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.
- GHULAM QADIR vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1177 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 493 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order regarding the interpretation of sentencing powers under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968. The core legal question was whether the punishing authority is mandatorily required to impose a fine alongside a sentence of imprisonment under section 12(b) of the Ordinance. The petitioner argued that the failure to impose a fine rendered the sentence illegal. The Supreme Court examined the legislative intent behind section 12, noting that while clause (a) uses mandatory language regarding the imposition of a fine, clause (b) explicitly provides an alternative by using the phrase "in lieu of, or in addition to" such fine. The Court held that the statute grants the punishing authority the discretion to impose imprisonment either in addition to a fine or in lieu thereof. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, ruling that the sentencing authority is not compelled to impose a fine if it opts to award imprisonment in lieu of a fine. The appeal was dismissed, establishing that the sentencing authority retains discretion under the statutory framework.
Questions settled- Does section 12(b) of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968, mandate the imposition of a fine in addition to a sentence of imprisonment?
- Can a punishing authority under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968, impose a sentence of imprisonment in lieu of a fine?
- Is the word 'may' in a statute always interpreted as directory rather than mandatory?
- GHULAM QADIR AND OTHERS vs ABDUL SATTAR AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Supreme Court 12 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a property dispute concerning the transfer of a portion of a house under settlement laws. The primary transferee, Ghulam Qadir, had his Provisional Transfer Order (PTO) cancelled without notice after agitating against the evaluated price, leading to the subsequent transfer of the property to the respondent, Abdus Sattar. A revision petition by Ghulam Qadir was later accepted by the Settlement Commissioner, restoring his transfer upon payment of the evaluated price and penal interest, which rights were subsequently surrendered via an association deed to appellant No. 2. The High Court set aside the Settlement Commissioner's restoration orders on the ground that Ghulam Qadir had declined the property. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that the cancellation of the PTO without notice was illegal, the property could not be validly transferred to another during the pendency of revision proceedings, and Ghulam Qadir's agitation against high evaluation did not constitute an outright refusal.
Questions settled- Whether the non-impleadment of the legal representatives of a deceased petitioner causes an automatic abatement of a petition before the Supreme Court?
- Whether an aggrieved person not impleaded in a writ petition before the High Court has locus standi to challenge the High Court's order before the Supreme Court?
- Whether the failure to file an executed power-of-attorney at the time of presenting a petition is a fatal defect or an irregularity curable at a subsequent stage?
- Whether a settlement authority can validly transfer disputed property to a third party during the pendency of a revision petition challenging the cancellation of an earlier transfer?
- GHULAM QADIR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1870 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-26Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR alias QADIR BUX vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 338 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-16Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NASIR vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER and others1984 MLD 1244 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-29Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 782 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the ocular testimony of interested witnesses, which is inconsistent with medical evidence and lacks independent corroboration, can sustain a conviction. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was unsustainable. The Court found that the prosecution's ocular evidence was directly contradicted by medical reports regarding the nature of the injuries and the trajectory of the gunshot, rendering the witnesses' accounts unreliable. Furthermore, the Court rejected the High Court's reliance on an additional witness, determining that this individual was not a disinterested party but was closely aligned with the complainant's faction. The key principle laid down is that where ocular testimony is fundamentally inconsistent with medical evidence and the witnesses are established as interested, such testimony cannot form the basis of a conviction without strong, independent corroboration. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when ocular testimony is fundamentally inconsistent with medical evidence?
- Does the testimony of a witness with close ties to the complainant party qualify as independent corroboration of interested witnesses?
- Is the testimony of interested witnesses sufficient to support a conviction without independent corroborative evidence?
