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.
- CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF, PUNJAB vs MUHAM MA D ANWAR AND OTHERS1984 CLC 3419 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- CHIEF ADMINISTRATION OFFICER (A & B), PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs MUHAMMAD1984 PLC 1063 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- CHHOTI BEGUM vs RIAZUDDIN1984 CLC 689 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
- CHHATTAN SHAH vs The STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2280 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-05Read full judgment →
- Chaudhry SHER MUHAMMAD vs DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 408 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner instituted a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. During the pendency of the suit, criminal proceedings were registered against the petitioner for allegedly forging the agreement, and the original document was removed by investigating authorities, leaving a photostat copy on record. When the plaintiff's evidence commenced, his counsel refused to examine witnesses without the original document, but the trial court examined them as Court witnesses and proceeded with the case. The petitioner's revision petition and subsequent writ petition were dismissed. Upon a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the Court noted that while witnesses to prove a document should ideally be examined when the original is available, unnecessary delay must be avoided. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it with consent, directing that the two previously examined witnesses be re-summoned and re-examined once the original document was returned to the trial court, ensuring the original document remained on record until all execution witnesses were examined.
Questions settled- Can oral or witness evidence regarding a document be recorded when the original document is temporarily removed from the court record for police investigation?
- Whether witnesses examined in the absence of the original agreement of sale should be re-summoned and re-examined once the original document is returned to the trial court?
- Chaudhry GHULAM RASOOL vs SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION1984 MLD 697 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-24Read full judgment →
- CHAUDHRY AUTOMOBILE AUTO STORE AND OTHERS vs UNITED BANK LTD.1984 SCMR 749 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a suit filed by the respondent, United Bank Limited, against the petitioners for the recovery of a loan under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979. The petitioners sought leave to defend, claiming the liability was discharged, but failed to produce supporting receipts. The trial court granted conditional leave to defend, requiring a cash deposit of the suit amount, which the petitioners failed to fulfill, resulting in a decree against them. The High Court dismissed their appeal in limine. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners challenged the Special Court's jurisdiction, arguing the claim amount was below the threshold for its cognizance. The Court held that the amending Ordinance II of 1983, effective prior to the suit's institution, extended the Special Court's jurisdiction to loans up to one million rupees without a minimum limit, thereby validating the trial court's jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the imposition of conditions for granting leave to defend falls within the trial court's discretion, finding no illegality in the exercise of such discretion. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the Special Court have jurisdiction to try a suit for a loan recovery amount below one lac rupees under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 as amended by Ordinance II of 1983?
- Is the imposition of a condition to deposit the suit amount for granting leave to defend within the discretion of the trial court?
- Does the amendment to the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 via Ordinance II of 1983 establish a minimum limit for the jurisdiction of the Special Court?
- CHARKI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 638 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
- CHANZEB vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2219 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-11-13Read full judgment →
- CHAK AR vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 3225 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-17Read full judgment →
- CHAIRMAN, WAPDA vs MUHAMMAD ILYAS1984 PLC 853 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-05-29Read full judgment →
- CHAIRMAN, WAPDA and 2 others vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM CHISHTI1984 SCMR 1263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against orders of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had partially struck down amendments made by WAPDA to its service rules governing promotion criteria. The core legal question was whether the WAPDA, in exercising its rule-making power under the WAPDA Act, 1958, could introduce new academic qualifications and departmental promotion examinations that effectively altered the promotion criteria for existing employees to their disadvantage. The Tribunal had held that while WAPDA was competent to frame rules, it lacked unfettered power to impose conditions that negatively impacted existing terms and conditions of service without a sufficient grace period. The Supreme Court, noting the arguments regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction to strike down policy decisions and the retrospective application of service rules, granted leave to appeal. The Court did not suspend the Tribunal's order but directed the appeals to be set for early hearing, thereby leaving the final determination of the validity of the rule amendments and the scope of the Tribunal's authority to be decided at the final hearing stage.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Service Tribunal possess the jurisdiction to strike down policy decisions and service rules framed by the WAPDA?
- Can an employer alter promotion criteria for existing employees without providing a reasonable lead time for compliance?
