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.
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD alias FAIZOO vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3051 (2) · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-25Read full judgment →
- FAIZ and anothers vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2210 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-04Read full judgment →
- FAIZ AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1650 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-10Read full judgment →
- FAIZ AHMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 417 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-06Read full judgment →
- FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs MANZOOR AHMAD AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1152 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-25Read full judgment →
- FAHIMUDDIN alias KALA vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2444 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-22Read full judgment →
- FAHIM AKHTAR and others vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE (SIND)1984 MLD 1281 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
- FA Z AL ELAHI vs DEWAN ALI (Deceased) (represented by Legal Heirs) and others1984 SCMR 1404 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises out of a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land situated in Tehsil and District Jhelum, sold via mutation to Diwan Ali and Muhammad Iqbal. The petitioner, claiming a superior right of pre-emption as a co-owner, village owner, and relative of the vendors, had his suit dismissed by the trial court and the district judge, but partially decreed by the Lahore High Court regarding the share purchased by Muhammad Iqbal, while upholding the sale to Diwan Ali on the ground that he was a protected affectee of Tarbela Dam holding a certificate under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913. The core legal question was whether the doctrine of sinker applies to an indivisible sale where an exempt purchaser is associated with a non-exempt stranger. The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of sinker does not apply to transactions exempted under section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, as the statutory exemption extinguishes the right of pre-emption regarding the protected share. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of sinker apply to an indivisible sale where an exempted purchaser associates with himself a stranger?
- What is the legal effect of a notification under section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 on a pre-emption claim?
- Whether the absence of a provision corresponding to section 19 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act in the Punjab Pre-emption Act affects the enforcement of pre-emption rights?
- FA ROOQ A HMA D vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, examining the sustainability of a conviction where material features of the evidence were overlooked by the courts below. The core legal question concerns the proper appreciation of evidence in a criminal trial, specifically regarding the emergence of the accused from a specific location prior to the assault, the acquittal of co-accused affecting witness credibility, the medical evidence regarding the empty stomach of the deceased, and unexplained injuries. The Court held that these significant discrepancies and unconsidered features in the evidence require a comprehensive reappraisal for the safe dispensation of justice. The key principle laid down is that overlooking material evidentiary contradictions and medical evidence inconsistencies warrants a thorough reassessment of the prosecution's case to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of co-accused persons affect the overall credibility of prosecution witnesses requiring reappraisal?
- Whether contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the condition of the deceased's stomach warrant a re-examination of the case?
- Is it necessary for courts to consider unexplained injuries on the person of the deceased when evaluating the manner of the assault?
- EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL OPERATION DIVISION (SOUTH), IRRIGATION, SHEIKHUPURA vs Syed RIAZ HUSSAIN SHAH AND 66 OTHERS1984 PLC 1132 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBE WELL OPERATION DIVISION (SOUTH), IRRIGATION, SARGODHA vs NEK MUHAMMAD AND 81 OTHERS1984 PLC 1131 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-19Read full judgment →
- EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LAHORE CANTT. DIVISION (E), WAPDA vs MANSAB ALI1984 PLC 960 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-06-20Read full judgment →
- Ex-Capt. GHULAM HYDER KURESHI vs Mst. RASHIDA1984 MLD 266 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-06Read full judgment →
- EUROPEAN GRAIN & SHIPPING LTD. vs MESSRS SARGROH OIL INDUSTRIES LTD.1984 SCMR 553 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These ten civil appeals arise from proceedings before a Civil Judge in Faisalabad concerning five applications filed under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937, to enforce foreign arbitral awards rendered in England. The core legal questions involve whether the trial court erred in restricting evidence through miscellaneous orders without first definitively determining foundational legal and jurisdictional issues, the applicability and interaction of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 and the Arbitration Act, 1940, and the proper procedure for determining the relevance of evidence before it is recorded. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the trial court improperly disposed of miscellaneous applications with implied, definitive findings on major issues without formally deciding preliminary legal and jurisdictional questions. The Court set aside the impugned orders of both the High Court and the trial Court, directing that the preliminary legal and jurisdictional issues not requiring oral evidence be decided first, after which the relevance, necessity, and manner of recording evidence should be determined.
