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.
- HASSAN ALI AND OTHERS vs MEMBER (RELIEF AND SETTLEMENT), BOARD OF REVENUE, SIND AND OTHERS1984 CLC 2349 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-15Read full judgment →
- HASHMAT ALIA ccused vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1237 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-02-20Read full judgment →
- HASHMAT ALI BEG and another vs KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION--1984 MLD 538 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-31Read full judgment →
- HASHIM and 2 others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2491 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-19Read full judgment →
- HASEEN vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM1984 CLC 791 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-07Read full judgment →
- HASAN MUHAMMAD vs LYALLPUR COTTON MILLS1984 PLC 1155 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-26Read full judgment →
- HAROON vs Haji UMAR AHMED (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS)1984 CLC 1669 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-21Read full judgment →
- HAQ NAWAZ vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 8 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-10-03Read full judgment →
- HAQ NAWAZ vs NAZAR KHAN AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1032 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a petition against acquittal filed by Haq Nawaz, which is barred by limitation by four days. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient grounds exist to condone the delay in filing the petition against the acquittal, thereby allowing the matter to be heard on merits after the respondent has acquired a right to live. The Court held that the petitioner failed to put forward sufficient grounds for the condonation of delay. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as time-barred. The key principle laid down is that a petition against acquittal filed beyond the period of limitation will not be entertained unless strong and sufficient grounds for condoning the delay are established, as the respondent acquires a valuable right to life upon acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether a petition against acquittal barred by limitation can be entertained without sufficient grounds for condonation of delay?
- Does an acquitted respondent acquire a right to live that protects them from delayed challenges?
- HAQ NAWAZ vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, CONSOLIDATION, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 48 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a grant of leave to appeal, concerning a dispute over land rights and consolidation proceedings. The core legal questions for determination involve the legal effect of a civil court decree in favour of the petitioner, specifically in circumstances where that decree remained unchallenged within the hierarchy of civil courts. Furthermore, the Court is tasked with examining whether the dismissal of a prior Writ Petition (No. 1021 of 1962) by the High Court on 30th November 1962 operates as res judicata against the current claims. Additionally, the proceedings require an interpretation of the provisions of the Punjab Land Disposition (Saving of Shamilat) Act, 1951, in relation to the facts of the case. The Court noted the absence of any interim order protecting the petitioner's alleged possession, as the condition for depositing cash to maintain the status quo was not fulfilled. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to address these substantial questions of law regarding the finality of civil decrees and the application of res judicata in land consolidation matters.
Questions settled- What is the legal effect of a civil court decree that has not been challenged in any higher forum?
- Does the dismissal of a previous writ petition operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings?
- How do the provisions of the Punjab Land Disposition (Saving of Shamilat) Act, 1951 apply to land consolidation disputes?
- HAQ NAWAZ AND 6 OTHERS vs FACTO SUGAR MILLS LTD.1984 PLC 811 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-24Read full judgment →
- HAQ NAWAZ AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1860 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-12Read full judgment →
- HAQ NAW AZ vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1085 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-03Read full judgment →
- HAQ NA WAZ vs RAB NAWAZ AND 4 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 600 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →
- HANIFULLAH vs WAPDA AND OTHERS1984 PLC 1654 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-04Read full judgment →
- HAMZULLAH vs UMAR ALI AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Peshawar 20 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-08-23Read full judgment →
- HAMZA ALI vs CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY, SIND, HYDERABAD AND 31984 CLC 2242 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-13Read full judgment →
- HAMIDULLAH JAN vs SPORTS SELECTION COMMITTEE AND OTHERS1984 CLC 149 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-01-27Read full judgment →
- HAMID MAHMOOD vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER1984 PLC 1080 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- HAMID IQBAL vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 789 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- HAMID AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1057 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
- HAMEER and anothers vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2459 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
- HAMAL AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 279 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
- Hall GHULAM QADIR THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS AND ANOTHERS vs CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY AND 2 OTHERSRepondents1984 CLC 204 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-21Read full judgment →
- HALIM SARWAR vs S. H. 0. POLICE, HEAD MARALA AND 2 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 2993 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed seeking a writ to direct the respondent police authorities to register a criminal case under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding an incident where the petitioner's party sustained numerous serious injuries, while the opposing party allegedly maneuvered to have a first information report registered first. The core legal question was whether the police are bound to register a second first information report containing a cross-version or a distinct grievance of the same occurrence when one first information report has already been recorded at the instance of the other party. The Lahore High Court held that the police are under a statutory duty to record information disclosing a cognizable offence under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and cannot refuse to register a counter-version or a separate grievance merely because an initial first information report was already registered. The court established that where parties present distinct grievances rather than mere defensive counter-versions, the registration of a cross-first information report is necessary to ensure justice and prevent the aggrieved party from being left without a proper remedy.
