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.
- KANIZ FATIMA vs MUHAMMAD NA WAZISH AND (mins1984 CLC 356 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
- KAMRAN KHAN vs THE STATE AND OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 479 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-14Read full judgment →
- KAMIL vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2328 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-27Read full judgment →
- KAMEEN KHAN vs MUSTAFA AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1244 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →
- KAMAL NASIR KHAN vs THE COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD DIVISION, HYDERABAD AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 1578 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- KAMAL BEG CHAUGHTAI vs JAN MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 1175 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the refusal of constitutional relief regarding the transfer of a chobara situated above a shop under settlement laws. The core legal question concerns whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had the jurisdiction to transfer the chobara along with the commercial unit underneath as a single shop under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, even if the transferee had not specifically sought the chobara in his C.S. form. The Supreme Court held that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner acted within his lawful authority under the second proviso to paragraph 2(12) of the Act to treat a building consisting of multiple units as a single shop. The Court established that where a building contains both residential and business units, the competent authority has the discretion to deem the entire premises as a shop, and a person whose own claim form was filed long after the property stood transferred lacks the locus standi to challenge the transfer or claim a right to notice.
Questions settled- Whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner has the jurisdiction to treat a building consisting of multiple units as a single shop under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Does a person who filed an N.C.H. Form after the disputed property was already transferred have the locus standi to challenge the transfer of the property?
- Whether a party is entitled to a notice before the transfer of evacuee property when their own claim form was filed years after the property had been finally disposed of?
- KALOOMAL and another vs SURESH KUMAR AND 2 others1984 CLC 2715 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-15Read full judgment →
- KALIMULLAH alias ABDUL KADIR vs THE STATE Opponent1984 P Cr. L J 2825 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
- KALA KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1031 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
- KAKAKHEL INDUSTRIES LTD. vs MUHAMMAD ATTIQUE WARSI AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 909 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-08-12Read full judgment →
- KAISER JEHAN BEGUM AND 10 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD ZAKI AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 1122 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-18Read full judgment →
- K. S. B. PUMPS COMPANY LTD. vs UMAR KHAN1984 PLC 826 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-09-25Read full judgment →
- K. R. BYRAJI vs THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, KARACHI1984 PTD 246 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-26Read full judgment →
- K HAN MUHAMMAD/ vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH COLLECTOR, MULTAN1984 CLC 2124 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
- JUMMA AND ANOTHERS vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1177 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-06Read full judgment →
- JUMMA and another vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1450 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-23Read full judgment →
- JUMA KHAN vs BIBI SAHIBA and others1984 SCMR 1479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an unsuccessful plaintiff-pre-emptor, filed a petition for leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment that dismissed his second appeal regarding a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether a sale of land, reported to the Patwari within the limitation period but attested via mutation after the limitation period, could be considered complete for the purposes of pre-emption. The petitioner argued that the sale was only complete upon the attestation of the mutation, which occurred after the limitation period had expired. The Supreme Court held that the sale was complete on the date it was reported to the Patwari, as a finding of fact had been recorded to that effect. The Court affirmed that a sale of immovable property does not require mutation to be complete, as it can be effected orally. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, determining that no substantial question of law existed. The key principle established is that the completion of a sale of immovable property is not contingent upon the attestation of a mutation order by a Revenue Officer.
Questions settled- Is the completion of a sale of immovable property dependent upon the attestation of a mutation order by a Revenue Officer?
- Can a sale of immovable property be effected orally without a formal mutation?
- JUMA KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1141 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-06Read full judgment →
- JU MA KHAN vs MIRDAD KHAN and another1984 SCMR 1256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which allowed a civil revision and dismissed the petitioner's pre-emption suit regarding the sale of land. The core legal question was whether prior transactions, specifically an exchange of land and a subsequent mortgage involving the vendee, were fictitious arrangements designed to defeat the plaintiff's right of pre-emption. The trial court had rejected the plaintiff's claim of fictitious transactions, while the appellate court had initially decreed the suit in the plaintiff's favor. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the appellate court had misread the evidence. The Supreme Court held that there was no circumstantial evidence to support the contention that the exchange was a disguised sale. The Court affirmed that a transaction, such as an exchange of land, which is genuinely made, remains valid even if its effect is to protect a subsequent sale from the exercise of the right of pre-emption. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as lacking merit.