Questions settled- Whether the evidence that can be recorded against the enforcement of a foreign award is restricted to the grounds mentioned in section 7 of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937?
- Whether it is the duty of the court to first determine which evidence is relevant before it is recorded, and whether such relevancy can be left for decision at the final stage under section 136 of the Evidence Act, 1872?
- Whether the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937, being a special statute relating to foreign awards, prevails over the general Arbitration Act, 1940?
- ESSO EASTERN INCORPORATION and anothers vs ARK NAVIGATION COMPANY1984 SCMR 1534 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Sind High Court whereby the respondent was granted time to pay court-fees after the dismissal of its pauper application and subsequent appeal, and the original pauper application was registered as a suit. The core legal question concerns whether a plaintiff whose pauper application and subsequent appeal were dismissed can be permitted to pay court-fees and proceed with the suit as a regular plaint, particularly in light of previous observations made by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the submissions made by the petitioners that the respondent was not entitled to continue the proceedings in forma pauperis, and ordered that the proceedings in the resulting suit shall remain in abeyance pending the final decision of the appeal. The principle highlighted relates to the procedural handling of dismissed pauper applications subsequently converted to regular suits upon payment of court-fees.
Questions settled- Whether a party whose pauper application has been rejected can subsequently be granted time to pay court-fees and convert the application into a regular suit?
- Can proceedings in a suit be held in abeyance pending the decision of an appeal before the Supreme Court?
- ESSA vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND THROUGH THE HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Karachi 392 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-10Read full judgment →
- ENGLISH BOOT HOUSE Ltd. vs COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND1984 PTD 247 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Engineer JAMIL AHMAD MALIK vs M.S. QAZI and others1984 SCMR 1398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an employee of the Pakistan Ordnance Factories, challenged the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Works Manager, alleging that the respondent was an unqualified and unregistered person performing professional engineering duties in violation of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975. After the Service Tribunal declined jurisdiction, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking a writ of quo warranto to remove the respondent from office. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine, ruling that the office in question was not a public office and the petitioner lacked locus standi. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the position of Works Manager within the Pakistan Ordnance Factories constituted a public office amenable to a writ of quo warranto. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that a writ of quo warranto cannot be issued against an office that does not qualify as a public office. The Court held that the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975, is primarily regulatory, and the petition lacked merit as the office in question did not meet the criteria for a public office.
Questions settled- Can a writ of quo warranto be issued against an office that is not a public office?
- Does a writ of quo warranto lie to challenge an appointment in an institution that does not constitute a public office?
- Is the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975, intended to regulate the engineering profession or to define public offices?
- EMPLOYEES UNION (C. B. A.) vs MESSRS NEW JUBILEE INSURANCE COMPANY1984 PLC 232 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-21Read full judgment →
- EMMANUAL MASIH vs THE PUNJAB LOCAL COUNCILS ELECTION AUTHORITY, LAHORE AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLD Lahore 125 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-15Read full judgment →
- EMCO LTD. vs EMPLOYEES' UNION (REGD.)1984 PLC 719 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-26Read full judgment →
- EMCO EMPLOYEES' UNION (REGD.), LAHORE vs MESSRS EMCO LTD., SHEIKHUPURA1984 PLC 1243 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- ELLIS PAKISTAN LTD. vs SARDAR MASIH , .1984 PLC 659 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-10Read full judgment →
- ELIS D. SILVA vs SALAHUDDIN AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 1120 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-24Read full judgment →
- ELAHI BUX AND 11 OTHERS vs JAN MOHOMED KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 1953 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-01Read full judgment →
- ELAHI BAKHSH vs TEE STATE1984 SCMR 285 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for offences under section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal questions involve challenging concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts and whether combining two similar instances of misappropriation and cheating in one trial constituted a fatal legal defect. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that there was no legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of fact and that the petitioner suffered no prejudice since the evidence regarding the second incident was not used for the conviction on a single count and the procedural objection was not properly raised before the lower forums. The key principle laid down is that procedural objections regarding joinder of charges must be pressed before lower forums and cannot invalidate a trial unless actual prejudice is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts can be interfered with without showing a legal infirmity?
- Does combining similar instances of misappropriation in one trial vitiate the proceedings if no prejudice is suffered by the accused?