Questions settled- Is the police bound to register a first information report under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence?
- Can the police refuse to register a second first information report or a cross-version of an occurrence merely because an initial first information report has already been registered at the instance of the other party?
- Whether a party presenting a distinct grievance by way of a cross-version is entitled to the registration of a formal first information report rather than being relegated solely to a private complaint?
- HALAI.ENTERPRISES vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI and 3 others1984 MLD 658 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
- HAKIMUDDIN vs EASTERN AUTOMOBILES LTD. AND 4 OTHERS1984 PLC 158 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-11Read full judgment →
- Hakim NAJMUL HAQ AND OTHERS vs CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1187 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-16Read full judgment →
- Hakim MUHAMMAD LUKMAN vs CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, SIND AND 21984 CLC 2308 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- HAKIM KHAN vs WEST PAKISTAN CONSUMERS' CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, LAHORE1984 PLC 1517 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Hakim JAMSHED AHMED KHAN vs FATEH MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 1540 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
- Hakim BASHIR AHMED (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) vs THE GOVERNMENT1984 CLC 3061 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenged an appellate court order that reversed the trial court's rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether a civil suit challenging orders of settlement authorities on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, and mala fides is barred by the ouster clauses in Sections 22 and 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and whether defenses like res judicata and estoppel justify rejecting a plaint at the threshold. The court held that civil courts retain jurisdiction to scrutinize orders of special tribunals where fraud or mala fides are specifically pleaded, as such orders are not immune from attack. Regarding the procedural aspect, the court affirmed that when deciding an application under Order VII, Rule 11, the court must accept the plaint's averments as true and cannot consider external defenses or the likelihood of the plaintiff's success at trial. Consequently, issues of limitation, res judicata, and estoppel are matters for trial, not for summary rejection of the plaint.
Questions settled- Can a civil court examine orders of settlement authorities if they are alleged to be fraudulent or mala fide?
- Should a court consider the defendant's pleas of res judicata or estoppel when deciding an application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the starting point of limitation under Article 95 of the Limitation Act 1908 run from the date of the fraud or the date the fraud became known to the party?
- Is a plaint liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the plaintiff's success at trial is uncertain?
- HAKIM AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 878 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
- Hakeem KHURSHID AHMAD and 5 others vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1331 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-02Read full judgment →
- HAKEEM KHAN AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS PREMIER TOBACCO INDUSTRIES LTD.1984 PLC 302 · Labour Court · 1979-04-02Read full judgment →
- HAKAM ALI vs SAUDAGAR AND OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 910 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-22Read full judgment →
- Haji ZULFIQAR AHMAD vs MUMTAZ MUHAMMAD KHAN1984 CLC 619 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-24Read full judgment →
- Haji YAR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs DIRECTORGENERAL, EXCISE &1984 SCMR 44 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two civil petitions arising from the cancellation of Bhang Venda licences for the year 1974-75 due to defaults in the payment of monthly instalments by the licensees. The petitioners challenged the cancellation, forfeiture of advance money, and black-listing through writ petitions in the Lahore High Court, which set aside the black-listing orders but upheld the forfeiture of advance money. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the challenge to the licence cancellation had become academic due to the expiration of the licence period, and the primary surviving contention concerned the refund of advance payments. The Court held that the petitions were unfit for interference, observing that the advance amounts were apparently liable to be forfeited under the relevant excise statute and the question of adjustment was a matter for scrutiny. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions. The key principle laid down is that advance licence fees defaulted upon are liable to forfeiture in accordance with statutory provisions, and discretionary relief will not be granted where the underlying licence period has expired and no compelling case for adjustment is established.