Questions settled- Does a genuine exchange of land that prevents the exercise of a right of pre-emption constitute a fictitious transaction?
- Can an appellate court's finding be set aside if it is based on a misreading of evidence?
- JOSEPH IBRAHIM ZOGHEIB vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1065 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-02Read full judgment →
- JOGINDAR MASIH vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a conviction for murder and a sentence of death. The appellant, who had been living with the deceased for five years after she eloped with him, was accused of killing her with a kassi following an altercation regarding her desire to return to her children. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the appellant's guilt over the alternative defence theory that the deceased's relatives had committed the crime, and whether the death sentence was appropriate given the circumstances. The Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution's evidence credible and the defence's theory meritless. However, regarding the sentence, the Court held that because the murder occurred after a prolonged quarrel throughout the night, suggesting the appellant acted in a state of exasperation rather than premeditated malice, the ends of justice would be better served by a lesser sentence. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, establishing the principle that mitigating circumstances surrounding the commission of a crime can warrant the reduction of a capital sentence.
Questions settled- Does a prolonged altercation between the accused and the victim prior to a murder justify the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the accused admits the incident but provides an alternative version of events implicating other parties?
- JIWANA and others vs FAZAL RAHIM KHAN and others1984 SCMR 1332 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These review petitions sought a review of a previous judgment of the Supreme Court dismissing certain civil appeals. The core legal question was whether a review petition is maintainable when it is neither drawn up nor accompanied by the certificate of fitness from the Advocate who originally appeared and argued the matter at the hearing of the case, and where that Advocate is not present at the hearing of the review application, as mandated by the rules. The Supreme Court held that the review petitions were not maintainable due to non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements. The Court laid down the principle that under Order XXVI Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1956, an application for review must be drawn and presented by the same advocate who argued the original case, unless special leave of the court is obtained, because that counsel is best positioned to satisfy the strict limitations governing review.
Questions settled- Are review petitions maintainable when not drawn up by the advocate who appeared at the hearing of the original case?
- Does the presence of the Advocate-on-Record fulfill the requirements of Order XXVI Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1956 regarding the advocate who argued the case?
- JINDA vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed by the petitioner, Jinda, challenging the Supreme Court's previous judgment dated 24-4-1983, which had dismissed his appeal against a conviction for murder. The petitioner, originally sentenced to death for the murder of Fateh Khan and assault on others, sought to re-argue the case on the basis that he was falsely implicated due to his status as the head of his family. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could introduce a new argument regarding his alleged false implication during the review proceedings that had not been raised during the initial appeal. The Court held that the review petition must be dismissed, reasoning that the petitioner failed to establish any valid grounds for interference with the previous judgment. Furthermore, the Court ruled that it could not permit the introduction of a new argument at the review stage that was not raised during the original appeal hearing. The Court noted that the petitioner remained free to pursue a mercy petition before the Executive branch to address his grievances.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner raise a new argument in a review petition that was not presented during the original appeal?
- Is a review petition maintainable when no valid grounds for interference with the impugned judgment are established?
- JEWAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2472 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-25Read full judgment →
- JEHAN KHAN vs GUL HASSAN and 2 others1984 CLC 2558 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
- JAWAID ANWAR vs THE KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Lro., KARACHI1984 PLC 1544 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-06-05Read full judgment →
- JAWAD HUSSAIN vs GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. THROUGH SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES1984 CLC 131 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
- JAVID KHAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1912 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-10Read full judgment →
- JAVED MASIH and another vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1457 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-19Read full judgment →
- JAVED IQBAL vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALNAGAR AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 813 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-02-11Read full judgment →
- JAVED IQBAL AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3247 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
- JAVED AKHTAR AND 11 OTHERS vs THB DAILY JANG, LAHORE1984 PLC 259 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1983-05-07Read full judgment →
- JAVED AKHTAR AND 11 OTHERS vs RESIDENT EDITOR_CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DAILY JANG, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 367 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1982-10-20Read full judgment →
- JAVED AHMED vs TUB STATE Opponent1984 P Cr. L J 965 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-02Read full judgment →
- JAVAID vs THE STATE1984 PLD Lahore 34 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-14Read full judgment →
- JAVAID MUBARAK vs SHAMSUDDIN AND 5 OTHERS1984 CLC 3252 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-25Read full judgment →
- JAVAID IQBAL and others vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1443(2) · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
- JANAT GUL vs MULKI ZAMAN AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Peshawar 154 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 376 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD vs THE DISTRICT COUNCIL, DADU1984 CLC 2750 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-06Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD vs THE COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS, BALUCHISTAN, QUETTA AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLD Quetta 113 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD vs CHAIRMAN, TOWN COMMITTEE, CHINIOT1984 PLC 1199 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-27Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1984 CLC 1172 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- JAN MOHAMMAD and others vs MUHAMMAD SARWAR1984 CLC 2656 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-08Read full judgment →
- JAMIL AHMED vs ABDUL KARIM1984 CLC 1815 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two rent appeals filed by tenants against the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide need of the landlord. The core legal questions involved were whether the tenants committed default in payment of rent under the relevant rent restriction laws when the tenancy agreement stipulated rent was payable in advance without specifying a particular date or time, and whether the landlord established a bona fide personal need for the shops. The High Court held that where a tenancy agreement requires rent to be paid in advance but fails to fix a specific date or time for such payment, the 15-day grace period from a fixed date does not apply; instead, the tenant is entitled to the 60-day period from the period for which the rent is payable, and thus no default was committed. Furthermore, the court held that the landlord failed to establish his bona fide personal need for the premises through cogent and convincing evidence, particularly after already obtaining possession of another shop in the same building. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the ejectment orders were set aside.
Questions settled- Does a tenancy agreement that merely specifies rent is payable in advance without fixing a specific date trigger the 15-day grace period for default?
- What is the applicable time period for paying rent in the absence of a specific date fixed in the tenancy agreement under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Is the bare statement of a landlord sufficient to prove bona fide personal need for commercial premises?
- Does obtaining possession of another shop during the pendency of ejectment proceedings affect the burden of proof regarding the landlord's requirement for additional premises?
- JAMIL AHMAD and 6 others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2297 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-04Read full judgment →
- JAMIA INDUSTRIES LTD. vs CALTEX OIL (PAK) LTD. AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Supreme Court 8 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerned the refusal to register the appellant's trade mark, "JAMIA" with a five-pointed star inside a crescent, for lubricating oils in class 4. The respondents, Caltex Oil (Pakistan) Ltd., opposed the application, claiming prior registration of marks featuring a star device with "CALTEX" and "TEXACO" for the same goods. The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks refused registration under Sections 8(a) and 10(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, finding a prominent star device common to both marks, leading to a likelihood of deception or confusion. The High Court upheld this decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Deputy Registrar and High Court correctly applied the principles that the dominant features and overall impression of marks are crucial, and that a weaker case than for infringement suffices for successful opposition to registration. The Court found the similarities striking enough to cause confusion among unwary purchasers.
Questions settled- What is the test for determining if a trade mark "so nearly resembles" another as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion?
- Can a trade mark be refused registration if its dominant feature is similar to a registered mark, even if other elements differ?
- Is a decision on whether a mark resembles another to cause deception or confusion considered an exercise of discretion or a finding of fact?
- How strictly is the test for similarity applied in trade mark opposition cases compared to infringement or passing-off actions?
- JAMEEL AHMED CHANDNA vs Mst. SARWAR BEGUM1984 CLC 2630 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-18Read full judgment →
- JAMEEL AHMAD SALEEM AND OTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS1984 PLD Lahore 391 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- JAMEEL AHMAD AND ANOTHER vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, MULTAN1984 PLC 420 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-06-28Read full judgment →
- JAMALUDDIN vs Mst. HAMIDA BEGUM1984 CLC 1158 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
- JAMAL MUSHARRIF and 3 others vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD and another1984 MLD 593 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
- JAMAL DIN AND ANOTHER vs Mst. PARI JAN AND 4 OTHERS1984 SCMR 403 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the dismissal of a civil suit filed by the appellants against the permanent transfer of a disputed plot to the respondents by the Settlement Authorities. The core legal questions involved whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging a transfer order passed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, particularly on allegations of fraud, and whether the appellants possessed the requisite locus standi as rival claimants. The Supreme Court held that under sections 22 and 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, civil courts are barred from questioning the validity of orders passed by Settlement Authorities, and the concurrent findings established that the appellants failed to substantiate allegations of fraud. Furthermore, the Court held that the appellants lacked locus standi as they were neither allottees nor entitled to the transfer. The appeal was accordingly dismissed both on merits and as time-barred. The key principles laid down affirm the jurisdictional ouster of civil courts in matters exclusively vested in Settlement Authorities under the repealed 1958 Act and require strict establishment of locus standi and substantive proof of fraud.
Questions settled- Whether a civil court has jurisdiction to question the validity of an order passed by Settlement Authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Do rival claimants who are neither allottees nor entitled to the transfer of a property possess the locus standi to challenge a transfer made in favor of legal representatives?
- Can a party successfully invoke the jurisdiction of a civil court on the basis of unproven allegations of fraud and misrepresentation regarding a settlement order?
- Jamadar JALAL DIN and another vs MUHAMMAD YOUSUF and others1984 SCMR 1531 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had reversed the concurrent findings of the trial court and the District Judge, Mianwali. The High Court, in setting aside the lower courts' decisions, relied upon the legal precedent established by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mst. Rehmat Bibi v. Nathe Khan and others (PLD 1969 SC 197). Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the arguments presented by the petitioners regarding the propriety of the High Court's interference with the lower courts' findings. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was legally justified in its intervention and that the reliance placed on the precedent of Mst. Rehmat Bibi was correct. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's judgment, affirming the reversal of the lower courts' decrees. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Is the High Court justified in reversing concurrent findings of lower courts based on established Supreme Court precedent?
- Does the reliance on the case of Mst. Rehmat Bibi v. Nathe Khan and others provide a valid legal basis for setting aside lower court judgments in this context?
- JALLA and 5 others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2594 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
- JALAL MASIH and others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2547 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-18Read full judgment →
- JALAL DIN vs Mst. ZAINIB BIBI AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1093 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
- JALAL DIN and others vs LAHORE DEVELOPOMENT AUTHORITY through its1984 SCMR 1396 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the dismissal of the petitioners' second appeal by the Lahore High Court concerning a long-standing development scheme. The core legal questions involve whether a development scheme can be considered abandoned due to prolonged delay in implementation, whether the Kabari Market Scheme fell beyond the scope of the Town Improvement Act, 1922, and whether dispossession is barred without a re-housing scheme under section 27 of the said Act. The Supreme Court held that mere delay in implementing a lawfully acquired and notified development scheme does not amount to its abandonment in the absence of a formal statutory resolution or government sanction, that the scheme fell within the purview of development provisions, and that the re-housing contention was premature. The Court established that a statutory development scheme remains valid and executable despite passage of time unless formally abandoned or modified in accordance with the law, and delay simpliciter does not invalidate the acquisition of property or execution of a scheme.
Questions settled- Does mere delay in implementing a sanctioned development scheme amount to its abandonment?
- Can a development scheme be challenged as illegal without pleading specific violations of the Town Improvement Act, 1922?
- Is a claim for a re-housing scheme under section 27 of the Town Improvement Act, 1922 premature before actual dispossession takes place?