- Can a procedural objection regarding the conduct of a trial be raised for the same time before the Supreme Court without being pressed before the lower forums?
- EJAZ YOUSAF vs Mst. RAZIA BEGUM and 2 others1984 MLD 1247 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-29Read full judgment →
- EJAZ and others vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1537(2) · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-02Read full judgment →
- EJAZ alias JAJJA vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 2105 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-10Read full judgment →
- EJAZ AHMAD SIDDIQUI vs Mst. AZIZ JEHAN BEGUM1984 CLC 1053 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-04Read full judgment →
- EHSANUL HAQ KIANI vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS1984 SCMR 963 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged an ex parte decree passed by a Special Judge (Banking) through a constitutional petition, which the High Court dismissed for failure to exhaust the alternative remedy of appeal under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Special Judge lacked jurisdiction because the petitioner was not a borrower. The core legal question was whether constitutional jurisdiction can be invoked to challenge a tribunal's authority when the objection rests on a disputed jurisdictional fact without first pursuing statutory appellate remedies. The Supreme Court held that the petition was rightly dismissed. The Court established that where an objection to jurisdiction concerns a jurisdictional fact—such as the status of a party as a borrower—this must be adjudicated by the Special Tribunal itself based on evidence, rather than being determined for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the petitioner was required to exhaust the statutory right of appeal under the Ordinance before seeking judicial review.
Questions settled- Can a party bypass the statutory remedy of appeal by invoking constitutional jurisdiction to challenge a tribunal's jurisdiction?
- Is the determination of whether a person qualifies as a borrower under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 a jurisdictional fact that must be decided by the Special Tribunal?
- Does the existence of an alternative remedy of appeal bar a constitutional petition even if the petitioner challenges the tribunal's jurisdiction?
- EHSAN ILLAHI and others vs CHANAN DIN1984 SCMR 1234 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Peshawar High Court concerning a pre-emption suit over agricultural land. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioners had acquired an equal right of pre-emption through a gift and whether the respondent's suit was barred by limitation, alongside questions of pecuniary jurisdiction and sale consideration. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that points raised in a petition but not argued or pressed during the hearing before the High Court cannot be permitted to be agitated for the first time before the apex court. The key principle laid down is that abandoned or unpressed grounds from lower appellate forums cannot be resurrected in the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Can a point taken in a revision petition but not argued before the High Court be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court?
- Does a vendee acquire an equal right of pre-emption through an oral or unregistered gift of adjoining land?
- EHSAN ELANHI vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN LODHI1984 CLC 90 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-24Read full judgment →
- EASTERN AUTOMOBILES LTD. vs HAK1MUDDIN1984 PLC 1669 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-07-24Read full judgment →
- Dr.S.M.SATTAR/Landlord. vs MOOSA1984 MLD 693 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-17Read full judgment →
- Dr.BASHIR AHMED MALIK vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND and 2 others1984 CLC 2694 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-04Read full judgment →
- Dr..SHAHJAHAN BAIG vs SHARIF AHMAD SIDDIQUI1984 MLD 130 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
- DR. TARIQ MASOOD AWAN vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 444 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-01-30Read full judgment →
- DR. Syed HAIDER BOKHARY vs NORTHWEST FRONTIER PROVINCE AND 51984 CLC 1280 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
- DR. S. JALIL ASGHAR vs MESSRS ATLAS INDUSTRIES & TRADING CORPORATION1984 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over a contract for payment in exchange for 'material assistance' in securing a government export contract for rice. The core legal question was whether the agreement was void as being opposed to public policy due to the alleged use of personal influence with a public official, and whether the appellate court could raise this issue of illegality suo motu when it was not pleaded by the parties. The Supreme Court held that the contract was not ex facie illegal, and the evidence did not conclusively establish that the assistance rendered was tainted by corrupt motives or dishonest intentions. The Court emphasized that suspicion alone, without concrete proof of corruption, cannot invalidate a contract or overcome the presumption of regularity in official acts. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed that while a court may take notice of illegality in a contract if all relevant facts are before it, it should not do so based on mere suspicion where the party has not had an opportunity to address the allegation. Consequently, the Court restored the trial court's decree in favour of the appellant.
