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.
- GEORGE LEVI vs MRS. ZAKIA SULTANA1984 CLC 3066 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These First Rent Appeals challenge the orders of the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the appellants from commercial shops on the ground of personal requirement by the respondent, a widow. The core legal questions involved whether the landlady was required to prove bona fide personal need under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and whether she qualified as an owner and landlady despite holding a fractional share or not utilizing other properties. The Sindh High Court held that section 14 of the Ordinance provides a summary procedure for eviction where the establishment of bona fide or mala fide intent is not a necessary prerequisite, unlike proceedings under section 15. The Court affirmed that the landlady's personal requirement based on her qualifications as a dress-maker to run a ready-made garments business in a commercial area was duly supported by evidence, and defined 'landlord' to include co-owners and those entitled to receive rent. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed with a grace period granted for vacating the premises.
Questions settled- Is it necessary for a widow landlady seeking eviction under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 to prove bona fide personal requirement?
- Does an application for ejectment under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 entail a summary procedure distinct from section 15?
- Can a co-owner with a fractional share in a property maintain an ejectment application as a 'landlord' under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Does the mere use of commercial premises for residential purposes alter the legal nature of the building under rent laws?
- GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS AND 2 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD1984 PLC 273 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-05Read full judgment →
- GENERAL MANAGER, HY ESONS SUGAR MILLS LTD., KHANPUR vs DIN1984 PLC 1422 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-20Read full judgment →
- GENERAL IN VESTMEN LID. vs DUBAI BANK LTD.1984 SCMR 634 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These consolidated civil appeals address the interpretation and application of section 12(5) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, specifically whether an existing mortgage security held by a banking company can be treated as sufficient compliance for admitting an appeal against a banking court decree. The core legal question involved the mandate of depositing cash or furnishing security as a condition precedent for the admission of an appeal under the Ordinance, and whether a pre-existing mortgage satisfies this requirement. The Supreme Court of Pakistan disposed of the appeals upon a consensus reached by the parties, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matters to the High Court. The Court held that the adequacy and sufficiency of the existing mortgage security vis-a-vis the decretal amount must be examined by the High Court, and if found sufficient, it may be accepted for the purposes of section 12(5), whereas any shortfall may be covered by an additional security or cash deposit at the discretion of the High Court.
Questions settled- Whether an existing mortgage security can be treated as compliance with the requirement of furnishing security under section 12(5) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Can the High Court accept pre-existing mortgage properties as security for the admission of an appeal under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, if their value is deemed adequate?
- What consequences follow under section 12(5) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, upon the failure to furnish security or make a cash deposit ordered by the High Court?
- GAULAM FAR1D vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 827 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-07Read full judgment →
- GAMMON PAKISTAN LTD. vs ABDUL HAQ1984 PLC 796 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-04-09Read full judgment →
- GALA JAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2456 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-01Read full judgment →
- GADA HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2254 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
- G. T. S. ALFATAH LABOUR UNION, (REGD.), FAISALABAD vs PUNJAB ROAD1984 PLC 446 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-28Read full judgment →
- G. F. JACOB vs BASHIR AHMED KHAN1984 CLC 1792 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
- G ULLA N vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and another1984 MLD 162 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-02Read full judgment →
- FURQAN HY DER alias TAJ vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1129 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
- FURQAN AHMAD vs DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF BUILDINGS and another1984 CLC 2476 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges a notice for the total demolition of a building issued by the Deputy Controller of Buildings under section 14 of the Sind Building Control Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner, an occupier, alleged mala fides and lack of statutory authority, contending the owners engineered the notice to evict tenants following a fire incident. The respondents maintained the building was dilapidated and dangerous, and that the Deputy Controller was competent to issue the notice as a functionary of the Authority. The High Court held that the impugned notice was issued without lawful authority and of no legal effect, as the mandatory procedural prerequisites—namely, a report by a duly constituted inspection committee and final orders from the Director-General, K.D.A., as required by the delegated powers—were not fulfilled, and the notice was issued prior to the committee's inspection report. The court established that statutory powers regarding dangerous buildings must strictly follow the procedural safeguards and delegated hierarchical steps prescribed under the governing law.
Questions settled- Can the Deputy Controller of Buildings issue a demolition notice for a dangerous building without a report from a duly constituted inspection committee?
- Is a demolition notice issued without the final orders of the Director-General, K.D.A. lawful under the Sind Building Control Ordinance, 1979?
- Does issuing a demolition notice directly to the owner without first following the statutory stages for vacating the building violate the spirit of the law?
- FURQAN AHMAD QURESHI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, MANPOWER, HEALTH, POPULATION AND PLANNING DIVISION, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 1984 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
- FLT.LT. (RETD.) MUMTAZ KHAN vs Mst. AMTUL BATOOL1984 CLC 3462 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns consolidated suits involving a dispute over an agreement for the sale of a residential property. The seller sought cancellation of the agreement, while the purchaser sought specific performance. The core legal question was whether the purchaser was entitled to specific performance despite delays in completing the transaction, and whether the seller was entitled to recover additional development charges. The court held that time was not of the essence in the agreement. It established the principle that delay simpliciter does not bar specific performance of an agreement for the sale of immovable property unless the delay has caused prejudice to the other party or amounts to abandonment of the claim. Finding that the purchaser had performed substantial acts, including paying 90% of the consideration and taking possession, and that the seller failed to prove prejudice, the court decreed the suit for specific performance. The seller’s claim for development charges was rejected, as the contractual obligation rested with him. The court also awarded the seller interest on the withheld balance of the sale consideration.