Questions settled- Whether advance money paid for an excise licence is liable to forfeiture upon the cancellation of the licence due to default in monthly instalments?
- Does a challenge to the cancellation of an excise licence become academic once the licence period has expired?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the forfeiture of advance licence fees under the Punjab Excise Act without a clear case for adjustment?
- Haji Yar Mahammad And Lahore And Another. vs Director General, ExcisePTCL 1984 (CL) 188 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comprises two civil petitions arising from the cancellation of licences for the sale of Bhang in Multan for the year 1974-75 after the petitioners failed to pay their monthly instalments in time. The petitioners' advance payments were forfeited and they were black-listed, leading them to challenge these actions through writ petitions in the Lahore High Court, which partly accepted the petitions by setting aside the black-listing orders while maintaining the forfeiture of advance amounts. The core legal question before the Supreme Court related to the propriety of forfeiting advance licence fees and whether such advance payments stood adjusted against the availed licence period. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the advance amounts were apparently liable to be forfeiture under the relevant statutory provisions and the issue of adjustment required factual scrutiny making the cases unfit for constitutional interference. The key principle laid down is that default in timely payment of licence instalments justifies cancellation and forfeiture actions in accordance with excise laws.
Questions settled- Whether advance payments made for a Bhang licence are liable to forfeiture upon the cancellation of the licence due to default in paying monthly instalments?
- Can a writ court interfere with the forfeiture of advance licence fees when the licence period has already expired and default is established?
- Haji WALIBAT KHAN vs Mir DARAZ KHAN AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 998 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the plaintiff-pre-emptor alleged that an ostensible exchange of land was, in reality, a sale, claiming a superior right of pre-emption based on contiguity. The trial court and the District Judge decreed the suit, finding the exchange to be a sale due to the disparity in the value of the exchanged lands. However, the Peshawar High Court reversed these findings in civil revision, determining that the lower courts ignored documentary evidence regarding the land's status and that the plaintiff's claim of contiguity rested solely on a decree under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, which establishes possessory rights rather than title. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that a decree under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 is insufficient to establish the title necessary to assert a superior right of pre-emption. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that courts must respect the evidentiary presumption of revenue records over extraneous, later-dated reports when determining the character of land at the time of a transaction.
Questions settled- Can a decree obtained under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 be used to establish title for the purpose of claiming a superior right of pre-emption?
- Is a finding of fact by lower courts immune from interference in civil revision if the courts ignored relevant documentary evidence and relied on extraneous material?
- Does a decree under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 suffice to prove ownership for pre-emption claims?
- Haji UMA R vs Mst. MAHMOODA KHATOON1984 CLC 1849 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-09Read full judgment →
- KALATI vs ALI GOHAK AND 2 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 523 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-06Read full judgment →
- HAJI SOOMAR HAJI HAJJAN COTTON GINNING & PRESSING FACTORY, TANDO1984 PLC 629 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
- Haji SOHNA alias RAMZAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 714 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-19Read full judgment →
- Haji SHARIF AHMAD KHAN AND OTHERS vs SULEMAN1984 SCMR 28 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had set aside an ejectment order previously passed by the Rent Controller and upheld in the first appeal. The core legal questions concerned whether the High Court erred in its factual findings regarding the landlord's claim of bona fide personal use, the tenant's alleged default in rent payment, and the claim of damage to the rented premises. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had correctly appreciated the evidence on record. Specifically, the High Court noted that the landlord failed to prove the unsuitability of other vacant shops for personal use, verified the tenant's attempts to remit rent via money order, and determined that the alleged damage to the property was unsubstantiated given the long-standing nature of the tenant's business operations. Finding no question of law arising from the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court held that the decision was based on a correct appreciation of evidence and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a landlord to prove the unsuitability of other vacant properties defeat a claim for bona fide personal use?