Questions settled- Can a court raise the issue of a contract's illegality suo motu if it was not raised in the pleadings?
- Does the use of friendly connections with a public official to influence government policy automatically render a contract void as opposed to public policy?
- Under what circumstances may a court decline to enforce a contract on the grounds of public policy when the illegality is not apparent on the face of the document?
- Is suspicion of improper influence sufficient to establish that a contract is opposed to public policy?
- Dr. S. FAROOQI vs Raja SAEED AKHTAR KHAN represented by his Heirs1984 MLD 235 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-21Read full judgment →
- DR. RAB NAWAZ KHAN vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH, ISLAMABAD1984 PLC (C. S.) 560 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
- DR. NAYAR RAMZAN vs MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR, ZONE B AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 202 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1982-03-31Read full judgment →
- DR. MUHAMMAD 1LYAS AKHTAR vs Mst. GHAFOORAN1984 CLC 1652 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-26Read full judgment →
- DR. MAJOR ABDUL AHAD KHAN vs Soofi MUHAMMAD YASIN & BROS.1984 PLD Supreme Court 200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a High Court judgment that set aside an ejectment order against a tenant. The landlord had sought eviction of a shop to expand his medical clinic, intending to install X-ray and pathological facilities for his and his son's practice. The core legal questions concerned whether the landlord’s bona fide personal requirement was established and whether the landlord's death during the proceedings abated the claim. The Supreme Court held that the landlord had sufficiently proven his bona fide requirement through documentary evidence, including loan applications and correspondence with medical equipment suppliers. The Court further ruled that the death of the landlord did not abate the ejectment proceedings, as the heirs, who stepped into the landlord's shoes, maintained the same requirement for the premises. The Court established that objections regarding the mode of proof of documents cannot be raised for the first time in appeal if not challenged at the time of admission. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, restored the eviction order, and granted the tenant time to vacate.
Questions settled- Does the death of a landlord during pending ejectment proceedings automatically result in the abatement of the claim?
- Can an objection regarding the mode of proof of a document be raised for the first time during an appeal?
- Does the desire of a landlord to expand a medical clinic by installing diagnostic facilities constitute a valid ground for personal requirement under rent laws?
- DR. M. MURTAZA KHAN vs THE TRUSTEES OF HAJI SIR ABDULLAH HAROON WAKF1984 CLC 1050 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-17Read full judgment →
- Dr. M. B. ANKLESARIA vs AZIZUDDIN NAJMAI--Resporident1984 MLD 119 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-18Read full judgment →
- DR. M. A. QADIR KHAN vs THE BANK OF BAHAWALPUR LTD. AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Karachi 211 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a suit filed by the respondent bank for the recovery of a loan and overdraft facility granted to the principal debtor, with the appellant standing as a guarantor under a continuing guarantee limited to a principal sum of Rs. 3,000. The core legal questions involved whether the suit was barred by limitation and whether a variance in the rate of interest through a promissory note executed between the creditor and principal debtor without the surety's consent discharged the surety. The Sindh High Court held that the suit was within limitation as the appellant failed to establish that a prior demand notice had been issued. However, the Court held that altering the rate of interest from 8% to 9% per annum constituted a material variance in the terms of the contract without the surety's consent, thereby discharging the surety from liability under section 133 of the Contract Act. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the judgment and decree against the appellant were set aside, laying down the principle that any unauthorized alteration in the primary contract affecting the surety's obligation discharges the surety.
Questions settled- Whether a suit against a guarantor is barred by time when the letter of guarantee specifies repayment within two days after demand?
- Does an increase in the rate of interest agreed between the creditor and principal debtor without the surety's consent amount to a variance discharging the surety under section 133 of the Contract Act?
- Who bears the burden of proof when establishing a plea of limitation based on an alleged prior notice of demand?
- Whether a surety is bound by obligations or varied terms that were not part of the original contract of guarantee.