- Does the introduction of new academic qualifications for promotion constitute an illegal alteration of the terms and conditions of service for existing employees?
- CHAIRMAN, WAPDA AND 2 OTHERS vs AMANATULLAH KHAN1984 PLC 895 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-05-27Read full judgment →
- CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD LATIF AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 286 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 filed by the Chairman, Pakistan Railways, challenging an order of the Service Tribunal regarding the fixation of seniority between a promotee Clerk Grade-II and a direct recruit. The core legal question concerns the legality of assigning notional earlier dates of seniority to direct recruits corresponding to the date vacancies occurred, despite such recruits not being in service at that time, and whether the benefit of a Tribunal judgment declaring the correct rule of seniority can be denied to an employee solely because they were not a party to that earlier litigation. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal rightly determined the seniority rules and that the declaratory benefit of such a ruling applies generally to establish the correct seniority rule for the establishment, and cannot be withheld from an aggrieved employee merely for non-participation in the prior proceedings. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that notional back-dating of seniority without statutory rule backing is impermissible.
Questions settled- Whether notional seniority can be assigned to a direct recruit from a date prior to their entry into the grade?
- Can the benefit of a Tribunal judgment declaring a rule of seniority be denied to an employee on the ground that they were not a party to the earlier litigation?
- Does a service rule regarding confirmation from the date of working against a permanent vacancy permit the grant of an earlier notional date corresponding to the occurrence of a vacancy?
- CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, WAZIRABAD vs SABRAN BIBI1984 PLC 1189 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-05-28Read full judgment →
- CHAIRMAN, EMPLOYEES' OLDAGE BENEFIT INSTITUTION AND OTHFRS vs M.1984 SCMR 143 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which allowed a constitutional petition and declared an employee's dismissal from the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution to be without lawful authority. The core legal question was whether the order of dismissal violated Regulation No. 31 of the State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973, particularly regarding the rights to a personal hearing, a second show-cause notice, and receipt of the enquiry report. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by importing constitutional safeguards and principles of natural justice not explicitly found in the governing text of Regulation 31. The Court ruled that neither a second show-cause notice, nor the supply of a copy of the enquiry report, nor an additional personal hearing after the submission of the enquiry report is required under the regulation, provided a reasonable opportunity of defence and hearing was given during the enquiry stage itself. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that the High Court improperly substituted its own factual findings for those of the competent tribunal in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. The impugned judgment was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Questions settled- Whether the requirements of a second show-cause notice and supplying a copy of the enquiry report can be read into service regulations that do not explicitly provide for them?
- At what stage of disciplinary proceedings is an employee entitled to a personal hearing under standard service regulations?
- Can the High Court substitute its own opinion for that of an inferior tribunal regarding factual guilt while exercising constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether an alternative statutory remedy of appeal bars the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction when an effective remedy is available?
- CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE & SECONDARY EDUCATION, LAHORE AND ANOTHER vs ALI MIR1984 SCMR 433 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court accepting an Intra-Court Appeal and directing the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education to refer the respondent's answer-book to a Review Committee for re-evaluation. The respondent, having failed in Economics Paper 'B' in an intermediate compartmental examination, sought re-evaluation of his answer-book based on a private certificate and an informal opinion obtained from a professor. The Board refused, maintaining that under its rules and regulations, answer-books are only subject to re-checking for totals and unmarked portions, while re-evaluation is permissible solely where zero marks have been assigned to a correctly solved question. The core legal question was whether the Board contravened any law or rule in refusing re-evaluation and whether the High Court was justified in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the same. The Supreme Court held that the respondent had no legal right or rule supporting his demand for re-evaluation, as the applicable rules and resolutions did not cover his case, and the Chairman's powers under General Regulation 10 explicitly prohibited altering the award of marks by proviso. The Court established that an autonomous educational board acting within its jurisdiction cannot be interfered with by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction merely because a decision is perceived to be erroneous or harsh.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can issue a writ in constitutional jurisdiction to direct the re-evaluation of an answer-book where no rule or law of the Board has been violated?
- Does the Chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education have the power under General Regulation 10 to alter the marks awarded to a candidate?
- Whether a dispute between a candidate and an educational board regarding examination marking is a domestic matter outside the ordinary interference of superior courts?