- GHULAM NABI vs THE RELIEF COMMISSIONER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 41 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-05-31Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI vs NOOR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 578 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of the dismissal of a revision petition by the High Court under section 21 of the Land Settlement Act, which upheld the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner refusing to cancel land allotted to respondent No. 5 under sections 10 and 11 of the same Act. The core legal question was whether the petitioner possessed a preferential right as a sitting allottee to seek the cancellation of the respondent's land allotment and its transfer to himself. The Supreme Court held that sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act were not attracted as there was no fraud, excess entitlement, or prior cancellation of the respondent's allotment, and the petitioner had failed to object during the initial proposal and confirmation process. The Court ruled that an unchallenged and finalized allotment cannot be disturbed at the instance of a third party lacking locus standi, thereby dismissing the petition for special leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does a sitting allottee have a preferential right to seek cancellation of another person's land allotment under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act?
- Are sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act attracted when an allotment is not shown to be obtained fraudulently or in excess of entitlement?
- What is the effect of failing to object to a proposed land allotment within the stipulated time during open proceedings?
- GHULAM NABI vs MESSRS SIEMENS PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COMPANYLTD. AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 359 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others1984 MLD 468 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-26Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI vs KHUDA BAKHSH AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLD Karachi 245 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court challenging the appellate order of the election authority that rejected his nomination paper for a local body by-election due to the absence of signatures of the proposer and seconder at the time of filing. The core legal question was whether the Returning Officer could permit the rectification of such a defect under the relevant election rules or if the omission mandated outright rejection. The High Court held that rule 17(3) and rule 19(3)(d)(ii) of the Sind Local Councils (Election) Rules 1979 must be read together, and since the proposer and seconder were present at the filing and the defect was not of a substantial nature, the Returning Officer rightly permitted it to be remedied. The Court established that election laws should be construed to advance the right of franchise rather than disenfranchise candidates on hypertechnical grounds, and that subsidiary rules cannot oust the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Questions settled- Whether the absence of signatures of a proposer and seconder on a nomination paper is a defect of a substantial nature warranting rejection under the Sind Local Councils (Election) Rules 1979?
- Can a Returning Officer allow the proposer and seconder to remedy the omission of their signatures on a nomination paper forthwith during scrutiny?
- Whether rule 65 of the Sind Local Councils (Election) Rules 1979 can take away the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Whether the appellate authority was justified in reversing the Returning Officer's order permitting the rectification of a technical defect in a nomination paper?
- GHULAM NABI and another vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1317 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 675 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-09Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI AND ANOTHER vs KHAIRATI AND OTHERS1984 CLC 2145 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-04Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI and another vs ABDUL RAHIM and another1984 SCMR 1432 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the allotment of three Ahatas (plots) in Sahiwal, involving four brothers. The core legal question was whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner’s order, which allotted the Ahatas based on an equitable distribution and verification of possession, was legally sound or if it lacked an independent application of mind, as contended by the respondents. The High Court had previously set aside the Additional Settlement Commissioner’s order, alleging it was based on extra-judicial grounds and lacked proper consideration of physical possession. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the Additional Settlement Commissioner had indeed independently verified the possession of the parties against the relevant revenue records, specifically referencing the crucial date of 1-1-1961 under Scheme No. VII. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the Additional Settlement Commissioner’s order was lawful and based on proper record examination. The Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, affirming that administrative decisions based on verified revenue records and consistent with the applicable scheme are valid.
Questions settled- Whether an order of an Additional Settlement Commissioner can be set aside on the grounds of non-application of mind if the record shows independent verification of possession?
- Is an allotment of property under a settlement scheme valid if it is based on revenue records from the relevant period?
- Can a High Court interfere with an administrative order of a Settlement authority if the order is supported by the underlying revenue record?
- GHULAM NABI AND 4 OTHERS vs GHULAM SARWAR AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1254 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-11Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI and 3 others vs THE ST A T E1984 MLD 1538 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFFA vs FAMILY JUDGE/QAZI, KHARAN AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Quetta 43 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-08-29Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB1984 PLC (C. S.) 801 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs DILAWAR AND OTHERS1984 CLC 401 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-03Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA UQUAILI vs GHULAM NABI1984 CLC 1970 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-23Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA LARIK AND 4 OTHERS vs PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 493 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-24Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA LARIK AND 4 OTHERS vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLC 1697 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-07-06Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA and others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2487 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA AND OTHERS vs OMAID ALI AND 9 OTHERS1984 SCMR 1126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld an order by the Chairman, Federal Land Commission, cancelling the appellants' land allotment. The core legal questions concerned whether the Chairman could exercise revisional powers singly under paragraph 29 of Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972, whether the appellants were denied a fair hearing, and the impact of curative legislation on administrative decisions. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Chairman’s order was valid. The Court ruled that curative legislation, specifically Ordinance XXIX of 1978, effectively validated decisions that previously suffered from procedural infirmities, such as the Chairman acting singly. The judgment established that the legislature has the authority to enact retrospective curative statutes to rectify past administrative errors, omissions, or neglect. Additionally, the Court found that the appellants had been provided with sufficient notice and opportunity to defend their case before the Commission, rejecting claims of procedural unfairness. Consequently, the Court affirmed the cancellation of the allotment and the directive for re-evaluation of eligible claimants.
Questions settled- Can the Chairman of the Federal Land Commission exercise revisional powers singly under paragraph 29 of Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972?
- Does the legislature have the power to enact retrospective curative statutes to validate past administrative decisions?
- Can a party claim a denial of natural justice if they were provided notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Federal Land Commission?
- GHULAM MUJTABA vs Mst. NAEEMA KHAN UM1984 CLC 1458 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-10Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs ZUBAIDA BEGUM AND 12 OTHERS1984 CLC 874 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs WAPDA1984 PLC 745 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-16Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad vs The StatePTCL 1984 (CL) 324 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-24Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE AND 4 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 1266 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, D. I. KHAN DIVISION AND 11 OTHERS1984 PLC 500 · Labour Court · 1983-03-31Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD SAMIULLAH KHAN1984 MLD 627 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-30Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN and another1984 SCMR 1486 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondent, Muhammad Aslam Khan, who was convicted for the murder of Sharif. The trial court had convicted the respondent under Section 304(1) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, accepting his plea of self-defense, and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment, which the High Court subsequently reduced to seven years. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its discretion by reducing the respondent's sentence. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in its decision to reduce the sentence, citing the injuries sustained by the respondent during the incident and the fact that he had already served over two years as an under-trial prisoner. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for enhancement, affirming that the sentence reduction was appropriate given the specific mitigating circumstances of the case.
Questions settled- Is the reduction of a sentence by the High Court justified when the accused has sustained injuries and served significant time as an under-trial prisoner?
- Can a plea of self-defense result in a conviction under Section 304(1) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 instead of Section 302?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs Mst. SHAMEEMA KHATOON1984 CLC 3440 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-16Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1066 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD KHAN vs THE STATE and 7 others1984 P Cr. L J 2772 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-01Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD and otherss vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others1984 CLC 2718 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-26Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHERS vs MUHAMMAD USMAN AND 4 OTHERS1984 CLC 2378 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 423 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-05Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs MAQSOOD HUSSAIN AND 3 OTHERS1984 SCMR 1142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning the eviction of a tenant from shops situated in Dina, District Jhelum, which later became an urban area governed by rent restriction laws. The appellants-landlords sought eviction under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance on the ground that the premises were required for the construction and erection of a new shopping market. The Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge both ordered eviction, holding that the landlords had duly obtained the sanctioned site plan and established their bona fides. However, the Lahore High Court set aside these orders in a constitutional petition, viewing the eviction application as mala fide due to a prior civil court compromise. The core legal questions involved the scope of the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction in interfering with concurrent findings of fact and the statutory requirements under section 13(2)(vi) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court erred by substituting factual findings and misconstruing the legal effect of the prior compromise, and that the landlords were fully entitled to seek eviction upon fulfilling the statutory prerequisites.
Questions settled- Whether a prior compromise in a civil suit creates a legal bar against a landlord from subsequently seeking tenant eviction under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Does the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction have the power to interfere with concurrent findings of fact reached by tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction?