- JALAL DIN AND ANOTHER vs THE ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1984 SCMR 253 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a review application against the dismissal of an Intra-Court Appeal. The underlying dispute involves the cancellation of land allotments made in favor of the petitioners on the basis of a claim filed in the name of a deceased right holder, which the Additional Settlement Commissioner found to be secured through fraud and misrepresentation as the first petitioner failed to establish lawful heirship. The High Court dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition and subsequent intra-court appeal, holding that concurrent findings of fact regarding the lack of evidence of heirship were unexceptionable, and further dismissed the review application on the ground of lack of due diligence in producing new documents. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's reasoning, holding that the review jurisdiction was rightly declined due to the petitioners' negligence in failing to produce the material at earlier stages. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding lack of lawful heirship can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does the failure to exercise due diligence in producing new documents preclude a party from seeking review of a judgment?
- Can land allotments secured in the name of a deceased person through fraudulent claims be lawfully cancelled?
- JAHANGIR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1015 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-11Read full judgment →
- JAHANGIR ALT AND 5 OTHERS vs FAZALURREHMAN AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 3379 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-11Read full judgment →
- JAHAN KHAN vs MUHAMMAD AKBAR, etc.1984 SCMR 1235 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court which granted bail to two respondents in a criminal case registered under Section 302 and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that the respondents were attributed specific roles in the commission of the offense and that the High Court erred in granting bail, relying on medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries. The Supreme Court examined the High Court's reasoning and found that the High Court had distinguished the respondents' case from the other accused in a manner that was neither illegal nor contrary to established legal principles. The Supreme Court held that a mere difference in the appreciation of facts regarding bail is insufficient grounds for the Supreme Court to interfere with a High Court's discretion. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, affirming that appellate interference is not warranted where the lower court's exercise of discretion is legally sound.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's order granting bail solely based on a different appreciation of facts?
- Is the grant of bail by a High Court subject to interference if the reasoning is not illegal or contrary to principle?
- JAFFAR vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1300 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
- JAFFAR KHAN vs Mrs. ZEENATUN NISA AND 7 OTHERS1984 CLC 3019 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-23Read full judgment →
- JAFFAR HUSSAIN vs UNIVERSAL OIL & VEGETABLE GHEE MILLS LTD.1984 PLC 1315 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-18Read full judgment →
- JAFFAR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1027 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-03Read full judgment →
- JABBAR vs THE STATE1984 PLD Lahore 385 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of criminal appeals, a murder reference, and a revision petition arising from a trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura. The appellants were convicted under Sections 302, 324, and 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Faqir Hussain and causing injuries to eyewitnesses, while eight co-accused were acquitted. The core legal questions before the High Court were whether interested and inimical ocular evidence disbelieved as to the majority of accused could sustain the convictions of the appellants, and whether delayed recoveries from open and accessible places provided independent corroboration. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitnesses were interested and inimical, the FIR was recorded at the spot, and the recovery witnesses were not disinterested. Moreover, recoveries of weapons made ten days after the incident from open places lacked probative value and failed to provide required independent corroboration. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitted the appellants, rejected the murder reference, and dismissed the revision for enhancement.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of interested and inimical eyewitnesses who have been disbelieved regarding co-accused?
- Does a recovery of an alleged weapon of offence from an open and accessible place ten days after the occurrence constitute reliable corroborative evidence?
- Whether the failure to associate independent and disinterested local residents during recovery proceedings weakens the evidentiary value of such recoveries?