- DR. Khawaja ABDUL JALEEL vs MESSRS DASTAGIR INVESTMENTS AND MANAGEMENTS LTD1984 CLC 711 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-24Read full judgment →
- DR. KHALIDA USMANI vs DR. M. H. RANDHAWA AND 4 OTHERS1984 CLC 119 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-14Read full judgment →
- Dr. KARAMAT AZIM vs MUHAMMAD SHARIP BHINDER and another1984 MLD 1265 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-27Read full judgment →
- Dr. FARRUKH HUSSAIN MALIK vs Messrs APPOLLO ENTERPRISES Ltd. and another1984 P Cr. L J 2933 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-10Read full judgment →
- DR. FAKHAR-UN-NISA JAVAID vs SECRETARY, POPULATION DIVISION AND OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 459 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-02-28Read full judgment →
- DR. FAIZ AKHTAR KHAN vs CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD AND 4 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 88 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-09-19Read full judgment →
- DR. COL. SAID AHMAD vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL), KARACHI1984 PTD 182 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-22Read full judgment →
- DR. BURJOR M. ANKLESARIA vs MRS. ZENOBIA AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 3253 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-23Read full judgment →
- DR. BABAR HAMEED CHOHAN vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL MUNIR AND 2 OTHERS1984 SCMR 537 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking to impugn a judgment of the Division Bench of the Sind High Court which accepted a constitutional petition filed by the first respondent. The core legal question concerned whether the appearance of a candidate's name on the electoral rolls of more than one electoral area constitutes a disqualification for contesting elections to a Cantonment Board, and whether a Returning Officer has jurisdiction to consider such an objection during the scrutiny of nomination papers. The Supreme Court held that double enrolment is not made a disqualification under the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974 or clause (g) of section 15-B of the Cantonments Act, 1924, and that the Returning Officer lacks jurisdiction to entertain objections regarding registration in the electoral roll in light of the bar under rule 12 of the Cantonments (Election and Election Petitions) Rules, 1979. The petition was accordingly dismissed as meritless, affirming the High Court's interpretation of the law.
Questions settled- Does the appearance of a person's name on electoral rolls of more than one electoral area amount to a statutory disqualification for being elected as a member of a Cantonment Board?
- Does a Returning Officer have the jurisdiction to consider objections regarding the nomination of a candidate relating to his registration in the electoral roll?
- Dr. ASHRAF MAHMOOD-. vs Syed ABDUL MALIK.1984 MLD 1077 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
- DR. ASHFAQUE HUSSAIN NADEEM vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 777 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-26Read full judgment →
- DR. AHMAD BASHIR vs THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH ESTABLISHMENT SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 2429 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-20Read full judgment →
- DR. AFTAB A. KHAN vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 3158 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-18Read full judgment →
- Dr. ABDUS SATTAR BABAR vs PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMEMT1984 SCMR 1178 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a civil servant who, after being removed from service under Section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, was recommended for reinstatement by the Federal Public Service Commission, a recommendation approved by the President. However, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs obstructed his re-appointment, citing the Government Servants (Marriage with Foreign Nationals) Rules, 1962, due to his marriage to a foreign national. The Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction, erroneously characterizing the matter as one of "fitness" for appointment. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal possessed jurisdiction, as the issue was not one of fitness but the legality of administrative obstruction. The Court further ruled that the marriage rules were inapplicable because the appellant was not a civil servant at the time of his marriage. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's dismissal and directed the Establishment Division to resubmit the appellant's case to the President for appointment in the Foreign Affairs Group, establishing that administrative departments cannot reopen settled appointments based on inapplicable rules.
Questions settled- Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear an appeal regarding the appointment of a civil servant if the Federal Public Service Commission has already determined the individual's fitness?
- Do the Government Servants (Marriage with Foreign Nationals) Rules, 1962 apply to a person who was not a civil servant at the time of their marriage?
- Can a government department unilaterally reopen a presidential decision regarding a civil servant's appointment based on an unjustified administrative reference?
- Dr. ABDUR REHMAN vs MUHAMMAD AJMAL KHAN and others1984 SCMR 1478 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
- Dr. ABDUR REHMAN and others vs ALLAH DITTA and others1984 SCMR 1554 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment exercising revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court's exercise of revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was legally justified in the circumstances. A central legal question involves the applicability of the proviso to Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 regarding part performance of contracts. Additionally, the Court seeks to determine the legal effect of the non-registration of sale documents in favor of the respondent, alongside the absence of documentation regarding an alleged 99-year lease at the time possession was purportedly transferred to the petitioners. Finally, the Court will evaluate whether the conclusions and inferences drawn by the High Court during its revisional review were correct. The judgment establishes the scope of inquiry for the upcoming appeal regarding the interplay between revisional powers, the requirements of part performance, and the necessity of registered documentation in property transfers.
