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.
- IQBAL ALI SHEIKH vs Haji ABDUL KARIM AND 2 OTHERS1984 SCMR 136 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which upheld an ejectment order passed by an appellate court against a tenant. The landlord sought ejectment based on bona fide personal need. The tenant contested this, arguing the ejectment application was premature due to a 20-year lease agreement and that the application was mala fide, intended merely to enhance rent. The Rent Controller initially rejected the application, but the appellate court reversed this decision, finding in favor of the landlord on issues of bona fide need and mala fides. The petitioner challenged this in the High Court, alleging the appellate court failed to properly address the issue of the application being premature. The Supreme Court held that the appellate court had, in fact, addressed the issue and concurred with the Rent Controller's findings. Furthermore, the Court found no merit in the claim that the issue of mala fides was ignored, as it was examined alongside the issue of bona fide requirement. The petition was dismissed, with the Court granting the tenant two months to vacate.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court in a rent matter rely on a finding of the Rent Controller that was not specifically challenged by the respondent?
- Does an appellate court's failure to explicitly discuss an issue in its judgment invalidate the decision if the issue was nevertheless considered and decided?
- Is a landlord's application for ejectment based on personal need maintainable if the tenant alleges the application is mala fide and filed to enhance rent?
- IQBAL ALI SHEIKH vs Haii ABDUL KARIM AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 352 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-03Read full judgment →
- INTEZAR AHMAD KHAN vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1586 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-04Read full judgment →
- INTERNATIONAL BEVERAGES LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1984 PTD 431 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-15Read full judgment →
- INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE vs PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 808 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-07-05Read full judgment →
- INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN vs MAIDA LTD. AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 2987 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-13Read full judgment →
- INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN vs AMALGAMATED FOOD LTD.1984 MLD 1170 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
- INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS CORPORATION LTD. vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LABOUR1984 PLC 188 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Income Tax Department, Lahore. vs Income Tax Department, Lahore, Assessee{Names Confidential)PTCL 1984 (CL.) 34 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
- Income Tax Department vs AssesseePTCL 1984 (CL.) 307 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1983-12-18Read full judgment →
- INAYATULLAH vs Mian GHULAM AHMAD AND OTHERS1984 PLD Supreme Court 369 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a retired Head Constable, challenged the dismissal of his writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld an Election Tribunal's decision disqualifying him from contesting local government elections. The core legal question was whether a retired Head Constable falls under the definition of a "salaried official" subject to a two-year disqualification period under Section 21(1)(e) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, and whether he could alternatively rely on the proviso to clause (f) to bypass this bar. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a Head Constable is a "salaried official" within the meaning of the Ordinance, as the term encompasses all members of the police force. Furthermore, the Court held that the two-year bar on pensioners seeking election is a clear legislative intent to ensure uniformity across electoral laws. The Court clarified that the proviso to clause (f) regarding retirement does not apply to superannuation, which is distinct from voluntary resignation or removal. The judgment affirms that statutory provisions must be construed according to their plain tenor, and superannuation constitutes a specific category of cessation of service subject to the disqualification period.
Questions settled- Does the term "salaried official" in the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 include a Head Constable?
- Does the two-year disqualification period for pensioners under election laws apply to individuals who retire upon attaining the age of superannuation?
- Can the proviso to clause (f) of Section 21 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 be interpreted to include retirement by superannuation?
- Is it permissible to construe unambiguous statutory language to include cases not expressly covered by the text?
- INAYATULLAH vs Mian GHULAM AHMAD AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 1320 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
- INAYATULLAH ROCKET vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, UTILITY STORES1984 PLC 1504 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- INAYATULLAH AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH AND OTHERS1984 CLC 473 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
- INAYATULLAH AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 488 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a murder conviction where the appellants, Inayatullah and Muhammad Shafi, along with co-accused, were tried for the murder of Nasaruddin following a sudden dispute over the turn of irrigation water (Warabandi). The trial court convicted the appellants under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentenced them to life imprisonment, which was upheld by the High Court. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined the record and found that the incident was a sudden fight arising from a trivial dispute without preplanning or previous hostility, and noted that the appellants had also sustained injuries which the prosecution had suppressed. The core legal question was whether the case fell within the exceptions to culpable homicide. The Supreme Court held that the circumstances attracted Exception IV to section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Accordingly, the Court altered the conviction to section 304-Part I read with section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and, taking into account a voluntary compromise and compensation paid to the legal heirs, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.