- CHAIRMAN, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANKOF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 1445 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-07Read full judgment →
- CHAIRMAN OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER vs KALOO AND-ANOTHER1984 PLC 1434 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
- Ch. SHAUKAT ALI and others vs MUHAMMAD SAFDAR KHAN and others1984 SCMR 1459 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding the determination of inter se seniority among directly recruited Tehsildars. The core legal question was whether seniority for direct recruits should be determined by the date of appointment to service or by the order of merit assigned by the Board of Revenue at the time of selection, pursuant to the applicable service rules. The Supreme Court upheld the Service Tribunal's decision, affirming that the order of merit assigned by the Board of Revenue at the time of selection governs seniority. The Court held that substituting the date of appointment for the order of merit is not warranted under the rules. The key principle laid down is that for direct recruits, the order of merit assigned by the competent authority at the time of selection remains the definitive criterion for determining inter se seniority, and this merit order cannot be overridden by the subsequent date of appointment to the service.
Questions settled- Is the seniority of directly recruited Tehsildars determined by the date of appointment or the order of merit assigned at the time of selection?
- Does the order of merit assigned by the Board of Revenue at the time of selection hold good for determining seniority as long as the recruits remain in the same grade and cadre?
- Can the date of appointment be substituted for the order of merit assigned by the Board of Revenue to determine seniority under the West Pakistan Tehsildari and Naib-Tehsildari Service Rules 1962?
- Ch. SAMI ULLAH vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1486 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
- Ch. SAIF TAHIR vs COLLECTOR LAHORE DISTRICT, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2140 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-06Read full judgment →
- Ch. SAGHIR AHMAD vs THE MEMBER (REVENUE ESTABLISHMENT), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 637 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-07-19Read full judgment →
- Ch. NOOR HUSSAIN vs Ch. ALLAH BAKHSH AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 446 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision and upheld the lower courts' decrees for ejectment. The petitioner was a lessee of land for a brick kiln under a registered deed dated 9 April 1955 for a term ending 8 April 1974. Upon expiry, the respondents sought ejectment and mesne profits, while the petitioner claimed tenancy by holding over based on a rent receipt and a renewal clause in the lease deed. The trial court, appellate court, and High Court concurrently ruled against the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to prove tenancy by holding over, as rent paid during the subsistence of the original lease does not constitute renewal, and the renewal clause did not confer an automatic right of renewal. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the acceptance of rent during the subsistence of an original lease operate as a renewal of the lease by holding over after its expiry?
- What constitutes sufficient proof to establish tenancy by holding over upon the determination of an original lease?
- Whether a lessee can claim a right of renewal based on a lease-deed clause that does not confer such a right.
- Ch. NASARULLAH KHAN vs Mst. QUDRAT JAN AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1169 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-16Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND 5 OTHERS vs MESSRS RAMAY INDUSTRIES LTD., FAISALABAD1984 PLD Lahore 415 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-16Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD KHAN vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL, KHARIAN AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 1445 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ISMAIL KHALID vs COMMISSIONER EXOFFICIO COURT OF WARDS, HYDERABAD AND 4 OTHERS1984 CLC 3045 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ISA vs PUNJAB PROVINCE THROUGH INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF PRISONS AND 4 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 795 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-30Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM CHEEMA1984 CLC 1433 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-23Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EXCISE1984 PLC (C. S.) 213 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1976-11-14Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs Ch. MUHAMMAD RASHID1984 PLD Azad J& K 78 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-07-17Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND ANOTHER vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MULTAN1984 P Cr. L J 117 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-05Read full judgment →
- Ch. KIF A Y A T vs Mst. SAKINA and another1984 SCMR 1220 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition directed against the order of the Lahore High Court upholding the dismissal of a pre-emption suit filed by the petitioner for possession of land measuring 51 Marlas. The core legal question concerns whether the transaction in dispute, registered as an exchange, was in fact a sale clothed as an exchange to defeat the petitioner's right of pre-emption. The trial court, the appellate court, and the High Court concurrently found against the petitioner, concluding that the transaction was a genuine exchange and that the petitioner failed to substantiate the payment of consideration. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the nature of the transaction were based on a full appraisal of the evidence and were well-founded. The Court established that where lower courts properly appreciate oral and documentary evidence to determine the true nature of a property transaction, concurrent findings will not be interfered with in the absence of legal infirmity.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the nature of a transaction as an exchange rather than a sale can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Does a disparity in value between exchanged plots alone establish that a sale has been clothed as an exchange?