- Can a tenant avoid a finding of default in rent payment by demonstrating attempts to remit rent via money order after a landlord's refusal?
- Is a finding of fact by the High Court based on a correct appreciation of evidence open to interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Haji Shaikh FATEH MUHAMMAD vs ABDULLAH KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1984 SCMR 1039 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an ejectment petition filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner for eviction from a commercial shop on the grounds of default in rent payment and subletting. The Rent Controller found the relationship of landlord and tenant to exist and ordered the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent, which the petitioner failed to do, raising disputes regarding ownership and the validity of the transfer documents. The ejectment orders passed by the lower forums were upheld through successive tiers of litigation up to the Supreme Court. The petitioner then challenged the concurrent findings via a constitutional petition before the High Court, which was dismissed. The Supreme Court dismissed the current petition, holding that the question of title and the relationship of landlord and tenant had already been conclusively determined in favor of the landlord, and that tenants cannot be permitted to raise frivolous objections regarding ownership to evade rent obligations after failing to comply with valid deposit orders.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant can challenge the landlord's title after a competent forum has determined the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship?
- Does failure to deposit arrears of rent as ordered by the Rent Controller justify an order of ejectment?
- Can a tenant raise objections regarding the validity of transfer documents in writ proceedings to avoid eviction for default?
- Haji Seth WALI MUHAMMAD AND 4 OTHERS s vs MEMBER III, BOARD OF REVENUE, BALUCHISTAN, QUETTA AND 5 OTHERS1984 PLD Quetta 131 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-05-16Read full judgment →
- Haji SARDAR MUHAMMAD KHAN and others vs BOARD OF REVENUE, LAHORE1984 MLD 454 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
- Haji PEHALWAN MUHAMMAD YOUNAS vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1101 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a tenant's petition for special leave to appeal arising from the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge directing the eviction of the petitioner from shop premises on the ground of the landlord's personal requirement. The core legal question was whether concurrent findings of fact regarding personal requirement could be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction on the grounds of misreading of evidence and mala fides. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that in constitutional jurisdiction, it is impermissible to seek a reappraisal of evidence or reopen findings of fact conclusively determined by statutory forums unless strong legal grounds are made out. The Court established that concurrent findings of fact by rent forums regarding a landlord's bona fide personal requirement cannot be disturbed under constitutional jurisdiction merely on the basis of pleas not raised in pleadings or unsupported by the record.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by rent forums regarding personal requirement can be reopened in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is it permissible to seek a reappraisal of evidence before the High Court in a writ petition arising from rent proceedings?
- Can a plea of mala fides regarding a landlord's personal requirement be entertained when not specifically raised in the pleadings?
- HAJI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2321 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-01Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD vs Haji JAN MUHAMMAD1984 CLC 1181 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-08Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD USMAN vs MUHAMMAD MOOS A MAYAT and 11 others1984 MLD 586 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD UMAR vs THE OFFICERONSPECIAL DUTY, FEDERAL LAND1984 CLC 1868 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-13Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD UMAR vs THE OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, FEDERAL1984 CLC 354 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD TARIQ vs MUHAMMAD NAVEEDUZZAFAR MALIK, ADDITIONAL1984 PLD Lahore 502 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order of the Election Tribunal setting aside the election of the petitioner to a seat in the Lahore Municipal Corporation and declaring the rival candidate elected. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner suffered from disqualifications under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 due to alleged political party affiliation or involvement in subversive activities, and whether the principle of "throwing away votes" was rightly applied. The Lahore High Court held that the findings of the Election Tribunal were based on no positive evidence, as unproven assertions, unproduced newspaper reports, and ambiguous conviction records without proof of moral turpitude or subversive acts were insufficient to establish disqualification. The Court ruled that statutory provisions depriving a valuable right of franchise must be strictly construed, and in the absence of evidence, the Tribunal's finding was without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that disqualifications from contesting elections must be established by positive, reliable evidence, and findings based on surmises or no evidence are amenable to judicial review under constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether an election tribunal's finding of candidate disqualification based on no positive evidence is open to judicial review in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Can provisions of a statute that deprive a person of the right of franchise be construed liberally?