Questions settled- Does delay simpliciter in the performance of a contract for the sale of immovable property bar the relief of specific performance?
- Can a party claim specific performance if they have already taken possession and paid a substantial portion of the sale consideration?
- Is a party entitled to recover development charges from the purchaser if the agreement stipulates the seller must bear all charges up to the date of possession?
- Does the failure to disclose documents in an affidavit of documents absolutely debar a party from producing them at the first date of hearing?
- FIROZE ARDESHIR MEHTA AND ANOTHERS vs MOIN AHMED HASHMI AND 51984 CLC 2063 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-21Read full judgment →
- FIRDOUS COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY Ltd./Opponent vs MEHBOOB1984 CLC 2845 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- FINANCIA L ADVISOR & CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS AND 21984 PLC 1259 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- FILM EXHIBITORS Ltd. vs Messrs TRADE LINKERS and another1984 MLD 557 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-29Read full judgment →
- FILM EXHIBITORS LTD. vs MESSRS GROWEL MARINE LTD.1984 CLC 1837 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-07Read full judgment →
- FERRO FABRICATORS LTD., KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD ILYAS1984 PLC 661 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-07Read full judgment →
- FEROZE KHAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2931 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-11Read full judgment →
- FEROZE DIN AND OTHERS vs SHAFQAT ALI CHATHA AND OTHERS1984 CLC 2225 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-03Read full judgment →
- FEROZ KHAN,s vs Haji ABDUS SALAM AND OTHERS1984 CLC 974 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-01-28Read full judgment →
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN vs Rao FAZAL KHAN AKHT AR and another1984 SCMR 1288 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Federation of Pakistan, challenging a decision of a Tribunal, with a delay of 31 days. The petitioner sought condonation of this delay, citing that the Government was occupied with other matters requiring immediate attention, which caused the delay in deciding whether to file the appeal. The Supreme Court examined whether this explanation constituted sufficient grounds for condonation. The Court held that the Government had a clear period of 60 days to make a decision regarding the appeal, especially if the matter involved public importance. The Court determined that the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the 31-day delay. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition as being barred by time, reaffirming the principle that administrative preoccupation does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay when statutory limitation periods are provided.
Questions settled- Does administrative preoccupation or the need to attend to other matters constitute sufficient cause for the condonation of delay in filing an appeal?
- Is a petition liable to be dismissed if the petitioner fails to explain the delay in filing?
- GUL MUHAMMAD alias GULLO and 2 others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2782 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-26Read full judgment →
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN etc. vs Kh. ZAHEER AHMAD1984 SCMR 1305 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon petitions seeking consideration of whether increments on promotion to National Pay Scale 18 A are admissible only after the incumbent enters the seventh year of service. The core legal question involves the interpretation of Note (ii) and (iii) of clause (2) of sub-paragraph (G) and the Schedule to Office Memorandum No. 1(36) GAZ-IMP/1/73 dated 18th August, 1973, along with section 17 of the Civil Servants Act 1973. The Court held that since a point of law of general importance likely to affect a large number of cases is involved, leave is granted and the petition is allowed. The key principle laid down is that matters concerning civil servants' pay scales and increments involving general public importance warrant leave to appeal and authoritative interpretation of applicable administrative memoranda and statutory provisions.
Questions settled- Are increments on promotion to National Pay Scale 18 A admissible only after the incumbent enters the seventh year of service?
- How are Note (ii) and (iii) of clause (2) of sub-paragraph (G) and the Schedule to Office Memorandum No. 1(36) GAZ-IMP/1/73 to be interpreted in relation to civil servant increments?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others vs KHUDA DAD KHAN1984 SCMR 1297 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan against a Federal Service Tribunal order. The respondent, a former Army officer employed as a lecturer at a Cantonment Board College, challenged an order by the Military Accountant-General directing the deduction of his Army pension from his civil post salary and the recovery of previously drawn pension amounts. The core legal question was whether the respondent's existing terms and conditions of service, which allowed for the simultaneous receipt of Army pension and civil salary, were protected upon the Federal Government's takeover of the college. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent's terms and conditions of service were explicitly protected by the Cabinet Secretariat's 1977 directive issued during the government takeover. The Court affirmed that the authorities could not unilaterally impose new rules that derogated from these protected terms. Consequently, the respondent was entitled to retain his existing benefits, and the Military Accountant-General lacked the authority to alter his pay structure in contravention of the established protections.
Questions settled- Can the government unilaterally alter the terms and conditions of service for staff of an institution taken over by the Federal Government if those terms were explicitly protected?
- Does the Military Accountant-General have the authority to deduct Army pension from the salary of a civil servant if the existing terms of service permitted the simultaneous receipt of both?