Questions settled- Does a sudden fight over an irrigation water dispute without preplanning attract Exception IV to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to section 304-Part I when the accused and deceased engaged in a sudden quarrel?
- May a compromise between parties and the payment of compensation to legal heirs be considered as a mitigating circumstance for sentence reduction?
- INAYAT MASIH vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1324 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-31Read full judgment →
- INAYAT HUSSAIN BAJWA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SIALKOT AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 756 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-01-15Read full judgment →
- INAYAT AND OTHERS vs BHAG ALl AND OTHERS1984 CLC 403 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-07Read full judgment →
- INAYAT ALI KHAN vs Mst. HUSAIN BI1984 CLC 1979 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-25Read full judgment →
- INAM AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1865 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
- In re: WARNER LAMBERT (PAKISTAN) Ltd. and another vs NOT1984 MLD 1179 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-14Read full judgment →
- In re: THE INSURANCE, ACT, 1938, THE COMPANIES ACT, 1913 AND THE INDUS1984 CLC 3008 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- IN RE: HAJI YOUSIF HAJI MOOSA TRUST FUND, KARACHI vs NOT1984 CLC 2847 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
- IN RE: CONTEMPT AGAINST TUFAIL AHMAD KHAN vs NOT1984 SCMR 1228 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns contempt of court proceedings initiated against the respondent, Tufail Muhammad Khan, following his submission of an application to the President of Pakistan and other high officials. The application contained allegations of partiality, favoritism, and intentional misreading of records against a Supreme Court judge who had authored a judgment in the respondent's case. The core legal question was whether the respondent's actions constituted contempt of court and whether his subsequent unconditional apology, coupled with evidence of his mental distress at the time of the incident, warranted discharge of the contempt notice. The Court held that, given the respondent's unconditional apology, his expression of sincere regret, and medical evidence confirming his perturbed mental state at the time of the offense, the apology should be accepted. The Court discharged the contempt notice, establishing the principle that an unconditional apology, when tendered in true contrition and supported by mitigating circumstances such as mental health issues, may be accepted to purge contempt, provided the court is satisfied with the sincerity of the contemnor.
Questions settled- Can an unconditional apology be accepted to purge contempt of court?
- Does a perturbed mental state at the time of the offense serve as a mitigating factor in contempt proceedings?
- Is a contempt notice liable to be discharged when the contemnor admits the allegations were baseless and expresses sincere regret?
- In re : TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD AND ANOTHER vs NOT1984 CLC 613 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-13Read full judgment →
- KALAN KHAN vs ALI MUHAMMAD and another1984 SCMR 1280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 18-3-1980, which dismissed his writ petition regarding a settlement dispute. The parties were transferred separate properties, specifically House Nos. 43 and 45 respectively, but had been engaged in litigation since 1959 concerning a single room located in House No. 45. After extended proceedings before both the Settlement authorities and the High Court, it was determined as a matter of fact that the disputed room formed part of House No. 45 transferred to the respondent. The Supreme Court considered whether leave to appeal should be granted to re-evaluate this factual finding. Finding the impugned judgment of the High Court to be unexceptionable and observing that the dispute related strictly to a question of fact, the Supreme Court held that it was not a fit case for granting leave to appeal. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal to re-examine a concurrent finding on a pure question of fact in a settlement matter?
- In re _ THE EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTIES (MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL) ACT (XIII OF 1975) vs NOT1984 PLD Federal Shariat Court 32 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-05-25Read full judgment →
- In re _ THE EVACUEE PROPERTY AND DISPLACED PERSONS LAWS (REPEAL) ACT (XIV OF 1975) vs NOT1984 PLD Federal Shariat Court 33 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-05-25Read full judgment →
- In re : THE COMPANIES ACT, 1913 vs NOT1984 PLD Karachi 225 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-01Read full judgment →
- In re _ THE CIVIL SERVANTS ACT (LXXI of 1973) vs NOT1984 PLD Federal Shariat Court 34 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-09-26Read full judgment →
- In re : LAL KHAN vs NOT1984 SCMR 773 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner Lal Khan, who was originally tried along with co-accused under section 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and causing injuries. The trial court convicted the petitioner under section 304, Part I and section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for exceeding the right of private defence, sentencing him to life imprisonment, which the High Court subsequently reduced on appeal to ten years' rigorous imprisonment while setting aside the section 324 conviction. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the petitioner had exceeded his right of self-defence when firing at his pursuers in a traumatic situation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the petitioner was justified in exercising his right of private defence and condoned the delay in filing the petition, holding that a person facing imminent pursuit and danger is not expected to weigh his actions in golden scales.