Questions settled- Whether the conditions for exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 were satisfied?
- Does the proviso to Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 apply to the petitioners' case?
- What is the legal effect of non-registration of sale documents and the absence of documentation for an alleged 99-year lease at the time of possession transfer?
- DR. ABDUR RASHID ARIF vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB HEALTH DEPARTMENT1984 PLC (C. S.) 744 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-01-08Read full judgment →
- DR. ABDUL WARTS vs JAVED HANIF AND OTHERS1984 CLC 691 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-01Read full judgment →
- DR. ABDUL RASHID vs Mst. NAJMA1984 CLC 1044 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →
- DR. ABDUL QADIR NASIM AND ANOTHER vs HUMAYUN AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 680 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the nature of a registered deed dated July 15, 1979, executed by a donor in favor of his nephews. The petitioners, seeking to exercise a right of pre-emption, contended that the transaction was a sale rather than a gift. The trial court initially held the instrument to be a gift deed, a finding reversed on appeal but subsequently restored by the High Court in revision. Before the Supreme Court, the core legal question was whether the deed should be construed as a sale or a gift. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that any consideration had passed to support a sale transaction. The Court further ruled that the appellate court's reliance on the donor's relationship with his other family members was purely conjectural. The Court affirmed that the absence of mention of services rendered does not invalidate a gift, and the registered deed explicitly conveying the property as a gift must be upheld.
Questions settled- Whether a registered deed explicitly conveying property as a gift can be construed as a sale in the absence of evidence of consideration?
- Does the failure to mention services rendered in a gift deed invalidate the gift?
- Can an appellate court rely on conjectures regarding a donor's family relationships to recharacterize a gift deed as a sale?
- DR. ABDUL MAJEED MEMON vs PROVINCE OF SIND THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 518 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1983-12-12Read full judgment →
- DR. ABDUL HAMID MAAN vs SECRETARY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT1984 PLC (C. S.) 410 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-12-14Read full judgment →
- Dr. ABDUL GHAFOOR RAZA vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2922 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-03Read full judgment →
- DR. ABDUL AZ1Z vs AN WAR KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 1340 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-06Read full judgment →
- DR, ROSHAN H. NANJI vs Mst. RAZIA KHATOON1984 CLC 2343 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
- DOST MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 157 (2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a jail petition filed by the petitioner, Dost Muhammad, challenging his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the murder of Rahmat Ali, as upheld by the Peshawar High Court. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the petitioner's guilt, based on eyewitness testimony and the deceased's dying declaration, were sustainable. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that the petitioner had fired shots at the deceased and inflicted a knife wound, with the motive being a dispute over the marriage of Mst. Hamida. The Court found that the points raised by the petitioner had been adequately addressed by the High Court and that there was no merit in the petition. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the conviction and sentence. The judgment reinforces the principle that where concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are supported by credible evidence, including eyewitness accounts and dying declarations, the Supreme Court will not interfere with such findings in the absence of legal infirmity or misappreciation of evidence.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts if the evidence is deemed sufficient?
- Is a dying declaration naming the assailant sufficient to support a conviction for murder?
- DOST MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE and others1984 MLD 1443(1) · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-26Read full judgment →
- DOST MUHAMMAD and others vs NAZAR HUSSIAN and others1984 SCMR 1326 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a contempt petition filed by defendant judgment-debtors against plaintiff decree-holders and two police officers, alleging interference with possession of land despite a stay order issued by the Supreme Court. The underlying dispute involves a suit for possession of land decreed in 1978, where subsequent execution proceedings and appellate orders were challenged before the Supreme Court. The petitioners alleged that the warrant of possession was improperly executed on 4-4-1983 and that the respondents continued to interfere with their possession despite the Supreme Court's interim stay order passed on 10-4-1983. The core legal question was whether the respondents' actions constituted contempt of the Supreme Court's authority. The Court held that the alleged interference occurred on 4-4-1983, a date prior to the Supreme Court's interim order, meaning the actions were governed by the executing Court's orders at that time. Consequently, the Court determined that the controversy was factual and fell within the jurisdiction of the executing Court rather than the Supreme Court. The petition was dismissed as no case for contempt was established.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings for acts occurring before its stay order was issued?