- What is the effect of reliable oral and documentary evidence supporting a registered exchange deed in a pre-emption suit?
- FARID vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1722 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-22Read full judgment →
- Ch. KHALID HUSSAIN vs THE PRESIDENT OF CANTONMENT BOARD AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 237 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-24Read full judgment →
- Ch. JA LAL DIN vs Mst. ASGHARI BEGUM AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 586 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ex parte decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell obtained by the petitioner against the Province of the Punjab, alleging that the original owner had died without heirs and the property had escheated to the Government. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, claiming to be daughters of the deceased owner, filed an application under section 12(2) and Order IX, rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside the decree, asserting it was secured through fraud and misrepresentation. After the trial court recorded a provisional finding on preliminary issues and the High Court dismissed the petitioner's revision, the matter reached the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether a person other than the judgment-debtor, successor-in-interest, or party to the suit has the locus standi to challenge a decree under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the word 'person' in section 12(2) is not restricted to parties or successors-in-interest, and anyone whose legal rights are jeopardized by a fraudulent decree has the locus standi to file such an application. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the word 'person' in section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is restricted only to the judgment-debtor or his successor-in-interest?
- Does a person who was not a party to the suit have the locus standi to challenge an ex parte decree obtained through fraud under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Ch. HUMAYUN AKHTAR vs SECRETARY, POPULATION WELFARE DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1984 PLC (C. S.) 404 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
- Ch. GHULAM ULLAH vs BOARD OF REVENUE, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND OTHERS1984 CLC 3114 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
- Ch. GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs WAPDA AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 363 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
- Ch. GHULAM MOHYUDDIN vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM and 2 others1984 MLD 1235 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-21Read full judgment →
- Ch. EHSAN-UL-HAQ vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF J & K1984 PLC (C. S.) 319 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1983-11-25Read full judgment →
- Ch. BIRJEES AHMAD BAIG AND 2 OTHERS vs WAPDA AND 9 OTHERS1984 CLC 3476 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-11Read full judgment →
- Ch. ALTAF HUSSAIN and anothers vs Mirza AZAM BEG1984 SCMR 1328 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a dispute concerning the interpretation and effect of a rescission agreement dated May 1, 1967, which superseded an earlier agreement for the sale of a house. The core legal question was whether the respondent's complaint letter to the Martial Law Administrator regarding the appellant's financial conduct constituted 'legal proceedings' or proceedings for recovery, thereby triggering a forfeiture clause of the unpaid balance under the second agreement. The Supreme Court held that the letter addressed to the Martial Law authorities was merely a complaint regarding the conduct and financial status of the appellant as a government servant, rather than legal proceedings for the adjudication and recovery of the debt as contemplated by the stipulation. Consequently, the High Court's judgment decreeing the recovery of the balance amount in favour of the respondent was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that contractual clauses penalizing the initiation of proceedings must be strictly construed and limited to formal legal proceedings or adjudicatory forums where a claim is legally pursued, rather than administrative complaints made to executive or martial law authorities.
Questions settled- Does a complaint made to a Martial Law Administrator regarding a government servant's financial status constitute 'legal proceedings' under a contractual forfeiture clause?
- Whether the initiation of administrative complaints violates a contractual stipulation barring legal proceedings for the recovery of a debt?