- Are rules or instructions inconsistent with the provisions of Section 17 of the Civil Servants Act 1973 enforceable against a civil servant?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and another vs Saiyed NAZEER ALI1984 SCMR 1307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Services Tribunal, which had directed that the respondent be considered for promotion to the post of Chief, Industries and Commerce Section, Planning and Development Division, Government of Pakistan. The petitioner, the Federation of Pakistan, challenged this decision on grounds that the respondent's appeal before the Tribunal was time-barred and that the relevant rules mandated the post be filled by direct recruitment rather than promotion. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner's arguments raised substantial questions requiring further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal. Regarding the interim relief, the Court suspended the operation of the Tribunal's impugned order pending the final adjudication of the appeal. To ensure fairness and maintain the status quo, the Court simultaneously restrained the petitioner from filling the disputed post until the appeal is decided.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court restrain a government department from filling a post pending the final decision of an appeal against a Service Tribunal order?
- Is it appropriate to suspend an impugned order of the Federal Services Tribunal while granting leave to appeal?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER vs RIAZ AHMAD BAIG AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 759 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions arising from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the termination of services of ex-employees of the Population Planning Programme under section 6 of the Population Welfare Planning Programme (Appointment and Termination of Service) Ordinance, 1981. The core legal questions relate to whether the ex-employees had acquired the status of civil servants prior to the Ordinance by virtue of federalisation, whether the Federal Government was competent to subject them to selection through the Federal Public Service Commission, and whether the rules prescribing educational qualifications and age limits were ultra vires. The Supreme Court held that the ex-employees remained temporary employees governed by the 1981 Ordinance and their appointments were validly made subject to re-organization and structure changes. The Court ruled that the rules framed under sections 5 and 11 of the Ordinance prescribing qualifications and experience were valid, and the Tribunal erred in striking them down. The petitions of the contesting employees were dismissed, and those of the Federation were accepted.
Questions settled- Whether the employees of the Population Planning Programme acquired the status of civil servants merely upon the federalisation of the programme and governmentalisation of services without formal appointment under the 1981 Ordinance?
- Whether the Federal Government has the competence to make rules under the Population Welfare Planning Programme (Appointment and Termination of Service) Ordinance, 1981 prescribing age limits, qualifications, and experience for screening and selection?
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to declare the rules prescribing qualifications and experience for selection under the 1981 Ordinance as ultra vires?
- Whether the services of temporary employees of the Population Planning Programme can be lawfully terminated upon their refusal to appear before the Federal Public Service Commission for suitability tests as required by the 1981 Ordinance?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER vs RAMZAN MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY1984 SCMR 1051 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 11-5-1983 of the Central Service Tribunal, which had allowed the respondent's service appeal concerning promotion. The core legal question involves the competency of the Service Tribunal to interfere with promotion orders passed by the concerned authority. The Supreme Court held that while questions of eligibility and consideration for promotion are distinguishable from prospects of promotion, no substantial question of law of public importance is involved warranting interference, as the legal position on this matter has already been settled by the Court. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the Service Tribunal cannot interfere with promotion orders where no appeal is competent regarding promotion prospects, and matters settled by prior jurisprudence do not merit further leave under the constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to interfere with orders of promotion passed by the concerned authority?
- Are questions of eligibility and consideration for promotion distinguishable from those concerning prospects of promotion?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER vs QAMAR ABBAS AND 10 OTHERS1984 PLC 592 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
- FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD vs SAID REHMAT SHAH AND 221984 SCMR 669 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a High Court judgment setting aside an order of the Federal Land Commission (FLC). Under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (MLR 115), the FLC Chairman had exercised suo motu revisional powers to set aside a Provincial Land Commission order that reduced the Produce Index Units (PIU) for 'Banjar Qadeem' and 'Ghairmumkin' lands in Kaghan Valley. The High Court had allowed the land-owners' writ petition on the sole ground that the Provincial Land Commission had jurisdiction and the FLC's order lacked bona fides. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court could invalidate the FLC's order on grounds of mala fides without factual basis, and whether the Provincial Land Commission possessed jurisdiction to re-determine PIU value under Paragraph 2(10) of MLR 115. The Supreme Court held that an order setting aside an illegal lower order is not mala fide per se. It further held that where standard guidelines for computation exist in relevant settlement documents, the case falls under the first part of Paragraph 2(10), precluding the Provincial Land Commission from exercising residual jurisdiction under the second part. The appeal was allowed.
Questions settled- Can a court declare an order of the Federal Land Commission to be mala fide solely because it set aside an order passed with jurisdiction by the Provincial Land Commission?
- Does the Provincial Land Commission have jurisdiction to re-determine Produce Index Units under Paragraph 2(10) of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 when a formula for computation is provided in official settlement literature?
- Does the term 'computed' in Paragraph 2(10) of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 include standard guidelines contained in the introductory text of settlement booklets?
- FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND OTHERS vs Mst. ZARIN QAISHA AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 666 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from proceedings under the law relating to Land Reforms, where leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the High Court was justified in interfering with a finding of fact by the authorities below. The declarant claimed that land was transferred to his wife through a regularly executed kabinnama in 1951, though the mutation was not attested at the time. The final authority denied the benefit of the transaction due to the absence of a mutation. The High Court, upon scrutinizing the record, established the genuineness of the kabinnama and held that lack of formal mutation did not invalidate the transaction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the completeness of an alienation of property, such as a transfer in lieu of dower, is not strictly dependent on revenue formalities when the transaction is admitted. Furthermore, the superior courts may examine facts and depart from normal practices in land reform matters where revisional authorities operate under unusual policy considerations. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in interfering with findings of fact by a Land Reforms functionary in exercise of writ jurisdiction?
- Does the completeness of a property transaction like a transfer in lieu of dower strictly depend upon a mutation or revenue entries?
- Whether superior courts can examine facts and make a departure from normal practice in land reform matters when dealing with final revisional orders?
- FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others vs SULTAN KHAN1984 SCMR 1522 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is directed against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 4-8-1983, which partly accepted the respondent employee's service appeal and directed his erstwhile employer to finalise his pension claim in accordance with law. The respondent had served in two distinct periods under the Ministry of Defence, namely with the Pakistan Ordnance Factory and the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, with a short break in service. The Service Tribunal granted pensionary benefits for the first period upon finding that the termination was effected on a month's notice rather than for moral turpitude, while declining relief for the gap period and dues against the second organisation. The core legal question concerned the entitlement to pension and the validity of the termination grounds. The Supreme Court held that no question of law of public importance arose from the Tribunal's factual findings regarding the nature of termination, and consequently refused leave to appeal, laying down that concurrent factual findings regarding service termination records will not warrant interference under constitutional appellate jurisdiction where no substantial legal question arises.
Questions settled- Whether an employee terminated on a month's notice is entitled to pensionary benefits?
- Does a claim for pension involving factual determinations by a Service Tribunal raise a question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Whether interference is warranted against concurrent findings of fact regarding the grounds of an employee's removal?
- FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD USMAN AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 548 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition was filed by the Federal Government of Pakistan seeking review of an order of the Supreme Court which had dismissed their petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of an Intra-Court Appeal (ICA) Bench of the Lahore High Court. The dispute concerned the computation of compensation payable under Section 7-C of the Economic Reforms Order 1972. The compensation was to be paid at the 'Break Up Value' of the shares, determined by the auditors on the basis of the latest audited Annual Balance-Sheet in accordance with Rule 8 of the Wealth Tax Rules. The company, enjoying a tax holiday, had not provided for depreciation in its initial years, and the auditors certified the balance-sheet subject to a qualification noting this depreciation deficiency. The High Court held that prior years' depreciation could not be brought into the computation. The Supreme Court allowed the review petition, holding that there was an error apparent on the face of the record as the 'Audited Annual Balance-Sheet' had been considered without the qualifying remarks of the auditors pointing out the deficiency, which required fuller examination.
Questions settled- Whether a balance-sheet certified by auditors subject to a qualification regarding unprovided depreciation can be treated as the 'audited annual balance-sheet' for computing break-up value without considering such qualification?
- Does the omission of depreciation provision during a tax-holiday period prevent a balance-sheet from representing a true and fair view of a company's financial affairs?
- Can the auditors' qualifying remarks regarding depreciation deficiency in an annual balance-sheet be legally integrated into the computation of compensation under the Economic Reforms Order 1972?
- FAZULULLAH AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1451 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-03Read full judgment →
- FAZALURREHMAN MAHMOOD AND ANOTHER vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT1984 CLC 1100 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-22Read full judgment →
- FAZALUR REHMAN vs Mst. TAJ A. SAMAD and 5 others1984 CLC 2551 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
- FAZALUR REHMAN KHAN and 9 others vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and 2 others1984 MLD 1250 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-12Read full judgment →
- FAZALDAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 324 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-10-17Read full judgment →
- FAZAL-I-QADIR vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND 251 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 151 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-10-19Read full judgment →
- FAZAL SUBHAN AND OTHERS vs SHARIF AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 452 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a dispute over land and Muqarrardari rights. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners originally took a mortgage of Muqarrardari rights in 1932 and subsequently purchased the proprietary land in 1934. Following amendments to the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 via Ordinance I of 1974 and the insertion of section 114-A, the legal status of Muqarrardari rights underwent statutory changes. The legal successors of the original Muqarrardar filed for redemption of the mortgaged rights and obtained relief in revenue courts, which was upheld up to the Board of Revenue. The Supreme Court considered the arguments regarding the competency of the redemption proceedings and the extinction of tenancy rights. The Court declined to interfere with the concurrent orders of the revenue authorities, holding that the petitioners were not debarred from establishing their rights through a civil court subject to available legal pleas.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for redemption of Muqarrardari rights is competent after the statutory extinction of such rights under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887?
- Do tenancy rights stand extinguished under section 38 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 when a tenant abandons the land and fails to pay rent?
- Does an adverse order from a revenue authority regarding property rights debar parties from seeking remedy in a civil court?
- FAZAL RASOOL vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2658 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →
- FAZAL MUHAMMAD vs ROSHAN DIN etc.1984 SCMR 1305 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter concerns an eviction dispute regarding a shop in Faisalabad. The appellant obtained an ex parte eviction order against the respondents in 1972, which was executed in 1973. Subsequently, the respondents successfully applied to set aside the ex parte order on the grounds of non-service, a decision upheld by the District Judge and the High Court on the basis that the order was not appealable. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an order setting aside an ex parte eviction order constitutes a final order appealable under Section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the order setting aside the ex parte decree was merely interlocutory, not definitive, and did not resolve the entire dispute. The Court affirmed the principle that only orders embracing the whole gamut of the dispute are appealable, whereas orders that merely revive proceedings to ensure a fair hearing—by correcting a lack of jurisdiction due to non-service—remain interlocutory and are not subject to appeal under the Ordinance.
Questions settled- Is an order setting aside an ex parte eviction order appealable under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Does an order setting aside an ex parte decree due to lack of service constitute a final order or an interlocutory order?
- What is the test for determining whether an order is appealable under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- FAZAL MUHAMMA D AND ANOTHER vs Mst. AIYSHAN AND 9 orHERs1984 CLC 3401 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-16Read full judgment →
- FAZAL MASIH vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1480 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-14Read full judgment →
- FAZAL KARIM vs ROTI CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD.1984 PLC 935 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-06-28Read full judgment →
- FAZAL HAQUE vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1378 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for special leave to appeal regarding the cancellation of bail in a criminal case involving murder and injuries. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in cancelling the bail of one accused (Fazal Haque) while refusing to cancel the bail of four co-accused, despite all being exonerated in the final police investigation report. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in cancelling Fazal Haque's bail. The Court reasoned that for the purposes of bail, an accused is entitled to the benefit of the opinion expressed by the latest investigating officer, particularly when there is no sound reason to distinguish the case of one accused from co-accused who were granted bail. Consequently, the Court dismissed the complainant's petition seeking cancellation of the co-accused's bail and allowed the appeal of Fazal Haque, confirming his interim bail. The key principle established is that an accused is entitled to the benefit of a favorable police investigation report at the bail stage, and bail should not be cancelled without distinguishing the case from co-accused who remain on bail.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of a favorable opinion in the latest police investigation report for the purpose of bail?
- Can the High Court cancel the bail of an accused when co-accused persons, similarly exonerated by the police, remain on bail without a sound basis for distinction?
- Does the existence of eye-witness testimony attributing a fatal blow automatically override a police investigation report exonerating the accused at the bail stage?
- FAZAL ELAHI AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD FAZAL1984 SCMR 772 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed by the vendees against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed decisions refusing to interfere with the restoration of two pre-emption suits. The core legal question concerned the propriety of reviewing and setting aside an order that had rejected plaints for non-compliance with a court order to furnish security under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, due to intervening circumstances of curfew and civil disturbance. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts regarding the disturbed conditions, which incapacitated the plaintiffs from attending court or furnishing security, justified the review and restoration of the suits. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose for further examination and accordingly refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that a court may review an order rejecting a plaint where extraordinary circumstances such as a curfew physically prevent compliance and attendance.
Questions settled- Can a court review an order rejecting a plaint due to non-compliance with a security furnishing order when extraordinary circumstances like a curfew prevented compliance?
- Whether concurrent factual findings regarding a party's incapacity to attend court warrant interference in second appeal?
- FAZAL DIN AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND 6 OTHERS1984 SCMR 565 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a criminal matter where the petitioners, under-trial prisoners in a murder case, sought leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of Baluchistan which set aside a Sessions Judge's order recalling and re-examining prosecution witnesses after a change of judge. The core legal question is whether a Sessions or Additional Sessions Judge is bound to recall witnesses previously examined by a predecessor or whether they can lawfully rely on evidence partly recorded by a predecessor following the amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court held that under Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Second Amendment) Ordinance 1980, it is permissible for a Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge to act on evidence partly or wholly recorded by a predecessor and base a judgment thereon, and that a retrial or re-examination is warranted only if the accused is materially prejudiced. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a Sessions Judge act on evidence partly recorded by a predecessor in a criminal trial?
- Whether the refusal to allow re-examination of witnesses by a successor judge causes material prejudice to the accused?
- Does Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empower a Sessions Judge to rely on testimony recorded by a predecessor judge?
- FAZAL DAD vs CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 487 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
- FAZAL DAD AND 7 OTHERS vs ABDUL KARIM AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Peshawar 235 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-05-08Read full judgment →
- FAZAL DAD and 5 others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2300 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-26Read full judgment →
- FAZAL AHMED vs RAMZAN BIBI1984 CLC 2196 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter concerns an appeal against an order restoring possession of a property to the respondent, Mst. Ramzan Bibi, following her successful objection petition under Order XXI, Rule 99/100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The appellant had obtained an ejectment order against the respondent's son, Merajud Din, following the death of the original tenant, Allah Ditta. The core legal questions were whether the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to entertain an objection petition under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether an ejectment order obtained against one legal heir is binding upon others who were not parties to the proceedings. The Court held that once an eviction order is executed as a decree by a civil court, the Rent Controller becomes functus officio, and the execution proceedings are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that upon the death of a tenant, tenancy rights devolve upon all legal heirs. Consequently, an ejectment order obtained against only one heir cannot be executed against other heirs who were not parties to the ejectment proceedings.
Questions settled- Does a Rent Controller retain jurisdiction to entertain an objection petition under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 once an eviction order is being executed as a civil court decree?
- Can an ejectment order obtained against one legal heir of a deceased tenant be executed against other legal heirs who were not parties to the ejectment proceedings?
- Are execution proceedings for an eviction order governed by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when executed by a civil court?
- FAZAL AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1635 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-14Read full judgment →
- FAZAL ABBAS and 8 others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2557 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
- FAYYAZ HUSSAIN vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 21984 PLC (C. S.) 669 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-04Read full judgment →
- FAYYAZ HUSSAIN LAKHWERA vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EXCISE & TAXATION DEPARTMENT AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 806 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-08-05Read full judgment →
- FAYYAZ AHMAD vs SHAH TAJ SUGAR MILLS THROUGH MANAGER1984 PLC 848 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-10-22Read full judgment →
- FAYYAZ AHMAD and 7 others vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD and 5 others1984 MLD 570 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-15Read full judgment →
- FAUJI SUGAR MILLS vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD1984 PLC 1313 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
- FAUJ1 SUGAR MILLS vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and others1984 SCMR 1276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by a sugar mill against an interim order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, which declined to grant a temporary injunction restraining the recovery of Employees' Old Age Benefit Institution contributions for various classes of workers including temporary, seasonal, and badli workers. The core legal question concerned the interim relief and recovery of contributions pending the decision of the constitutional petition. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal in terms of a consent arrangement agreed upon by both parties. The Court held that instead of direct payment to the respondents, the disputed contribution amount of Rs. 7,35,361 for the years 1975-76 to 1982-83 shall be deposited with the Nazir of the High Court within two weeks to be invested in Khas Deposits, subject to the final outcome of the pending constitutional petition, and restrained the respondents from taking coercive recovery proceedings in the interim.
Questions settled- Whether interim injunction against the recovery of statutory contributions can be modified through a consent arrangement directing deposit of the disputed amount with the court Nazir?
- Can the Supreme Court convert a petition for special leave to appeal into an appeal based on a consent arrangement between the parties?
- FATEH MUHAMMAD vs MANAGER PUNJNAD TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED MULTAN1984 PLC 1510 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-20Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD vs DISTRICT JUDGE AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 1399 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-22Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD and others vs PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT and others1984 SCMR 1205 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed constitutional petitions and intra-court appeals filed by temporary lessees of state land. The petitioners challenged a 1978 government memorandum that reallocated certain lands for the resettlement of persons displaced by the installation of an Atomic Energy Plant, arguing that the Board of Revenue lacked the authority to modify a 1976 reservation order issued under the Chief Minister's instructions. They further contended that this reallocation deprived them of the opportunity to acquire proprietary rights under a subsequent 1979 policy. The Supreme Court held that the Board of Revenue acted within its competency, as the official issuing the 1978 memorandum held the status of Secretary to the Government under the rules of business. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the 1979 policy explicitly excluded lands reserved for permanent grants and granted the Board of Revenue absolute discretion in conferring proprietary rights. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, ruling that the lessees had no vested right to purchase the land, especially given their prior agreement to surrender possession when required for resettlement purposes.
Questions settled- Whether the Board of Revenue is competent to modify a land reservation order previously issued under the instructions of the Provincial Chief Minister?
- Does a temporary lessee of state land have a vested right to purchase proprietary rights under a government policy notification?
- Can a government notification conferring proprietary rights be applied to lands already reserved for the resettlement of displaced persons?
- FATEH MUHAMMAD and another vs ALI MUHAMMAD KASSAM1984 MLD 249 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-14Read full judgment →
- FATEH KHAN vs SHARAAF KHAN1984 PLD Lahore 106 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition of quo warranto challenging the membership of respondent No. 1 in a Union Council on the ground that he was an employee of Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited, wherein the Government of Pakistan held a controlling share or interest, thereby disqualifying him under the relevant electoral and local government laws. The core legal questions involved whether the Government of Pakistan had a controlling share or interest in the company, whether the petitioner had the locus standi as a non-aggrieved person to file a quo warranto petition, and whether the petition suffered from mala fides or lack of alternate remedies. The Lahore High Court held that the government holding over 58 percent shares, coupled with the company's Articles of Association granting voting and requisition powers, constituted a controlling share or interest, making the respondent disqualified. Furthermore, the court held that a writ of quo warranto can be filed by any person even if not an aggrieved party, and no malice is imputed merely for failing to challenge nomination papers earlier. The petition was accepted.
Questions settled- Whether the Government of Pakistan having a majority shareholding in a joint stock company constitutes a controlling share or interest under election laws?
- Does a petitioner need to be an aggrieved person to maintain a petition for quo warranto under the Provisional Constitution Order 1981?
- Does the failure of a voter to object to a nomination paper before the Returning Officer render a subsequent quo warranto petition mala fide?
- Whether an employee of a company in which the government holds a controlling share is disqualified from being a member of a local council?
- FATEH KHAN AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1168 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-03Read full judgment →
- FATEH KHAN AND 3 OTHERS vs DISTRICT JUDGE, KHUSHAB AND 5 OTHERS1984 CLC 2386 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
- FATEH DIN AND OTHERS vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES) AND OTHERS1984 CLC 2227 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-17Read full judgment →
- FATEH DIN AND OTHERS vs BORDER AREA COMMITTEE AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1393 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-21Read full judgment →
- FARZAND HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the petitioner's conviction under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner was arrested while driving a car, from which 8 kilograms of Charas were recovered. The core legal questions were whether the lower courts misread the evidence, whether the recovery was fabricated due to strained relations with the police, and whether the absence of independent witnesses to the recovery rendered the evidence inadmissible. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts had correctly evaluated the evidence and that there was no misreading of the record. The Court established the principle that the absence of independent witnesses to a recovery does not automatically invalidate prosecution evidence, particularly when the police encounter with the accused was incidental to the execution of a warrant rather than a pre-planned raid for contraband. The conviction was maintained based on the recovery of the narcotics from the petitioner's vehicle.
Questions settled- Does the absence of independent witnesses to a recovery of contraband automatically render the prosecution's evidence inadmissible?
- Can a conviction be sustained if the recovery of narcotics occurred during an arrest made for an unrelated purpose?
- Does the existence of strained relations between an accused and the police necessarily imply that a criminal case is fabricated?
- FARZAND ALI vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR (deceased) and 13 others1984 MLD 1107 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-14Read full judgment →
- FARYA D vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1527 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-22Read full judgment →
- FARRUKH NAEEM BUTT vs UNITED BANK LTD.1984 PLC 237 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-18Read full judgment →
- FARMAN ALI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SANGHAR1984 PLD Karachi 62 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
- FARIDUZZAFAR AND OTHERS vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 1167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from execution proceedings where a decree was granted against the petitioners on 17-10-1967. On 16-12-1969, the parties entered into a compromise allowing the respondents two months to pay the decretal amount, staying execution until 16-2-1970. The respondents failed to pay, and the petitioners filed a fresh execution application on 2-9-1974. The core legal question was whether the execution application was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that the time spent up to the compromise date and the granted two-month grace period was correctly excluded, and time began to run from the failure to satisfy the decree on 16-2-1970, rendering the 1974 application within time. Furthermore, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal to help the petitioners escape obligations under a compromise they solemnly undertook.
Questions settled- Whether the period consumed up to the date of a compromise and the granted time for satisfaction of a decree is excluded for limitation purposes in execution?
- When does time begin to run for filing a subsequent execution application after the failure of a judgment debtor to abide by a compromise?
- Will the Supreme Court exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal to assist parties in escaping obligations under a solemn compromise decree?
- FARIDUNNISA BEGUM vs CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, RAWALPINDI1984 PLD Karachi 449 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Full Bench upon a reference made by a Division Bench of the Sindh High Court to resolve a conflict of judicial opinion regarding whether the period fixed through notifications issued by the Sind Land Commission under paragraph 12 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115) for filing Form LR-VII is in the nature of a period of limitation, and whether a claimant is debarred from filing such form after the notified date or if delay can be condoned. The core legal question revolves around the nature of the timeline prescribed for submitting administrative forms under land reform laws and whether statutory land authorities possess the inherent or delegated competence to condone delays. The Full Bench held that the date specified for filing Form LR-VII is not a period of limitation in the juristic sense, but rather a timeline set for administrative convenience and orderly disposal of claims. Consequently, the court decided that a claimant is not strictly debarred from filing the form after the notified date, and the delay can be entertained and condoned by the Land Commission authorities provided the claimant has acted diligently and no third-party rights have intervened. The key principle laid down is that substantive rights conferred by beneficial land reform legislation to retain additional land cannot be defeated by mere administrative timelines or policy decisions in the absence of explicit penal consequences of forfeiture provided in the statute itself.
Questions settled- Whether the period fixed through notifications issued by the Sind Land Commission under paragraph 12 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 for filing Form LR-VII is in the nature of a period of limitation?
- Can a claimant file Form LR-VII after the notified date, and can such delay be entertained and condoned by the Land Commission Authorities?
- Does a policy decision by the Sind Land Commission to withdraw previously condoned delays take away a substantive right conferred under paragraph 8(2) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
- Whether the failure to submit Form LR-VII within the notified timeline entails the forfeiture of the right to retain additional land under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 in the absence of an express statutory penalty?
- FARIDUDDIN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 760 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-14Read full judgment →
- FARIDUDDIN AHMED vs SADRUDDIN1984 MLD 545 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
- FARIDConvict vs THE STATE1984 PLD Lahore 319 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-12Read full judgment →
- FARIDA vs PRINCE APARTMENTS COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY and 21984 CLC 2914 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a suit for specific performance of a contract filed by the plaintiff against a registered cooperative housing society. The core legal question was whether the suit was maintainable despite the plaintiff's failure to serve the mandatory two-month notice required under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 upon the defendant society. The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds of non-compliance with this statutory notice requirement. The Court held that the requirement of notice under Section 70 is mandatory for any suit instituted against a society regarding its business. The Court rejected the plaintiff's arguments that Section 70-A rendered Section 70 redundant, clarifying that Section 70-A provides additional protection rather than superseding the notice requirement. Consequently, the Court found the failure to serve the notice fatal to the suit's maintainability and ordered the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Is the service of a two-month notice under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 mandatory before filing a suit against a registered cooperative society?
- Does the insertion of Section 70-A in the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 render the notice requirement under Section 70 redundant?
- Can a suit be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for failure to serve a mandatory statutory notice?
- FARIDA KHATOON vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1984 CLC 884 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-31Read full judgment →
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD.ANSARI vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 644 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-10-10Read full judgment →
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1676 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-05Read full judgment →
- FAQIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2197 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-22Read full judgment →
- FAQIR HUSSAIN vs SHAH NAWAZ1984 SCMR 996 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises out of a pre-emption suit concerning a haveli in Pindigheb, District Attock. The appellant filed a suit for possession through pre-emption based on contiguity. The trial court dismissed the suit, while noting that the vendee's claim for incidental expenses of Rs. 290 was not pressed and was decided in the negative. Upon appeal, the Additional District Judge allowed the pre-emption suit, directing the pre-emptor to deposit the sale price by a specific date, alongside the disputed incidental amount. The appellant deposited the principal amount on time but delayed the deposit of the additional sum, leading the High Court to dismiss the second appeal in limine due to late deposit. The Supreme Court granted leave and held that since the vendee had expressly not pressed the claim for incidental expenses before the trial court, the appellate court erred in imposing that requirement without proper basis. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the lower courts.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court can award an amount for incidental expenses that was expressly not pressed by the vendee before the trial court?
- Does the failure to deposit an unpressed incidental amount within the original deadline invalidate a pre-emption decree?
- What is the effect of an issue being abandoned or not pressed before the trial court?
- FAQIR BAKHSH vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1531 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-25Read full judgment →
- FAQIR BAKHSH vs GHULAM QADIR AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment of the respondents under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution's case hinged on eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence regarding motive and recoveries of blood-stained weapons following a murder committed at night. The High Court had acquitted the respondents after re-appraising the evidence and finding serious doubts regarding the presence of the eyewitnesses at the crime scene, the visibility conditions during a wind-storm, and the credibility of the recovery evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's appraisal of the evidence was in full accord with well-settled principles of law, noting that the ocular evidence was skeletal and fraught with defects regarding timing and documents. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court's reappraisal of prosecution evidence to set aside a conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was in accord with well-settled principles of law?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained on skeletal ocular evidence and defective contemporaneous documents when the presence of eyewitnesses is open to serious doubt?
- FALETTIS HOTEL THROUGH ITS MANAGER vs PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR1984 PLC 169 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-13Read full judgment →
- FALETTI'S HOTEL, LAHORE MUHAMMAD YOUNAS vs MUHAMMAD YOUNAS1984 PLC 972 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- FALAK SLIER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 755 · Lahore High Court · 1973-07-05Read full judgment →
- FALAK SHER vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1537(1) · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-04Read full judgment →
- FAKIR HUSS N and 2 others vs BOARD OF REVENUE, SIND and 3 others1984 CLC 2601 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-08Read full judgment →
- FAIZULLAH vs Mst. ZAINI1984 PLD Azad J & K 41 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
- FAIZULLAH KHAN vs MANSOOR AHMAD and others1984 MLD 1183 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-27Read full judgment →
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD vs NOOR MUHAMMAD1984 MLD 1202 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD SOOMRO vs Haji Shaikh AMIR BAKHSH AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 366 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a property dispute over the size and extent of a plot, City Survey No. 52/33-1, in Shikarpur Town, which was auctioned by the Settlement Department. The respondent, Sh. Amir Bakhsh, purchased the plot at auction, with documents initially referencing an area of 2,212.2 sq. yards, though subsequent administrative orders limited his entitlement to the area in his actual possession. The appellant, Faiz Muhammad Soomro, was later transferred the remaining portion of the land, designated as C.S. No. 52/33-2. The core legal question was whether the auction in favour of the respondent encompassed the entire area of 2,212.2 sq. yards or was restricted to the specific sub-divided plot he occupied. The Supreme Court held that documentary evidence, including historical property register cards, established that the original plot had been sub-divided into two distinct properties prior to partition. Consequently, the Court ruled that the auction could not validly include land belonging to a separate property. The judgment sets the principle that administrative descriptions in auction documents cannot override established historical property boundaries and sub-divisions, and Settlement authorities lack jurisdiction to transfer property beyond the specific subject-matter of an auction.
Questions settled- Can an auction bid-sheet description of area override the actual historical sub-division of a property?
- Do Settlement authorities have the jurisdiction to transfer land that is not the subject-matter of an auction?
- Does a clerical error in an auction document regarding total area grant title to land that was already sub-divided and owned separately?
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1593 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-18Read full judgment →