- J COTTON MILLS, OKARA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER vs KHURSHID ALI1984 PLC 489 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-09Read full judgment →
- J ALI MUHAMMA D vs SECRETARY, HOUSING AND PHYSICAL1984 CLC 2203 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-02Read full judgment →
- MAHMUD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2504 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-08Read full judgment →
- IZZAT KHAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 353 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-31Read full judgment →
- ITTEFAQUE SHAHEEN WHEAT THRASHERS vs ITTEFAQUE INDUSTRIES (REGD,)1984 CLC 2189 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-12Read full judgment →
- ISRAR HUSSAIN SHAIKH vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others1984 SCMR 1209 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the confiscation of betelnuts by Customs authorities. The petitioner, a dealer in betelnuts, challenged the seizure of his goods, contending that they were legally purchased in government auctions and that the Customs authorities had failed to properly exercise their jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had established the legal provenance of the seized goods to overcome the presumption of illegal import. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the challenge. The Court held that the Customs authorities and the High Court correctly rejected the petitioner's claims because the purchase receipts provided were either overwritten and unreliable or failed to establish a nexus between the goods seized in transit and the goods allegedly purchased in earlier auctions. The judgment affirms that the burden of proving the legal acquisition of goods lies with the claimant when faced with a show-cause notice under the Customs Act, 1969, and that reliance on suspicious documentation justifies the rejection of such claims.
Questions settled- Does the presence of overwriting on a purchase receipt justify its rejection by Customs authorities?
- Is a claimant required to establish a clear nexus between seized goods and specific auction receipts to avoid confiscation?
- Can a High Court's dismissal of a constitutional petition be sustained if the petitioner fails to provide credible evidence of legal possession?
- ISMAIL vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1566 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
- ISMAIL vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 7 OTHERS1984 CLC 894 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-04Read full judgment →
- ISMAIL KHAN vs SHAHZAD HUSSAIN AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the jurisdiction of civil courts to challenge partition mutations of a joint khata containing evacuee shares. The appellants contended that the partition effected by the Settlement Authorities was ultra vires, arguing the land was permanently settled and that the evacuee was in Hissadari possession, thus precluding the authorities from partitioning the joint khata. The Supreme Court examined whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Court held that the appellants failed to provide evidence that the land was permanently settled or that the evacuee was in Hissadari possession, which were necessary to establish that the Settlement Authorities lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower courts' findings that the matter fell within the exclusive domain of the Settlement Authorities. Under Section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, civil courts are barred from adjudicating matters within the exclusive competence of the Settlement Authorities. The appeal was dismissed as the appellants failed to substantiate their claims regarding the lack of jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to challenge a partition mutation effected by Settlement Authorities regarding evacuee property?
- Does the permanent settlement of land on an allottee divest the Settlement Authorities of their jurisdiction to partition joint khatas?
- Does the presence of Hissadari possession by an evacuee preclude the Rehabilitation Settlement Officer from partitioning a joint khata under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme?
- ISMAIL AND OTHERS vs Mst. RAFIQ KHATOON AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 20 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of land allotment and its subsequent re-allotment to respondents. The petitioners, refugees from Jammu & Kashmir, were originally allotted land, which was cancelled in 1960. Following unsuccessful appeals and revisions, the petitioners filed a writ petition in 1964, which remained pending for fifteen years before being dismissed for non-prosecution due to counsel's absence. A subsequent writ petition filed in 1980 was dismissed in limine by the High Court on the grounds of laches, citing a delay of approximately 19 to 20 years. The petitioners argued that the delay was not inordinate, as they had been actively pursuing remedies in various forums, and the primary delay occurred during the pendency of the initial writ petition. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the petitioners' contentions regarding the nature of the delay and their continuous pursuit of legal remedies warranted further examination by the Court. The case highlights the principle that the dismissal of a writ petition on the grounds of laches requires a careful assessment of whether the delay was truly inordinate or excusable due to active litigation.
Questions settled- Whether a writ petition can be dismissed on the grounds of laches when the delay is allegedly caused by the pendency of prior legal proceedings?
- Does the dismissal of a writ petition for non-prosecution preclude the filing of a subsequent petition regarding the same subject matter?
- Can the period during which a writ petition remains pending in the High Court be counted as inordinate delay for the purpose of applying the doctrine of laches?
- ISMAIL alias SMAIL and 2 others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2184 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-11Read full judgment →
- ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, IS vs MESSRS BABAR & COMPANY1984 CLC 1535 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
- ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs MESSRS EISHAT TRADING Co., LARKANA AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2963 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- ISLAM RAFFAT SIDDIQUI vs MAHMOOD ABID RIZVI1984 CLC 1341 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an order by the Rent Controller striking off the appellant-tenant’s defense for failure to comply with a tentative rent order issued under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the tenant’s failure to deposit the full amount of arrears within the specified timeframe, despite having previously sent bank drafts to the landlord, justified the striking off of the defense. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Rent Controller’s order was clear and mandatory. The Court affirmed that compliance with a tentative rent order is a condition precedent for the Rent Controller to adjudicate the merits of the case. Relying on established precedent, the Court held that non-compliance with such an order necessitates the summary disposal of the case, specifically the striking off of the defense and the issuance of an eviction order. The judgment reinforces the principle that tentative rent orders must be strictly followed, and prior private tenders of rent that remain unrealized by the landlord do not constitute valid compliance with a judicial directive to deposit funds into court.
Questions settled- Does the failure to comply with a tentative rent order require the Rent Controller to strike off the tenant's defense?
- Is compliance with a tentative rent order a condition precedent for the Rent Controller to examine the merits of a tenant's defense?
- Does a private tender of rent via bank draft constitute valid compliance with a judicial order to deposit rent into court?
- ISLAM HUSSAIN vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1984 PLC 1564 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1984-06-17Read full judgment →
- ISLAM HASSAN KHAN vs SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1984 PLD Lahore 338 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-14Read full judgment →
- ISHTIAQ AHMAD alias KAKA AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 PLD Supreme Court 380 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1984-05-15Read full judgment →
- ISHRAT & COMPANY vs CONTROLLER OF INSURANCE, KARACHI1984 CLC 216 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-25Read full judgment →
- ISHAQUE vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 517 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
- ISHAQUE MASIH vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1473 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-17Read full judgment →
- ISHAQUE and 2 others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2505 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
- IRSHAD MAHMOOD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1651 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-17Read full judgment →
- IRSHAD HUSSAIN and another vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1318 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1983-12-18Read full judgment →
- IRRIGATION, OPERATION LABOUR UNION, (C B A). SARGODHA DIVISION, SCARP1984 PLC 527 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-15Read full judgment →
- IQBAL-UD-DIN AHMAD SIDDIQUE vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, RAWALPINDI AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 651 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-23Read full judgment →
- IQBAL vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1416 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
- IQBAL SIDDIQUI vs ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (URBAN) AND OTHERS1984 PLD Lahore 291 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arose from proceedings initiated by the Settlement Department at the behest of a tenant seeking the cancellation of a property transfer originally made in favour of the petitioners' deceased predecessor. The core legal question was whether designated authorities under repealing legislation have the jurisdiction to reopen past and closed transactions, including allegations of fraud, after the repeal of the governing settlement laws. The Lahore High Court held that after the repeal of the relevant statute, authorities under the new dispensation lack jurisdiction to reopen or review past and closed transactions, such as a transfer order that remained in the field, rendering any such subsequent proceedings coram non judice, void ab initio, and without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that settlement authorities cannot entertain mala fide applications by third parties to reopen past and closed transactions after the repeal of the settlement laws, and government officers abusing statutory powers for malicious purposes commit gross misconduct.
Questions settled- Do designated authorities under repealing laws have jurisdiction to reopen past and closed transactions after the repeal of the settlement laws?
- Can settlement authorities initiate inquiries into property transfers at the instance of a third-party tenant acting with mala fide intent?
- Whether proceedings initiated by settlement authorities after the repeal of the governing statute are void ab initio?
- IQBAL MASIH and another vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1393 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-21Read full judgment →
- IQBAL HUSSAIN vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS1984 PLC 704 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
- IQBAL HUSSAIN GILANI vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD, BAHAWALPUR AND OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 679 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- IQBAL BUTT vs THE MANAGER FINANCE (POWER), WAPDA, WAPDA HOUSE, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1418 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- IQBAL BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD KHAN and 2 others1984 MLD 466 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
- IQBAL alias PAPU vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1298 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-27Read full judgment →