- Can a court award interest exceeding the contractually agreed rate in a suit for the recovery of money under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Ch. ALLAH DITTA vs ABDUL AZIZ1984 CLC 651 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-17Read full judgment →
- Ch. ABDUL QADIR vs THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLD Lahore 103 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-22Read full judgment →
- Ch. ABDUL HAMID vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GUJRANWALA AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 744 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the election for Ward No. 7 of the Town Committee, Ghakhar. The petitioner, Ch. Abdul Hamid, and respondent, Muhammad Aslam, both filed nomination papers seconded by the same individual. Following allegations of forgery regarding the signatures on the respondent's papers, the Appellate Authority initially favored the petitioner, but subsequent proceedings led to conflicting directives from the Provincial Election Authority and the Appellate Authority. Ultimately, the Appellate Authority determined the respondent's signatures were genuine, rendering the petitioner's nomination invalid. Despite a pending reference to the Provincial Election Authority regarding whether a re-poll was necessary, the Returning Officer declared the remaining candidate, Mian Zahoor Ahmad, as the successful candidate. The petitioner challenged this in the High Court, which dismissed the petition due to a pending election petition. The Supreme Court converted the petition for leave to appeal into an appeal. The core legal question is whether a Returning Officer may declare a candidate elected while a reference regarding the necessity of a re-poll remains pending before the Provincial Election Authority.
Questions settled- Can a Returning Officer declare a candidate elected while a reference regarding the necessity of a re-poll is pending before the Provincial Election Authority?
- Does the pendency of an election petition preclude a writ petition challenging the actions of a Returning Officer?
- Ch. ABDUL HAMEED vs ELECTION AUTHORITY AND OTHERS1984 CLC 2181 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-06Read full judgment →
- Ch. ABDUL AZIZ vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and others1984 SCMR 1316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional challenge against the decision of the Settlement authorities dividing a bungalow into two units based on the respective independent possession of the parties since 1949. The core legal question concerns whether the discretionary decision of the Settlement authorities to divide the bungalow, allegedly in contravention of administrative instructions contained in a memorandum dated 22-10-1959, could be questioned in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement authorities possessed the discretionary power to divide the bungalow under the said instructions, and the exercise of such discretionary power is not open to challenge in writ jurisdiction. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused, laying down the principle that discretionary administrative decisions regarding the division of properties by settlement authorities cannot be interfered with under constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can the question of divisibility of a property by settlement authorities be raised in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Whether the exercise of discretionary power by settlement authorities to divide a bungalow is open to judicial review in writ jurisdiction?
- Does the administrative instruction directing bungalows to be transferred as complete units bar the settlement authorities from dividing them in obvious cases?
- Ch. ABDUL AZIZ AND 3 manss vs THE OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, FEDERAL1984 CLC 854 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-22Read full judgment →
- CAPT. RIFFAT CHOWDHRY vs Tim EXECUTIVE BOARD, PAKISTAN DEFENCE1984 CLC 2426 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-28Read full judgment →
- CAPT. NAZIR HUSSAIN vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA AND 260 OTHERS , .1984 PLC (C. S.) 417 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-01-10Read full judgment →
- CAPT. GEORGIOS TSIROGIANNIS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1257 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-04Read full judgment →
- CAPITAL FOUNDRY & ENGINEERING WORKS vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-1984 PTD 110 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1981-11-10Read full judgment →
- CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY LABOUR UNION vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT1984 PLC 1603 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1984-06-08Read full judgment →
- CALTEX OIL (PAKISTAN) LTD. vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Fuel, Power and Natural Resources and 2 others1984 MLD 837 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-21Read full judgment →
- C. M. SHARIFF vs SECRETARY, DEFENCE PRODUCTION DIVISION AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 577 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-02-03Read full judgment →
- C HOG H ATA vs FAZAL DIN1984 SCMR 1454 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments of the lower courts and the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's suit for establishment of ownership over agricultural land. The core legal question concerned whether the disputed Khasra numbers were validly allotted to the vendor and whether the petitioner qualified as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact established that the vendor lacked title to the property, as the disputed land was never allotted or confirmed in their name, and that Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 has no application where the title of the real owner is in dispute. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that a purchaser cannot acquire valid title from a predecessor who holds none.
Questions settled- Does Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 apply where the title of the real owner is in dispute?
- Can a purchaser claim the status of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice when the vendor possesses no valid title to the property?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding land allotment and ownership in the absence of any error of law?