- Is a dispute regarding the factual execution of a warrant of possession a matter for the Supreme Court or the executing court?
- Can a contempt petition be maintained when the alleged interference occurred while the executing court's orders were in effect?
- DOST MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs NAZAR HUSSAIN KHAN AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 325 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether a pre-emptor-decree-holder's first appeal pending in the High Court against a pre-emption decree price could survive their non-compliance with the conditional deposit terms of the trial court decree, which entailed the dismissal of their suit upon default. The appellants argued that the pre-emptor's failure to secure interim suspension of the deposit order and the dismissal of their restoration application exhausted the appellate court's discretion and powers, causing the conditional trial court decree to take effect automatically. The Supreme Court held that the appellate court retains the inherent and statutory power to extend time or grant reasonable time for depositing the decretal amount at the final hearing of the appeal, and that provisional interlocutory orders do not exhaust the substantive powers of the appellate court. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the appellate court properly exercised its discretion in not penalizing the pre-emptor for the delay while the main appeal remained pending.
Questions settled- Does a pre-emptor's appeal survive if they fail to comply with the conditional deposit terms of the trial court decree within the stipulated time?
- Does the refusal of an interim stay application or the dismissal of a restoration application exhaust the appellate court's power to extend time for depositing the decretal amount at the final hearing?
- Can an appellate court grant reasonable time for the deposit of pre-emption money when the main appeal is decided on merits?
- DOSA and others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2954 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
- DOSA AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 783 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-16Read full judgment →
- DOLU vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a challenge to orders concerning agricultural land claimed by the petitioner, Dolu, as a claimant refugee, and contested by the fourth respondent, Salahuddin Iqbal. The pivotal issue involves the finality and implementation of an Acting Custodian's order dated 13th of February, 1950, which favored the fourth respondent and was never legally challenged. The Supreme Court examined the High Court's findings that subordinate authorities could not go behind the unchallenged Custodian's order and that the petitioner's earlier writ petition regarding the allotment had been dismissed, rendering the matter barred by constructive res judicata. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's conclusion regarding the finality of the Custodian's order and the lack of locus standi or vested right of the petitioner in the disputed property was unexceptionable. The key principle laid down is that subordinate authorities cannot disregard or undermine a final, unchallenged order of a Custodian, and a prior dismissed petition precludes re-litigation of the same allotment issue under the principle of constructive res judicata.
Questions settled- Can subordinate authorities disregard or hold against a final, unchallenged order of the Acting Custodian?
- Does a claimant refugee acquire a vested right or locus standi to challenge property shares when their prior allotment petition has been dismissed?
- Does the principle of constructive res judicata bar the adjudication of an allotment question raised in a subsequent petition when an earlier petition on the same matter was dismissed?
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTANRAILWAYS, KARACHI vs IDOO1984 PLC 765 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RILWAYS, LAHORE vs KABIR AHMED /1984 PLC 1518 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-05-27Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR AND 2 OTHFRS vs KHURSHID HUSSAIN1984 PLC 1676 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI vs SADIQ1984 PLC 768 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI vs MUHAMMAD AMEER AND 2 OTHERS ,1984 PLC 603 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAW A LPINDI vs ZAFAR1984 PLC 762 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN vs ZAHOOR1984 PLC 1289 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN vs SHAHID1984 PLC 436 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-27Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN vs NAZAR1984 PLC 769 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN vs INDERYAS1984 PLC 76 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-08-12Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN vs AYUB ALI1984 PLC 1138 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-13Read full judgment →
- FARID BAKHSH AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 672 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-15Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN vs ALLAH DITTA1984 PLC 803 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN AND ANOTHER vs ZAHOOR1984 PLC 946 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD1984 PLC 922 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD1984 PLC 1261 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD1984 PLC 1211 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ1984 PLC 1159 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI vs IMAMUDDIN1984 PLC 870 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-09-06Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS RAWALPINDI vs ABDUL1984 PLC 1299 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →