIFAYAT ALI KHAN vs MESSRS PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 205 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-05-07Read full judgment →
- KHYZAR HAYAT vs THE ST ATE1984 MLD 1259 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-16Read full judgment →
- Khwaja IMTIAZ MUHAMMAD vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, RAWALPINDI AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C.S.) 706 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-03-13Read full judgment →
- KHUSRO PARVA1Z MALIK vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 130 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-10-18Read full judgment →
- KHUSHNOOD AHMED vs PRESIDENT, CANTONMENT BOARD, QUETTA CANTT1984 PLD Quetta 117 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-05-07Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1306 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs Rao MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ1984 CLC 348 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-17Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs NIAZ ALI and others1984 P Cr. L J 2223 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the quashment of proceedings under sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code arising from a complaint instituted by the respondent against the petitioners. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court should quash criminal proceedings initiated with mala fide intentions and based on unbelievable allegations, thereby preventing an abuse of the process of the court and unnecessary harassment of the accused. The Lahore High Court held that the complaint was patently false, motivated by strained family relations and prior litigation, and filed for ulterior motives by exploiting the respondent's official position as a police official. The court ruled that allowing such a prosecution to continue would result in an abuse of the process of the court. Consequently, the petition was accepted and the criminal proceedings along with the summoning order were quashed, reaffirming the principle that the High Court will intervene under section 561-A to secure the ends of justice and prevent the harassment of innocent persons through meritless prosecutions.
Questions settled- Can the High Court quash criminal proceedings under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a complaint is found to be false and filed for ulterior motives?
- Whether the availability of an alternative remedy under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bars the High Court from entertaining a petition for quashment filed prior to the enactment of that provision?
- Does the continuation of a criminal trial that is bound to result in an acquittal constitute an abuse of the process of the court?
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD BUX1984 CLC 3523 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-10Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs Mst. ZAINAB BIBI1984 SCMR 1519 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the inheritance and bequest of state land previously allotted to a deceased tenant, Lal Din. The core legal question involved the validity and effect of a will executed by the deceased in favor of a non-heir petitioner regarding state land that stood resumed by the government at the time of the will and was only restored posthumously. The Supreme Court held that the petition fails because at the time the will was executed, the testator had no rights in the resumed state land, having died prior to its restoration. The Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent findings that the property could not be validly bequeathed under the circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether a will executed by a tenant regarding state land is valid when the land stood resumed by the government at the time of the bequest?
- Does a tenant have alienable rights in state land that has been resumed by the collector prior to the tenant's death?
- Whether provisions of section 19-A of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 override section 19 in cases of conflict regarding succession?
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs JAMAT ALI AND OTHERS1984 PLD Supreme Court 54 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a criminal revision challenging an appellate order that remanded the case for a fresh trial. The trial court had convicted the respondents under Sections 307, 429, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Two of the accused were deaf and dumb. The appellate court and the High Court ordered a retrial on the grounds that the trial court failed to conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court analyzed the scope of Section 341, outlining six distinct scenarios for deaf and dumb accused. It held that Section 341 is only attracted if the accused, though sane, cannot be made to understand the proceedings. Since the record showed the accused understood the proceedings through the interpretation of their co-accused brothers, Section 341 was inapplicable. The Court set aside the remand order and directed the appellate court to decide the appeal on its merits.
Questions settled- Does Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply if a deaf and dumb accused is capable of understanding the proceedings through a helper or interpreter?
- Is a trial court required to refer a case to the High Court under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the trial of a deaf and dumb accused results in an acquittal?
- What are the duties of a trial court under Section 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when dealing with an accused who does not understand the language of the court?
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1984 PLC 927 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-07-10Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD ETC. vs ASHRAF AND OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 2064 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-15Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD DOGAR and another vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1337 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-04Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs ABDUL HAMID AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1436 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-10Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1832 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD alias NATHO vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 533 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-06Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMM AD vs Mst. ZAINAB BIBI1984 CLC 2141 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-04Read full judgment →
- KHUSHDIL vs JAMAL DIN AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 390 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the first informant against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which set aside the conviction of the respondent under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and acquitted him of the murder of his brother. The core legal question involved the sufficiency and necessity of independent corroboration for the testimony of interested and inimical witnesses in a criminal murder trial. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court committed no error of law in appraising the evidence, finding that in cases involving interested witnesses, independent and strong corroboration—such as weapon recovery or matching ballistic evidence—is required for a safe administration of criminal justice, and that motive or weak abscondence alone may be insufficient. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether independent corroboration is necessary for the testimony of interested and inimical witnesses in a criminal trial?
- Does the absence of pellet recovery from the body or place of occurrence justify extending the benefit of the doubt to an accused charged with firing a shot-gun?
- Can motive and abscondence alone serve as sufficient corroboration to sustain a murder conviction based on interested testimony?
- KHUSHAL KHAN vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 601 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-02-05Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID AHMED vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, PAKISTAN RANGERS AND OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 12 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-10-02Read full judgment →
- KHURSHEEDUL HASSAN KHAN vs Mst. SHAISTA AND 2 arms1984 CLC 2423 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-14Read full judgment →
- KHURSHEED JUNEJO vs THE COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, SUKKUR DIVISION and 3 others1984 CLC 2565 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- KHURSHEED A. NISAR AND 6 OTHERS vs SALAHUDD1N AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 1843 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-01Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BUX vs THE STATE AND 7 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 2079 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BUX BALOCH vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, METROPOLITAN STEEL1984 PLC 221 · Labour Court · 1983-05-15Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BUX alias KHUDOO vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 363 · Sindh High Court · 1983-07-26Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BAKHSH vs Malik MUSHTAQ AHMAD AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 1000 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-04Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BAKHSH vs LALOO1984 CLC 1387 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-21Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BAKHSH AND OTHERS vs LIAQUAT ALI AND OTHERS1984 CLC 3134 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-30Read full judgment →
- KHIZAR HAYAT vs OFFICER INCHARGE, TELEGRAPH STORE, SARGODHA1984 PLC 929 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-10-31Read full judgment →
- KHIZAR HAYAT KHAN vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAHIWAL AND 31984 PLC (C. S.) 781 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-02-07Read full judgment →
- KHIZAR HAYAT AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 54 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-17Read full judgment →
- KHIARO SAEED AKHUNZADA AND OTHERS vs MAHTAB ZAHIN AKHUNZADA AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 805 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging concurrent findings of lower revenue and administrative forums and a Peshawar High Court order dismissing a writ petition in limine regarding a property dispute over reclaimed land in a mountainous area. The petitioners claimed ownership through inheritance and adverse possession spanning eighty years, while respondents asserted joint ownership. The Assistant Commissioner appointed a Jirga, whose award was approved and subsequently maintained by the Additional Commissioner and the Additional Home Secretary, with directions regarding execution. The core legal questions involved whether the Jirga was properly constituted, whether proper procedure regarding issues and evidence was followed under the applicable regulations, and whether limitation barred the respondents' claim. The Supreme Court held that the property was joint Shamilat property, that the Jirga was appointed with the consent of the parties without prior objection, and that the proceedings conducted under the relevant regulations were in accordance with law. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to frame formal issues vitiates proceedings before a Jirga under the PATA Regulations?
- Can a party challenge the constitution of a Jirga after participating in proceedings for years without objection?
- Does limitation run against joint owners in respect of Shamilat property?
- Whether concurrent findings of lower forums under PATA Regulations warrant interference in writ jurisdiction?
- KHAWAS KHAN vs KHAN MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 793 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court was preferred against the judgment of the High Court setting aside the conviction and sentence of the respondents and acquitting them of murder. The core legal question involved whether the ocular testimony of related witnesses, coupled with injuries on the accused and gaps in the prosecution's account regarding the exact place of occurrence and weapon marks, was sufficient to sustain a murder conviction under section 302/34, P.P.C. The Supreme Court held that where material gaps exist in the prosecution case—such as unexplainable injuries on the accused persons, the absence of blood at the alleged site of the incident, and discrepancies between the medical evidence and the eyewitness accounts—the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. Consequently, the High Court's acquittal was upheld and the appeal dismissed. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to establish the precise manner and place of occurrence beyond reasonable doubt and leaves unexplained injuries on the person of the accused, the accused are entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Whether the acquittal of respondents can be set aside when material gaps exist in the prosecution's narrative regarding the place of occurrence?
- Does the presence of unexplained injuries on the persons of the accused persons create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case?
- Whether related eyewitnesses require independent corroboration when their testimony suffers from material omissions?