- What are the statutory requirements for a landlord seeking eviction for reconstruction under section 13(2)(vi) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD and another vs ABDULLAH and 2 others1984 CLC 2544 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MEMBER OP FEDERALLAND COMMISSIONAND 4 OTHERS1984 CLC 1875 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-07Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD alias MAMMAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1866 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-04Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MOHYUDDIN KHAN AND OTHERS vs BARKAT. ALI AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1171 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MOHAYUDDIN and 3 others vs JAFFAR and another1984 MLD 771 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-21Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MAHBOOB vs AYUB JAN1984 PLC 861 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-07-31Read full judgment →
- GHULAM KHAN vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1984 PLC 449 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-30Read full judgment →
- GHULAM KADIR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3228 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM JILANI vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL, SHAHPUR SADARAND 4 OTHERS1984 CLC 1441 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HYDER vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 140 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1982-05-09Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs VICE-PRESIDENT (ADMN.) NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1984 PLC 1071 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1540 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a revision petition in limine while granting the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner was originally convicted by a Magistrate under section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing death by negligence, resulting in a sentence of three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine, which was subsequently reduced on appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's conviction for rash and negligent driving was sustainable given the defense's argument that the deceased contributed to the accident by attempting to board a moving bus. The Supreme Court found that the lower courts had already duly considered the contention regarding the petitioner's speed and the deceased's contributory negligence. Consequently, the Court held that there was no valid ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the petition, thereby upholding the conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding rash and negligent driving?
- Does an attempt by a passenger to board a moving bus absolve the driver of liability under section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is a revision petition in limine subject to interference if the lower courts have already addressed the factual contentions?
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another1984 MLD 416 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1424 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-16Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for special leave to appeal against a common judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' revision petitions against the trial court's refusal to set aside an ex parte decree. The core legal question was whether the trial judge's order refusing to set aside an ex parte decree is revisable by the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held, in agreement with the Privy Council precedent in Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Bakhsh Singh, that a finding of the trial court on sufficient cause for setting aside an ex parte decree is not revisable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The key principle laid down is that the High Court's revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to interfere with findings of fact or interlocutory orders where no jurisdictional defect or illegality of the nature contemplated by the statute is established.
Questions settled- Whether an order of the trial court refusing to set aside an ex parte decree is revisable by the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court extend to interfering with a finding where the trial court held that sufficient cause for setting aside an ex parte decree was not made out?
- GHULAM HUSSAIN AND ANOTHERS vs 0. S. D., FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 2334 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN AND 5 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1807 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-29Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1575 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-01Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAZRAT AND ANOTHERA ccuseds vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1357 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-23Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAZOOR vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1400 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-11Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HASSAN vs SOHARU AND 131 OTHERS1984 PLD Peshawar 278 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from a suit filed in 1964 by the legal heirs of Muhammad Bakhsh challenging revenue mutation entries from 1911 and seeking declaration of title, permanent injunction, and correction of revenue records. The plaintiffs alleged that the sale of suit property by Tagga (brother of Muhammad Bakhsh) was void as Muhammad Bakhsh was a minor at the time of transfer. The Senior Civil Judge dismissed the suit as time-barred, but the Additional District Judge reversed this decision on appeal. The Peshawar High Court evaluated whether a claim challenging an allegedly void transfer of a minor's property is subject to the law of limitation and adverse possession.
The High Court accepted the revision petition, set aside the appellate judgment, and restored the trial court's dismissal of the suit. The Court held that even if a transaction involving a minor's property is void, the party affected cannot choose their own time to challenge it. Under Section 28 and Article 144 of the Limitation Act, a suit for possession must be brought within the prescribed period (within three years of attaining majority or within twelve years of adverse possession); failure to do so extinguishes the title. Continuous, un-rebutted revenue entries spanning over 40 years carry a presumption of truth.
Questions settled- Is a suit to recover possession of property transferred during a person's minority subject to the law of limitation under Article 144 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Does the alleged void nature of a property transaction exempt an affected party from the period of limitation for seeking judicial relief?
- Does continuous and un-rebutted possession recorded in the revenue record for over 40 years create a presumption of title that extinguishes an adverse claim?
- How does the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 affect transfers of suit property made during pending litigation?
- GHULAM HASSAN vs MUHAMMAD SHAH1984 CLC 1684 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-04Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HASSAN vs MASTER MAJID1984 CLC 670 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-28Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER vs MUHAMMAD RASHID1984 SCMR 1539 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner instituted a pre-emption suit regarding a land transaction recorded as a gift but alleged to be a sale. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court set it aside, holding the transaction was not a sale. The petitioner filed a civil revision before the High Court, where counsel initially confined the petition to the question of whether the respondent was the petitioner's son, and the revision was admitted on that limited question alone. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous application seeking to incorporate new legal pleas. The High Court dismissed the application, reasoning that the previous limitation of grounds amounted to the rejection of other points and that no new pleas could be entertained. Aggrieved, the petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that allowing new pleas would amount to reviewing the earlier admission order without any formal review application or challenge. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, establishing that new grounds cannot be introduced to circumvent an earlier order admitting a revision on a limited question.
Questions settled- Whether new pleas can be incorporated in a revision petition after it has been admitted to a full hearing on a limited question?
- Does granting permission to raise new pleas in a revision petition amount to a review of an earlier admission order?
- Can a party agitate omitted legal pleas without challenging or filing a review against a prior order limiting the scope of a civil revision?
- GHULAM HAIDER AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 478 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-06Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FATIMA AND OTHERS vs RAHIM BAKHSH AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 73 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the determination of ownership shares for occupancy tenants under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. The core legal question involves the interpretation of Section 114(2)(b) and Section 114(4) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, specifically whether occupancy tenants, upon acquiring proprietary rights, are entitled to ownership of land corresponding strictly to their share of the produce, or if the High Court's calculation of share distribution was legally erroneous. The High Court had varied the trial court's decree, granting the respondents a larger share of the land based on its interpretation of the Act and the evidentiary value of the jamabandi. The Supreme Court, finding that the matter involves significant questions regarding the statutory interpretation of the Tenancy Act and the extent of proprietary rights conferred upon occupancy tenants, granted leave to appeal. The Court held that the interpretation of the statutory provisions governing the conversion of occupancy tenancy into ownership requires further judicial determination.
Questions settled- Does Section 114(2)(b) of the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887 limit the ownership rights of occupancy tenants to the portion of land corresponding to their share of the produce?
- How should the provisions of Section 114(2)(b) and Section 114(4) of the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887 be interpreted in relation to determining proprietary shares?
- GHULAM FARM vs MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, NISHTAR HOSPITAL, MULTAN1984 PLC (C. S.) 721 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-01-08Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FARID BHATTI vs DEPUTY REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, SARGODHA AND ANOTHHR1984 PLC (C. S.) 792 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-01-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM BEGUM AND 10 OTHERS vs Khan MUHAMMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER1984 PLD SC (A J & K) 38 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-01-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ASOOL alias RASOOL BAKHSHApplicator Accused vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 12 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- GHULAM ALI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1525 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-01Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ALI vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, GARDEN TOWN1984 PLC 1722 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- GHULAM ALI AND 5 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1151 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAM AKBAR vs MESSRS KARACHI PIPE MILLS LTD., KARACHI1984 PLC 1710 · Labour Court · 1984-07-17Read full judgment →
- GHULAM AKBAR MANIT vs MRs,SHAH NOOR FAZAL1984 MLD 846 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM AKBAR BHUTTO vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PLANNING &1984 PLC (C. S.) 171 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
- GHULAM AHMAD SIDDIQI vs RICE EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN Ltd.1984 MLD 218 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
- GHULAM AHMAD and 2 others vs MUMTAZ AHMAD and another1984 MLD 210 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
- GHULAM AHMAD ABBASI vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF J & K AND OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 520 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1983-11-30Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ABBAS ADAMALI JEEVAJI vs N. HASSAN ALI & Co./Opponent1984 PLD Karachi 373 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second rent appeal arose from an ejectment application filed by a landlord trust seeking the eviction of a tenant on grounds of default in rent payment, subletting, and material alterations. The Rent Controller and the First Appellate Authority had concurrently dismissed the ejectment application, finding that subletting and alterations were unproven and that the tenant's delay in paying rent for eight months was not a wilful default, exercising discretion in the tenant's favor based on an alleged past practice of lump-sum rent collection. On second appeal, the High Court affirmed the lower forums' findings on subletting and alterations. However, on the issue of default, the Court held that whether non-payment constitutes default warranting eviction under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 is a mixed question of law and fact subject to High Court review. Re-evaluating the evidence, the High Court held that a past practice of accepting rent at irregular intervals cannot override statutory payment deadlines nor automatically entitle a tenant to discretionary relief, unless specific evidence shows the landlord induced the belief that rent was not payable monthly. Finding the practice unproven due to misreading of receipts by lower tribunals, the High Court allowed the appeal and ordered eviction.
Questions settled- Whether the determination of default under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 is a pure question of fact or a mixed question of law and fact subject to review in second appeal?
- Can a practice of accepting rent in lump sum at irregular intervals alter statutory payment deadlines under rent restriction legislation?
- Under what circumstances may a Rent Controller exercise discretion in favour of a tenant who has failed to tender rent within the statutory period?
- GHULAB SHAH AND OTHERS vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1412 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAB DIN vs COLLECTOR/D. C., KASUR AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1636 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-04Read full judgment →
- GHULA M MUSTAFA vs OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, FEDERAL LAND1984 CLC 824 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenges an order by the Federal Land Commission disallowing the petitioner additional produce index units for owning a tractor on the ground that the registration book was not transferred in the petitioner's name. The core legal question is whether the transfer of ownership of a tractor requires the formal transfer of its registration book, or if ownership passes according to the general principles of the sale of goods. The Sindh High Court held that there is no legal requirement that ownership of a movable property like a tractor cannot be transferred without a transferred registration book; rather, under the relevant statutory provisions, property passes based on the intention of the parties and rules governing unconditional contracts for the sale of specific goods. The court established the principle that non-transfer of a tractor's registration book does not disentitle an owner from claiming land reform concessions where purchase, payment, possession, and certification by an authorized officer are established.
Questions settled- Does the transfer of ownership of a tractor require the formal transfer of its registration book?
- At what point does the property in specific goods pass to the buyer under an unconditional contract of sale?
- Can the Federal Land Commission disallow a tractor concession solely because the registration book is not in the claimant's name?
- GHUIAM RASOOL vs THE STATE1984 PLD Sh. C (A I & K) 2 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
- GHU LA M RASOOL vs HABIB BANK LTD1984 PLC 49 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-04-16Read full judgment →
- GHOUS MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 821 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for special leave to appeal against a consolidated order of the Sind Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioners' appeals regarding their entitlement to specific pay emoluments. The petitioners, serving as Additional District and Sessions Judges, were transferred to posts in the Sind Secretariat. They contended that the special pay of Rs. 220 attached to their judicial posts constituted part of their substantive grade pay and should not be discontinued or adjusted upon their transfer to new posts. The Service Tribunal held that under the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973, civil servants are bound to serve in any post, and the petitioners were entitled to the emoluments of their current posts, provided their total pay was not less favorable than their previous cadre. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, identifying questions of public importance regarding whether the additional pay of Rs. 220 should be treated as substantive grade pay rather than special pay, and whether withholding it upon transfer effectively reduces the petitioners' status and pay, thereby requiring further judicial examination.
Questions settled- Whether the additional pay attached to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge constitutes substantive grade pay or special pay?
- Does the adjustment of special pay upon transfer to a new post violate the terms and conditions of service if the total emoluments remain higher?
- Can the pay scale attached to a specific judicial post be considered a substitute for a separate pay scale that cannot be discontinued upon transfer?
- GHIASUDDIN and another vs MOIN U DDIN1984 MLD 10 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-29Read full judgment →
- GHI.ILAM HAIDER AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 436 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal bail application filed by the applicants seeking pre-trial release in a murder case. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants are entitled to post-arrest bail when they were armed with guns but did not fire them, and when it remains undetermined which accused caused the fatal injury, thereby raising a question of common intention under criminal law. The court held that since the applicants did not use their firearms to shoot and it is unclear from the record who inflicted the fatal head injury, the applicability of common intention requires further inquiry at trial. Consequently, the court granted bail to the applicants subject to furnishing surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where multiple accused are alleged to have caused head injuries but the specific author of the fatal injury is unascertained at the interim stage, and the use of weapons is inconsistent with an immediate intent to kill, the case warrants further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justifying the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Whether bail should be granted when it is unclear which of the co-accused caused the fatal injury?
- Does the failure of armed accused to use firearms raise a question of common intention requiring further inquiry?
- Is a case considered fit for further inquiry under criminal law when the attribution of the fatal blow is absent from the record at the bail stage?
- GHEE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs KHALID PASHA AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 429 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →
- GHEE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. AND 2 OTHERS vs HABIB BANK LTD.1984 PLD Lahore 421 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Special Judge (Banking) in a recovery suit filed by Habib Bank Limited against the appellants, which included the Ghee Corporation of Pakistan. The appellants had applied for permission to defend the suit under Order XXXVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with section 7(2) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, raising substantial questions of law and fact, including jurisdictional issues and the discharge of debt through pledged receipts. The Special Court summarily rejected the application and decreed the suit on the same day without adverting to the raised pleas. The Lahore High Court held that the Special Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction in a judicial manner and neglected to pass a speaking order reflecting an objective application of mind to the triable issues. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment, decree, and intermediate order, and remanded the case back to the Special Court for a fresh decision on the application in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Whether a defendant raising substantial questions of law and fact is entitled to permission to defend a banking recovery suit?
- Does a laconic order refusing leave to defend without addressing the defendant's pleas vitiate the subsequent judgment and decree?
- Can an appellate court examine the correctness of intermediate orders affecting the final decision of a suit?
- GHAYASUDDIN A HMAD vs PAKISTAN1984 PLC (C. S.) 534 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
- GHARIB SHAH AND OTHERS vs ZARMAR GUL1984 PLD Supreme Court 188 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose out of a pre-emption suit where the petitioners challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that allowed the respondent's civil revision petition. The petitioners argued that the suit was time-barred because limitation commenced from the date the vendors' statement was recorded by the Revenue Officer, rather than the date of final sanction/attestation of the mutation. Additionally, the petitioners contested the findings regarding equal right of pre-emption based on contiguity. The Supreme Court held that the phrase 'attestation of the sale by a Revenue Officer' under Section 31 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1950 refers to the final order passed by the Revenue Officer in compliance with Section 42(6), (7), and (8) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967, rather than the mere recording of the vendors' statement. Consequently, the limitation period ran from the final attestation date, making the suit timely. The Court further found no misreading of evidence regarding contiguity and upheld the High Court's exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether limitation for a pre-emption suit under Section 31 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1950 commences from the date the vendor's statement is recorded or from the final order of attestation of sale by the Revenue Officer?
- Does the phrase 'attestation of the sale by a Revenue Officer' under Section 31 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1950 correspond to the order passed pursuant to Section 42(6), (7), and (8) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967?
- Whether the High Court in revisional jurisdiction can correct a lower appellate court's failure to consider a material admission made in cross-examination?
- GHARIB KHAN vs TRUSTEES OF PORT OF KARACHI1984 PLC 1444 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-04Read full judgment →
- GHANSHAM SINGH vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1984 PTD 21 · Madras High Court · 1981-07-09Read full judgment →
- GHANI MASIH AND 2 OTHERS vs CHAIRMAN, TOWN COMMITTEE, SAMMUNDRI , .1984 PLC 600 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-14Read full judgment →
- GHANI AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 261 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-28Read full judgment →
- GHAFOOR vs SUBDIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,NAUSHAHRO FERORE AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 1262 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-09Read full judgment →
- GHAFOOR MUHAMMAD vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1984 PLC 953 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- GH ULAM RA SOOL vs COLONY ASSISTANT/COLLECTOR, SAHIWAL and others1984 MLD 408 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-19Read full judgment →