- Whether the principle of throwing away votes can be applied when a candidate's alleged disqualification is not notorious and unproven at the time of election?
- Does a conviction for raising slogans without proof of an offence involving moral turpitude or subversive activities attract disqualification under section 21 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- Haji MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs AURANGZEB AND OTHERS1984 PLD Lahore 375 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-16Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD SADIQ AND OTHERS vs K H AIR ATI1984 CLC 2239 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Letters Patent Appeal arose from a dispute over the transfer of an evacuee property in Okara between local claimants and a non-claimant respondent. The Chief Settlement Commissioner had transferred the property to the appellants in a revision petition where the respondent was not impleaded, while simultaneously dismissing the respondent's own revision petition on technical grounds. The respondent challenged these orders via a writ petition, which a Single Judge accepted, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the case. The core legal questions were whether the High Court could grant relief not specifically prayed for in a writ petition and whether the respondent was a necessary party to the appellants' revision proceedings. The Court held that the respondent was indeed a necessary party, and the failure to implead him violated principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that it could permit amendments to pleadings to grant effective relief, ensuring that technicalities do not defeat the ends of justice. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the remand order for a fresh decision.
Questions settled- Is a party who has contested the transfer of property before lower settlement authorities a necessary party to a revision petition filed by the opposing party?
- Can the High Court permit the amendment of a writ petition to include a challenge to an order not specifically prayed for, in order to grant effective relief?
- Does the failure to implead a necessary party in revision proceedings before the Chief Settlement Commissioner constitute a violation of the principles of natural justice?
- Haji MUHAMMAD MUNIR vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SUKKURAND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2339 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs RAMZAN ALI1984 CLC 2364 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD AMIN vs Haji GHOUS BUKHSH and 2 others1984 MLD 659 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-26Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD ALTAF JANJUA AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 641 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
- Haji MEHRBAN vs PAKISTAN AND 3 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 3005 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
- Haji KHALID alias MUHAMMAD KHALID vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1060 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a police constable against the High Court's judgment setting aside his acquittal and convicting him under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for accepting a bribe. The core legal question was whether the witnesses who provided the bribe money were accomplices whose testimony required independent corroboration under section 133 of the Evidence Act 1872. The Supreme Court held that the witnesses who procured and handed over the bribe under the petitioner's demand were not accomplices requiring corroboration in the circumstances, and that the prosecution had squarely proven its case while the petitioner's plea of alibi was falsified by official testimony. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the High Court rightly set aside the trial court's acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether witnesses who provide bribe money upon a public servant's demand are accomplices whose testimony requires independent corroboration under section 133 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Can an appellate court set aside an order of acquittal when the prosecution has squarely proved the charge and the accused's defense alibi is falsified by official evidence?
- Haji JAUDER KHAN AND 5 OTHERS vs FALAHUDDIN AND 4 OTHERS1984 PLD Peshawar 41 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
- Haji JAMIL AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM1984 CLC 2804 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-07Read full judgment →
- Haji ISMAIL DOSSA vs MONOPOLY CONTROL AUTHORITY1984 PLD Karachi 315 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of multiple miscellaneous appeals filed against the orders of the Monopoly Control Authority concerning the interpretation of the 'value of assets' under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions involved whether current assets are excluded from the definition of 'value of assets', whether liabilities should be deducted to arrive at net assets, whether subsequent legislative amendments during the pendency of an appeal apply, and what constitutes 'wilful failure' to register for the imposition of penalties. The court held that 'value of assets' encompasses both fixed and current assets at cost less normal income-tax depreciation, without deducting liabilities. Furthermore, the court held that an appellate court must take cognizance of legislative changes occurring during the pendency of an appeal, and that a mere default in registration does not amount to a 'wilful failure' warranting penal sanctions unless intentional and deliberate. The appeals were consequently remanded to the Authority for redetermination in light of these principles.