Questions settled- Whether the firing of shots in quick succession while being pursued by an armed mob constitutes an excess of the right of self-defence?
- Can a person acting under imminent threat and a traumatic situation be expected to weigh their defensive actions in golden scales?
- Whether the rejection of the primary prosecution version warrants a re-evaluation of the plea of self-defence?
- In re : CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MUNSHI MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs NOT1984 SCMR 608 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns contempt proceedings initiated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan against an individual who fabricated a purported Supreme Court order to secure reinstatement into government service. The core legal question was whether the respondent, having forged a judicial document and used it to manipulate administrative authorities, was liable for contempt of court, and whether his subsequent unconditional apology could mitigate the gravity of the offense. The Court held the respondent guilty of gross contempt, finding that he had deliberately fabricated a judgment and abused the process of the Court to derive illegal benefits. The Court rejected the respondent's apology, ruling that such serious misconduct, which scandalized the judicial institution, could not be excused. Consequently, the respondent was sentenced to three months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. The judgment establishes that the fabrication of a judicial order to deceive authorities constitutes a severe abuse of the process of the court, for which an apology is insufficient to mitigate the punishment.
Questions settled- Does the fabrication of a court order to obtain illegal benefits constitute contempt of court?
- Can an unconditional apology mitigate the gravity of contempt committed by fabricating a judicial order?
- Is the use of a forged court order to secure reinstatement into government service an abuse of the process of the court?
- In re : CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MR. MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN vs NOT1984 SCMR 539 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves contempt proceedings initiated against the respondent, Muhammad Ayub Khan, for supplying a fabricated and forged photocopy of a Supreme Court order to a military officer to deceive him regarding efforts to secure land allotments. The core legal question was whether the respondent was responsible for forging and circulating the fake court order or if it was provided by a third party as claimed. The Supreme Court held that the respondent failed to substantiate his defense that a third party named Fazal Elahi supplied the document, concluding that the respondent himself fabricated and circulated the forged order for wrongful gain. The Court established the principle that circulating forged court documents and failing to substantiate false claims of third-party involvement constitutes a gross abuse of the process of the court and contempt, punishable by imprisonment and fine.
Questions settled- Whether circulating a fabricated photocopy of a court order constitutes contempt of court?
- Can a contemner escape liability for a forged court order by falsely blaming an untraceable third party?
- IMTIAZ HUSSAIN vs ATTOCK REFINERY LTD.1984 PLC 173 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
- IMDAD KHAN vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 1381 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-04Read full judgment →
- IMDAD HUSSAIN vs The STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2043 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-10Read full judgment →
- IMDAD ALI SA H ITO vs RAZIKDINO AND 4 OTHERS1984 CLC 3107 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-13Read full judgment →
- IMAM BAKHSH AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3210 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-01Read full judgment →
- IMAM AND 7 OTHERS vs SAIFUR REHMAN1984 PLD Supreme Court 415 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed a second regular appeal in a pre-emption suit. The appellants had purchased agricultural land via a registered sale-deed, after which a pre-emption suit was jointly filed by the minor son of one vendor and the son of another vendor, claiming a superior pre-emption right. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, rejecting the appellants' plea that the suit was collusive and instituted benami for the vendor's benefit. The High Court dismissed the second appeal in limine, holding that the benami contention was a concurrent finding of fact not properly raised below. The Supreme Court considered whether the suit, filed on behalf of a minor with no independent means, was collusively instituted by the vendor using his minor son's name. The Supreme Court held that the right of pre-emption is a personal privilege which must be exercised for the person in whom it resides, but mere poverty, minority, or outside financing does not automatically render a suit benami or collusive without convincing and incontrovertible evidence. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the mere fact that a minor pre-emptor has no independent means or that litigation is financed by another render a pre-emption suit collusive?
- Can a pre-emption suit be dismissed on the ground of benami without incontrovertible evidence that the suit was filed for the benefit of a stranger or vendor?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the collusive nature of a pre-emption suit can be disturbed in second appeal without strong legal grounds?
- ILYAS ANSARI vs COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS, LAHORE1984 PLC (C. S.) 182 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
- ILYAS ALI vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 525 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of criminal appeals arising from a Lahore High Court order concerning a sudden quarrel resulting in the murder of Abbas Ali and injuries to witnesses. The core legal questions involved the propriety of enhancing a life sentence to death, the application of vicarious liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code in a sudden and unpremeditated fight, and the proper legal characterisation of individual acts. The Supreme Court held that where an occurrence is sudden and unpremeditated, and weapons (knives) are picked up at the spur of the moment from a nearby cart without prior pre-concert or common intention, each assailant is individually liable for their specific act rather than under section 34. Consequently, the conviction of one appellant under section 302/34 was altered to individual liability for simple hurt, while the other appellant's conviction for the fatal blow causing death was maintained under section 302 without enhancement to the death penalty. The key legal principle laid down is that common intention cannot be readily inferred in a spontaneous, sudden quarrel where weapons are locally and instantly available, and assailants are only liable for the specific injuries directly attributed to their individual actions.
Questions settled- Whether common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code can be invoked in a sudden and unpremeditated quarrel where weapons are picked up at the spur of the moment?
- Is a sentence of life imprisonment liable to be enhanced to death when a murder is committed during the course of a sudden, unpremeditated fight without previous enmity?
- Can an accused who joins a sudden fight and inflicts a simple injury be held vicariously liable for the fatal injury caused by another participant?
- Whether an injury sustained by a bystander while attempting to grab a knife from an assailant's hand can be treated as a voluntarily caused hurt under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- ILLAHI BAKHSH vs BODO MAL AND 5 OTHERS1984 CLC 624 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-26Read full judgment →
- ILAM DIN vs INS AP TEXTILE AND PRINTING MILLS LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR, FACTORY MANAGER1984 PLC 836 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- ILAM DIN AND 44 OTHERS vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1984 CLC 221 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-15Read full judgment →
- IKRAMULLAH KHAN vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND 2 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 350 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-08Read full judgment →
- IKRAMULLAH KHAN vs MUHAMMAD UMAR1984 CLC 645 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from ejectment proceedings initiated by the appellant landlord against the respondent tenant regarding a workshop. The core legal questions involve whether the appeal abates under the amending Ordinance of 1980, whether the appeal is barred by limitation due to omitting certain certified copies, and whether the landlord established a bona fide personal requirement for the premises. The Lahore High Court held that the appeal did not abate as it was filed before the relevant cutoff, and condoned the omission of the certified copies of the Rent Controller's orders. However, on the merits, the court upheld the appellate authority's finding that the landlord's claim was not bona fide, noting discrepancies between the ejectment petition and testimony regarding whether the premises were for the father or the son, the omission of personal need in the initial notice, and the unexplained availability of another vacant property. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs. The key principle laid down is that contradictory pleadings regarding personal use, improvements in the landlord's case during trial, and failure to explain vacant properties undermine the bona fides of a personal requirement claim.
Questions settled- Does an appeal filed in 1978 abate under the amending Ordinance of 1980?
- Can the omission to append certified copies of the Rent Controller's orders to a second appeal be condoned?
- Does the omission of personal need in an initial notice to quit vitiate a subsequent bona fide personal use claim?
- Is a landlord's claim for personal use affected by failing to explain the availability of another vacant property?
- IKRAMULLAH KHAN and another vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and another1984 SCMR 1420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed an application for the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated via a private complaint. The petitioners were accused of cheating under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically for allegedly extorting money under the false pretense of securing employment abroad. The core legal question was whether a private complaint was maintainable when an earlier First Information Report (F.I.R.) involving similar allegations against one of the petitioners and a third party was already pending trial. The Supreme Court held that the existence of a prior F.I.R. did not constitute a legal bar to the filing of a subsequent private complaint, particularly where the complainant explained that the initial delay in naming the current petitioners was due to their influential positions and attempts at negotiation. The Court affirmed that the private complaint disclosed a prima facie case, justifying the dismissal of the quashment application. The key principle laid down is that a private complaint is not inherently incompetent merely because a prior F.I.R. regarding similar allegations is pending, provided the complaint establishes a prima facie case.
Questions settled- Is a private complaint legally barred if an earlier First Information Report regarding similar allegations is already pending trial?
- Does the existence of a pending criminal case against one accused preclude the filing of a private complaint against additional accused persons for the same transaction?
- IKRAMUDDIN vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1461 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-05-18Read full judgment →
- IKRAMUDDIN and 4 others vs THE STATE and another1984 P Cr. L J 2736 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
- IKHTIAR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHERS vs QAMARUZZAMAN1984 CLC 3298 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-27Read full judgment →
- IJAZ SHAH AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants for the murder of Sadiq Ali. The core legal question concerned whether the testimony of a solitary eye-witness, alleged by the defense to be a "chance witness" with material contradictions, was sufficient to sustain a conviction, and whether the physical evidence corroborated the prosecution’s version of events. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the convictions were sound. The Court determined that the eye-witness was credible, noting he lacked personal enmity toward the appellants and that his testimony remained consistent on material facts despite cross-examination. The Court rejected the defense's theory that the deceased had attacked the accused with bottles, citing the absence of injuries on the appellants and the presence of blood-stained bottle shards near the deceased’s body. The judgment establishes that minor discrepancies in testimony do not necessarily invalidate a witness's account, and physical evidence, such as blood-stained weapons or objects found at the crime scene, serves as vital corroboration when the defense’s alternative narrative is unsupported by medical or physical proof.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of a solitary eye-witness be sufficient to maintain a murder conviction?
- Does the status of a witness as a "chance witness" automatically render their testimony unreliable?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the defense's alternative theory of the crime is unsupported by physical evidence or injuries on the accused?
- IJAZ RASHID vs Mst. INAYAT BEGUM1984 CLC 2459 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-20Read full judgment →
- IJAZ HUSSAIN vs Haji MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 1322 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
- IJAZ HUSSAIN SHAH vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND 167 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 391 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
- IJAZ HUSSAIN SHAH vs MUHAMMAD RIAZ and another1984 SCMR 1354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose out of a dispute regarding the seniority of Section Officers in the Office Management Group, challenging an order of the Federal Service Tribunal. The petitioner, who qualified in the 1967 Promotional Examination but was appointed on an ad hoc basis due to quota limitations, claimed seniority over respondent Muhammad Riaz, who qualified in the 1969 Promotional Examination against regular quota vacancies and was formally encadred into the Central Secretariat Service (Class I) Cadre in 1973. The petitioner argued that following the creation of the Office Management Group, his regular appointment under Rule 4(iv) entitled him to seniority under Rule 12(b)(i) of the relevant Rules. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent fell under Rule 4(i) as an encadred officer, while the petitioner fell under Rule 4(iv) as an ad hoc appointee. Consequently, the petitioner's seniority was governed by Rule 12(b)(ii) on the basis of continuous regular officiation, precluding him from claiming seniority over the encadred respondent under Rule 12(b)(i).
Questions settled- Whether an ad hoc Section Officer later regularized under the Office Management Group Rules can claim seniority over an officer previously encadred in the Central Secretariat Service?
- Under which clause of Rule 12(b) of the Office Management Group Rules is the seniority of ad hoc Section Officers inducted under Rule 4(iv) determined?
- Does initial ad hoc appointment due to non-availability of quota posts confer regular appointment status for the purposes of Rule 12(b)(i) of the Office Management Group Rules?
- IJAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1569 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-20Read full judgment →
- IJAZ AHMAD vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION1984 PLC 727 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-18Read full judgment →
- IHSANULLAH vs THE STATE1989 SCMR 1323 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal matter wherein the petitioner challenged a High Court judgment that had upheld his conviction but reduced his sentence of imprisonment to two years for shooting at the complainant. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to a reduction in sentence given the circumstances of the incident, specifically the claim of the right of private defence of property and the subsequent reconciliation between the parties. The Supreme Court, noting that the incident occurred eleven years prior and that the complainant had forgiven the petitioner, found it appropriate to exercise its discretion regarding sentencing. The Court allowed the appeal to the extent of reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that in cases where significant time has elapsed since the commission of an offence and the complainant has genuinely forgiven the accused, the Court may exercise its discretion to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone, particularly when the State offers no objection to such mitigation.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone based on the passage of time and the complainant's forgiveness?
- Does the right of private defence of property under section 104 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 justify the infliction of non-fatal injuries on a trespasser?
- IHSANUL HAQUE SETHI vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 229 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
- IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN KHAN vs ABDUL KARIM1984 MLD 520 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-18Read full judgment →
- IFTIKHAR BASHIR vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and 4 others1984 SCMR 1339 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional writ petition by the Lahore High Court regarding the allotment of property under settlement schemes. The petitioner had been allotted residential and godown premises under Settlement Scheme No. VIII, which were later subject to conflicting orders and subsequent litigation involving other claimants. The High Court had previously dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, noting that the petitioner's father had unsuccessfully challenged ejectment proceedings concerning the same property in an earlier writ petition (Writ Petition No. 352/R/59), which had a direct bearing on the petitioner's claim. The petitioner argued that his own allotment was independent and never legally set aside. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the petitioner's contentions devoid of force. Crucially, the petitioner failed to produce the judgment from the earlier writ petition, which indicated that his father had been convicted under Martial Law for property grabbing. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's dismissal, affirming that the petitioner could not claim rights superior to those already adjudicated against his predecessor in interest regarding the same property.
Questions settled- Does a prior adjudication against a predecessor in interest regarding ejectment proceedings from a property bar a subsequent claim by a successor regarding the same property?
- Is a petitioner entitled to relief when they fail to produce relevant judicial records of prior litigation that directly impacts their claim?
- Can a property allotment be sustained when the claimant's predecessor in interest has already been judicially determined to have grabbed the property in question?
- IFTIKHAR AHMAD vs THE MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Lahore 69 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involved a constitutional petition filed under Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, read with the Provisional Constitution Order 1981, challenging an order passed by a Special Judge under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979, which had withdrawn an attachment warrant and directed the petitioner to pay a decreed loan amount in a lump sum. The core legal questions examined by the Lahore High Court were whether a Special Court established under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 constitutes a court subordinate to the High Court, and the nature and scope of the High Court's power of superintendence and control under Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the Special Banking Court is indeed a court exercising judicial power and is a court subordinate to the High Court, and that the power of superintendence and control under Article 203 encompasses both administrative and judicial superintendence. However, finding no miscarriage of justice or illegality warranting interference, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is a Special Court established under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 a court subordinate to the High Court?
- Does the power of superintendence and control conferred on the High Court under Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 include judicial as well as administrative superintendence?
- What are the defining characteristics that distinguish a judicial court from an administrative tribunal under the constitutional framework of Pakistan?
- Can a High Court interfere with the orders of a subordinate court under its constitutional power of superintendence in the absence of a miscarriage of justice?
- IFTIKHAR AHMAD vs MESSRS RAFHAN MAIZE PRODUCTS CO. LTD.. FAISALABAD1984 PLC 505 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-18Read full judgment →
- IFTIKHAR AHMAD BUTT vs I.-G. OF POLICE AND OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 243 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-02-14Read full judgment →
- IBRAR HUSSAIN BALI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF N.W. F. P. AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 379 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a service matter involving the seniority of a police officer who challenged the withdrawal of his seniority status by the Provincial Government. The core legal question was whether the appellant's appeal before the Service Tribunal was barred by limitation, specifically regarding the calculation of the 120-day period for filing an appeal after exhausting departmental remedies. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was time-barred. Relying on the precedent in Kadir Bux v. Province of Sind (1982 SCMR 583), the Court determined that even calculating the limitation period from the date of the departmental representation, the appeal was filed beyond the statutory timeframe. Furthermore, the Court noted that the appellant failed to file an application for the condonation of delay under the Limitation Act 1908 before the Tribunal. The Court refused to remand the case for such an application, emphasizing that a litigant must be vigilant in pursuing legal remedies. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred.
Questions settled- Is an appeal before the Service Tribunal barred by limitation if filed after the expiry of 120 days from the institution of departmental proceedings?
- Can a litigant be granted an opportunity to apply for condonation of delay upon remand if they failed to do so before the original forum?
- Does the time for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal begin to run from the date of the original order or from the date of the departmental representation?
- IBRAR ASGHAR vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GUJRAT AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 3361 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-17Read full judgment →
- IBRAHIM vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) MULTAN and others1984 SCMR 1421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, Ibrahim, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court, challenging the allotment of land made in favour of the respondents in lieu of the joint claim of his two deceased brothers. The core legal questions concerned whether the appellant's earlier departmental appeal effectively challenged the subsequent allotment order dated 28-1-1967, and whether his conduct amounted to acquiescence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in finding that the appellant's appeal was directed against an earlier order rather than the 1967 allotment, a position reinforced by his previous litigation history and subsequent purchase of land allotted to one of the respondents. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot successfully maintain a challenge against an allotment order when their previous departmental appeals failed to explicitly target that specific order and their subsequent conduct demonstrates acquiescence.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal directed against an earlier allotment order can be treated as a challenge to a subsequent allotment order?
- Does the purchase of land allotted to a contesting respondent amount to acquiescence in the allotment?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment where the appellant failed to challenge the operative order before the departmental authorities?
- IBRAHIM vs Mst. SAEEDA BANG1984 MLD 1124 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-02Read full judgment →
- I. C. I. PAKISTAN MANUFACTURES LTD. vs AHMAD KHAN AND 6 OTHERS1984 PLC 943 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-08-12Read full judgment →
- HYESONS SUGAR MILLS LTD. vs DIRECTORGENERAL/COMMISSIONER, EXCISE &1984 CLC 2408 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-15Read full judgment →
- HUSSAINI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3096 (2) · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-23Read full judgment →
- HUSSAIN vs ALLAH BAKHSH1984 SCMR 1118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a second appeal. The dispute concerns evacuee agricultural land where an occupancy tenant gifted his rights to the respondent via a registered deed. Subsequently, the tenant attempted to cancel the gift mutation and sold the land to the appellant. The respondent filed a civil suit challenging the subsequent mutations and sale, which was decreed by the trial court and affirmed by the first appellate court and the High Court. The core legal questions involved the effect of transferring occupancy rights without the landlord's prior consent under the Punjab Tenancy Act and whether a new factual legal objection could be raised for the first time in second appeal. The Supreme Court held that a transfer without the landlord's consent under section 56 read with section 60 of the Punjab Tenancy Act is not void ab initio but merely voidable at the option of the landlord, and since the landlord (Custodian) did not avoid it, the gift remained valid, divesting the tenant of any rights to sell. Furthermore, a mixed question of fact and law involving a notification under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957 cannot be raised for the first time in second appeal. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a transfer of occupancy rights without the landlord's consent is void ab initio or merely voidable at the instance of the landlord?
- Can a third party challenge a transaction that is voidable only at the option of the landlord?
- Is an objection requiring factual investigation permitted to be raised for the first time in a second appeal?
- Does a gift transaction of occupancy rights without consideration fall within the prohibition of transfers under section 19 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957?
- HUSSAIN SHAH AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 695 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
- HUSSAIN MILLS LTD. vs ABDUL RASHID KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 2452 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-21Read full judgment →
- HUSSAIN K HODA I vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2621 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-25Read full judgment →
- HUSEIN SUGAR MILLS LTD. vs MUKHTAR AHMAD1984 PLC 842 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
- HUMAYUN KHAN vs Mst. CHAND SITARA1984 SCMR 240 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for possession by redemption of mortgaged land. The plaintiff/respondent sought redemption based on a registered mortgage deed. The trial court granted a preliminary decree for redemption on payment of the mortgage amount, which was affirmed by the Additional District Judge and subsequently by the High Court in civil revision. The defendant/petitioner challenged the decision on grounds that oral evidence established the suit was premature, the civil court lacked jurisdiction under the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act 1961, improvements were made, and possession of a specific portion could not be granted against a co-sharer. The Supreme Court held that oral evidence altering the terms of a written registered mortgage deed is inadmissible under Section 91 of the Evidence Act 1872. The court further found no factual evidence of improvements, affirmed that civil courts possessed jurisdiction as there was no specific bar, and upheld the findings of the courts below. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Is oral evidence admissible under Section 91 of the Evidence Act 1872 to alter the terms of a registered mortgage deed?
- Does the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act 1961 completely bar the jurisdiction of civil courts in mortgage redemption suits?
- Can a mortgagee claim compensation for improvements made to mortgaged property in the absence of evidence proving such improvements?
- HUMAYUN KHAN vs MESSRS GHEE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. AND 21984 PLD Lahore 35 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-24Read full judgment →
- HUHAMMD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 922 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-24Read full judgment →
- HOTEL METROPOLE LTD. vs GHULAM HYDER1984 PLC 145 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
- HOTEL INTERCONTINENTAL vs HAMIDULLAH KHAN1984 PLC 729 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-07-05Read full judgment →
- HO MUHAMMAD ZAINUL ABADIN vs ABDUL GHAFFAR and 3 others1984 MLD 1142 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-01Read full judgment →
- HIZBULLAH vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1510 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-07-31Read full judgment →
- Hizbullah vs The State And AnotherPTCL 1984 (CL) 192 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-08-20Read full judgment →
- HINDU GENERAL PANCHAYAT (REGD.) vs GOVERNMENT OF PROVINCE OF SIND1984 CLC 503 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-07Read full judgment →
- HIDAYAT ULLAH vs DISTRICT JUDGE, SIALKOT AND 7 OTHERS1984 CLC 1472 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-21Read full judgment →
- HIDAYAT ALI alias DHAROO AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3207 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-27Read full judgment →
- HIDAYAT AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2278 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
- HEAVY MECHANICAL COMPLEX, TAXILA vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL /1984 PLC 814 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-23Read full judgment →
- HEAVY MECHANICAL COMPLEX LTD. vs ABDUL WASIM1984 PLC 727 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-18Read full judgment →
- HEADMASTER, MUSLIM HIGH SCHOOL No, 1, RAWALPINDI AND ANOTHER—Appellants vs Mst. ASGHARI KHANAM AND 2 OTHERS1984 SCMR 332 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave was directed against a Lahore High Court judgment quashing an order of the Settlement Commissioner passed in a revision petition. The matter concerned a property transfer order made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 25-6-1974. The appellants filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner after 1-7-1974, which was the effective date of repeal under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975.