Questions settled- Whether the expression 'value of assets' under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1979 includes current assets alongside fixed assets?
- Should liabilities of an undertaking be deducted when calculating the 'value of assets' under Section 2(0) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1979?
- Can an appellate court take into account legislative changes and amendments introduced during the pendency of an appeal?
- What constitutes a 'wilful failure' to register under Section 19 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1979 for the imposition of penalties?
- Haji GUL BEG AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 288 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-06Read full judgment →
- Haji GHULAM YASIN vs ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES and others1984 SCMR 1467 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a borrower in default, sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed his constitutional petition challenging the auction of a house pledged as security for a loan. The petitioner contended that the auction was conducted without proper notice and that he had locus standi to challenge the sale of the surety's property. The Supreme Court examined the record, finding that the petitioner had been served with multiple notices under the relevant Ordinance and had actively participated in appellate and revisional proceedings regarding the auction, thereby demonstrating full awareness of the process. The Court held that the auction proceedings were consistent with the statutory scheme, which mandated not only the securing of loans but also specific repayment schedules that the petitioner failed to satisfy. Consequently, the Court determined that the auction could not be avoided on grounds of lack of notice or failure to meet statutory repayment requirements. Leave to appeal was refused, as no substantial question of law requiring further examination was raised.
Questions settled- Does a principal debtor have locus standi to challenge the auction of a surety's property pledged for the debtor's loan?
- Can a borrower avoid the auction of mortgaged property on the grounds of lack of notice when the record demonstrates active participation in appellate proceedings regarding the auction?
- Does the Co-operative Societies and Co-operative Banks (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance permit the auction of mortgaged property solely because the loan was secured, or must statutory repayment requirements also be met?
- Haji GHULAM RASOOL and 3 others vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSIONER and another1984 MLD 291 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-02Read full judgment →
- Haji FAQIR ALI vs SIRAJ DIN AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 1004 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-23Read full judgment →
- Haji DUR MUHAMMAD vs Malik MUHAMMAD AKRAM1984 P Cr. L J 2308 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-24Read full judgment →
- Haji AZIZ MUHAMMAD vs Haji JAN MUHAMMAD1984 SCMR 202 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the orders of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision and subsequent review application regarding the vacation of a status quo order. The petitioner had filed a suit for declaration of ownership of disputed land based on an exchange agreement and obtained a temporary injunction. The trial court maintained the status quo, but the District Judge vacated it on appeal, a view upheld by the High Court in revision and review upon finding a supervening event that eliminated the justification for the stay. The core legal question concerns the interference by the Supreme Court with concurrent discretionary interlocutory orders regarding injunctions. The Supreme Court held that no justification exists to interfere with the concurrent exercise of discretion by the lower courts based on a reappraisal of facts. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere with discretionary interlocutory orders passed concurrently by lower courts unless a substantial legal infirmity is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent discretionary orders regarding interlocutory injunctions based on a reappraisal of facts?
- Can an order maintaining status quo be vacated on account of a supervening event?
- HAJI AND OTHERS vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1167 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-29Read full judgment →
- HAJI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1080 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-25Read full judgment →
- Haji AMIR ALIM ANGSI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1259 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-21Read full judgment →
- Haji ALLAH DINO vs Haji FAZAL and 3 others1984 CLC 2686 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-27Read full judgment →
- Haji ALI MUHAMMAD SHAH vs MUHAMMAD MUNAWAR1984 PLD Karachi 187 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-21Read full judgment →
- Haji AHMED ZAHEER KHAN vs ANWAR A.RAHIM1984 CLC 2714 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
- Haji ABDUR REHMAN vs GHLTLAM HASSAN AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 572 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-02Read full judgment →
- Haji ABDULLAH vs PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1270 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-11Read full judgment →
- Haji ABDULLAH through his 5 Legal Heirs vs hist. GOHAR SULTANA and another1984 MLD 1097 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-21Read full judgment →
- Haji ABDUL KHALIQUE vs SIND PROVINCE1984 P Cr. L J 1380 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-29Read full judgment →
- Haji ABDUL KHALIQ vs ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND 31984 CLC 2102 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-14Read full judgment →
- Haji ABDUL KARIM vs Dr. ABDUL SATTAR1984 MLD 1128 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-08Read full judgment →
- Haft FAIZ MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs THE OFFICERONSPECIAL DUTY1984 CLC 1893(1) · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Hafiz SULTAN AND ANOTHER vs NAIKA1984 PLD Lahore 342 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-16Read full judgment →
- Hafiz NAZIR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND OTHERS1984 CLC 3328 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-03Read full judgment →
- Hafiz MUHAMMAD JAMIL KHAN vs CONTROLLER OF POST OFFICES, KARACHI1984 PLC (C. S.) 422 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-01-10Read full judgment →
- Hafiz MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND ANOTHER vs NASEEM AHMAD AND 2 OTHERSPLD 1984 Rev. 19 Punjab · Board of Revenue · 1984-03-07Read full judgment →
- Hafiz MUHAMMAD ALAMMUHAMMAD ALI--PetitionerMUHAMMAD JARJEES--1984 SCMR 276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These four appeals by special leave arose from a common judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the convictions of the appellants under sections 302 and 148 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, while modifying certain death sentences to imprisonment for life. The core legal question concerned the reliability of ocular testimony, the evaluation of conflicting defence evidence, and the application of vicarious liability where fatal shots could not be attributed with certainty to a specific assailant. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeals regarding the convictions, holding that independent and reliable eyewitness testimony sufficiently established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding discrepancies in medical evidence or unrecovered crime weapons. However, the Court laid down the principle that where the infliction of a fatal injury cannot be attributed with certainty to one of multiple assailants whose participation is established, such uncertainty constitutes a valid ground for awarding the lesser penalty of imprisonment for life rather than the death sentence.
Questions settled- Whether convictions for murder can be sustained solely on independent ocular testimony when recovery of crime weapons and medical evidence present minor discrepancies?
- Does the inability to attribute a fatal shot with certainty to a specific assailant among multiple participants warrant the mitigation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- How should conflicting defence evidence be evaluated in juxtaposition with reliable prosecution eyewitness accounts in a criminal trial?
- Does the principle of vicarious liability under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code apply when members of an unlawful assembly participate in a coordinated murderous assault?
- Hafiz MOHAMMAD GHAZI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB,FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT1984 PLC (C. S.) 70 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-05-18Read full judgment →
- Hafiz MISBAHUL HASAN vs THE DIRECTORGENERAL OF SUPPLIES1984 CLC 1129 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the order of the respondent Director General of Supplies cancelling a contract for breaking and selling the scrap of a vessel and forfeiting security. The core legal questions were whether contractual obligations and disputes arising from a commercial transaction can be enforced or resolved through constitutional writ jurisdiction, and whether specific performance of a contract for the sale of goods/scrap can be granted. The Sindh High Court held that a breach of contract or failure to honour obligations arising out of an agreement cannot be decided in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, and specific performance of a contract for the sale of goods cannot be granted. The key principles laid down are that the High Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction is reluctant to interfere in matters arising out of contractual obligations, and contractual rights and specific performance of sale of goods agreements cannot be determined or enforced in a constitutional petition.
Questions settled- Whether contractual obligations and disputes arising from a commercial agreement can be enforced through writ jurisdiction?
- Can the High Court interfere in matters arising out of contractual obligations in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether specific performance of a contract relating to the sale of goods and scrap can be granted under law?
- Hafiz MANSOOR AHMAD vs Mst. AMINA and 4 others1984 MLD 1167 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-17Read full judgment →
- Hafiz ADAM AND OTHERS Appellants vs MESSRS M. ISMAIL & Co.1984 SCMR 618 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arises from a suit brought by the appellants for the ejectment of the respondents from premises, damages, and mesne profits, which was initially decreed by the trial Court but dismissed by the High Court. The core legal question involved whether the respondents were lawful allottees entitled to the protection of tenancy rights under evacuee property laws following a declaration by the Custodian. The Supreme Court held that the declaration made by the Custodian under section 9(1) of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957 had attained finality and established that the respondents were allottees paying rent, thereby entitling them to the protection and status of tenants under section 9(2)(a) of the said Act. Consequently, the suit for ejectment was not maintainable, though the respondents' liability for rents and mesne profits was conceded and adjusted by consent. The key principle laid down is that an allotment of evacuee tenancy rights recognized by the Custodian confers the status of a tenant under the original property owner pursuant to section 9(2)(a) of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957, barring a suit for ejectment unless the tenancy is lawfully determined.
Questions settled- Whether a declaration made by the Custodian under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957 regarding tenancy rights is binding on the parties?
- Does an allottee of evacuee tenancy rights acquire the status of a tenant under the owner of the property by virtue of section 9(2)(a) of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957?
- Is a suit for ejectment maintainable against a person holding valid status as an allottee and tenant under the evacuee property laws?
- Hafiz ABDUL AZIZ vs ANTICORRUPTION COMMITTEE AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 1007 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
- HAFEEZ AHMAD MUNAWAR vs CHIEF' SECRETARY, PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 402 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-05-10Read full judgment →
- HAFAZAT ALI SHAH vs THE STATE1984 PLD Lahore 494 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-25Read full judgment →
- HADAYATULLAH vs ABDUL HAMEED AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 119 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the cancellation of pre-arrest bail by the Peshawar High Court in a case involving allegations of theft. The petitioner was accused of stealing an iron bar fixed in a lane by the Municipal Corporation, Peshawar, under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 9 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail pending trial given the evidentiary circumstances. The Supreme Court observed that there was a delay in lodging the First Information Report and noted that the sole eyewitness claimed to have removed the iron bar at the petitioner's instance, creating ambiguity regarding the petitioner's direct criminal responsibility. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's guilt required further inquiry at the trial stage. The Court set aside the order of the High Court, converted the petition into an appeal, and confirmed the bail, establishing the principle that where the prosecution's case rests on evidence requiring further investigation, the accused is entitled to remain on bail.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution's case requires further inquiry to establish criminal responsibility?
- Does a delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for confirming bail?
- Can bail be confirmed when the evidence against the accused is ambiguous regarding their direct involvement in the alleged offence?
- HABIBUR REHMAN vs Mst. NAFEESUNNISA BEGUM1984 CLC 2312 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-06Read full judgment →
- HABIBUR REHMAN AND ANOTHER vs Mst. WAHDANIA AND OTHERS1984 PLD Supreme Court 424 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a dispute over land ownership where the appellants claimed title based on an unregistered sale deed, asserting rights through the doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The core legal question was whether an unregistered document, which is compulsorily registrable, could confer title or be invoked by a plaintiff to override statutory registration requirements. The Supreme Court held that equitable doctrines cannot override the specific provisions of the Registration Act. Consequently, an unregistered instrument requiring registration cannot create valid title. The Court affirmed that Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act does not permit a plaintiff to circumvent the mandatory registration requirements of the Registration Act. However, the Court ruled that a purchaser under such an incomplete transaction holds a charge on the property for the purchase money paid. The principle laid down is that while an unregistered deed cannot transfer ownership, the purchaser is entitled to retain possession until the lien for the purchase money is discharged by the vendor.
Questions settled- Can an unregistered sale deed that is compulsorily registrable create title in favor of the purchaser?
- Can the equitable doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act override the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act?
- Does a purchaser under an unregistered sale deed have a charge on the property for the purchase money paid?
- Can a plaintiff invoke Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act to assert title based on an unregistered document?