The core legal question was whether a revision petition filed after 1-7-1974 against a pre-repeal order could be entertained by the Settlement Commissioner as a 'pending proceeding' under the Repealing Act.
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that upon the repeal of evacuee property laws with effect from 1-7-1974, the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 was no longer available. Revisions not yet instituted before 1-7-1974 were not 'pending proceedings' under Section 2(2) of the Repealing Act 1975 and could not be entertained.
Questions settled- Whether a revision petition filed after the repeal of evacuee laws can be entertained as a pending proceeding under Section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975?
- Does the Settlement Commissioner retain revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 after 1-7-1974?
- Can Section 6 of the General Clauses Act be utilized to institute fresh proceedings under a repealed statute where the repealing act specifically deals with the survival of proceedings?
- HAZUR BAK HSH, vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2503 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-19Read full judgment →
- HAYAT MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1455 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner, Hayat Muhammad, for the double murder of Hafiz Rab Nawaz and Painda Khan. The petitioner, employed as a mosque servant, killed the victims following a dispute over unpaid wages. The trial court and the High Court found the prosecution's case proved beyond reasonable doubt, relying on ocular testimony, medical evidence, and recovery of incriminating items, including a blood-stained club. The petitioner's defense, alleging the victims killed each other due to an illicit affair, was rejected as fabricated. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' findings, noting the petitioner's brutal conduct in murdering the Imam and subsequently burning his body, as well as killing a second innocent bystander who intervened. The Court held that the evidence conclusively established the petitioner's guilt and that the sentence was proportionate to the heinous nature of the crime. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, as the conviction and sentence were found to be legally sound and well-supported by the evidence.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of incriminating items is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
- Can a plea of innocence based on an alternative theory of the crime be rejected if it lacks evidentiary support and contradicts the prosecution's established case?
- Is the brutal nature of a crime, such as burning a body after murder, a relevant factor in maintaining a death sentence?
- HASSAN. SHAH and another vs INVESTIGATION AGENCY, MARTIAL LAW OFFICE, NAWABSHAH and 2 others1984 MLD 256 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-29Read full judgment →
- HASSAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1281 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged his conviction and five-year rigorous imprisonment sentence under section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for passing forged currency notes. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved that the appellant had the requisite guilty knowledge or reason to believe that the currency notes were forged at the time of use or possession. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that mere possession or passing of counterfeit notes without proof of guilty knowledge is insufficient for an offence under section 489-B, drawing an analogy to the principles governing section 489-C. The court laid down the principle that the prosecution must establish guilty knowledge through surrounding circumstances and antecedents, and where the accused is a rustic villager unable to distinguish counterfeit notes, mixes genuine notes with forged ones, and exhibits no guilty conduct like fleeing, the essential ingredient of knowledge is absent and cannot be presumed.
Questions settled- Whether mere possession or passing of forged currency notes is sufficient to convict an accused under section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of guilty knowledge?
- Does the requirement of guilty knowledge or reason to believe notes are forged apply equally to offences under section 489-B and section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can guilty knowledge under section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be presumed against a rustic villager who mixes genuine and forged currency notes and exhibits no attempt to flee?
- HASSAN SHAH AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1840 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-11Read full judgment →
- HASSAN NOOR vs Shahzada BURHANUDDIN AND 4 OTHERS1984 PLD Peshawar 176 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-03Read full judgment →
- HASSAN MUHAMMAD vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS1984 PLC 85 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
- HASSAN MUHAMMAD THE STATE vs THE STATE MUHA MMAD ANWAR HASSAN1984 P Cr. L J 393 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-12-07Read full judgment →
- HASSAN ALI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1772 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-30Read full judgment →