- BUXLY PAINTS LTD. vs IZHARULLAH AND OTHERS1984 PLC 33 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-09Read full judgment →
- BUXIAL vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 861 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-20Read full judgment →
- BUKHTAWAR ALI vs DIRECTOR, TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 45 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-05-28Read full judgment →
- BUILDERS ASSOCIATES LTD. vs THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 6 OTHERS1984 CLC 2372 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-26Read full judgment →
- BUDHA (DECEASED) AND 4 OTHERS vs ALI BAKHSH AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 1208 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-28Read full judgment →
- BUDDHA MANAIS AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 424 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-03Read full judgment →
- BROOKE BOND (PAKISTAN) LTD. vs JAVED ASLAM1984 PLC 1112 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-11-11Read full judgment →
- BRIG. H. H. NAWAB MUHAMMAD ABBAS KHAN ABBASI, AMEER OF BAHAWALPUR vs THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1984 PLD Supreme Court 67 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a review petition seeking the review of this Court's earlier judgment regarding the devolution and distribution of the private properties of the late Ameer of Bahawalpur. The core legal questions involved the scope of the constitutional jurisdiction of the superior courts, whether the Court had travelled outside the pleadings and granted relief not sought by the respondents, and whether an error apparent on the face of the record existed to warrant a review. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the legal requirements for a review were not met as there was no self-evident error of fact or law apparent on the face of the record. The Court laid down the principle that in exercising constitutional jurisdiction to interpret the law and determine the legality of executive orders regarding property distribution among heirs of a former ruler, the pleadings of private parties do not strictly circumscribe the exposition of the constitutional position and correct applicable law, and a review cannot be invoked merely to reargue points already considered and decided.
Questions settled- What constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record sufficient to warrant the review of a judgment?
- Can the superior courts in the exercise of their constitutional jurisdiction examine questions of law and constitutional positions beyond the strict pleadings of the parties?
- Whether a review petition can be maintained for the re-agitation and re-hearing of legal points already decided by the Court?
- BOOTAConvict vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 743 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-15Read full judgment →
- BOORA AND 2 OTHERS vs DIVISIONAL CANALOFFICER AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 364 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
- BODO MAL AND OTHERS vs ILLAHI BAKHSH1984 SCMR 60 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court dismissing the petitioners' First Rent Appeal against an eviction order. The core legal question concerns the determination of default in rent payment and the personal requirement of the premises by the landlord under the urban rent laws. The Supreme Court held that findings of fact regarding default and the nature of the accommodation, having been concurrently established by the lower forums upon proper appreciation of evidence following a remand, do not raise any question of law. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the eviction of the tenants. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence regarding rent default and personal requirement will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court where no substantial question of law arises.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding rent default and personal requirement can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Does a plea of a practice of collecting accumulated rent require documentary substantiation?
- Can a tenant raise the issue of lack of specific assertion of default when default has been admitted in pleadings?
- BODO MAL AND 5 OTHERS vs ILLAHI BA K HSH1984 CLC 640 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-20Read full judgment →
- BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI vs PUNJAB INDUSTRIAL1984 MLD 745 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-16Read full judgment →
- BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE & SECONDARY EDUCATION, SARGODHA through its1984 SCMR 1361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil dispute where the respondent, a probationer Senior Clerk under the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha, had his services terminated without a full-fledged inquiry after being found guilty of accepting illegal gratification in a preliminary inquiry. The respondent challenged the termination through a civil suit, which was initially dismissed, but a learned Single Judge of the High Court accepted his revision, holding that termination of a probationer on grounds of misconduct amounts to dismissal and requires affording a reasonable opportunity to show cause. The core legal question concerns whether the flexible procedural principles applied by the court to disciplinary matters of students in educational institutions can be extended to the employees of educational boards. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this question of general public importance and suspended the operation of the impugned High Court judgment in the interim.
Questions settled- Whether the termination of the services of a probationer on the ground of misconduct amounts to dismissal requiring a reasonable opportunity to show cause?
- Can the flexible procedural principles applied in disciplinary proceedings for students in educational institutions be extended to the employees of educational boards?
- BINYAMEEN vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1495 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-19Read full judgment →
- BIBI JAMILA BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR1984 SCMR 1372 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a matrimonial dispute where the petitioner-wife sought dissolution of marriage on multiple grounds, including Khula, while the respondent-husband filed a counter-suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court dismissed the wife's suit and decreed the husband's, a decision upheld on appeal. The High Court subsequently dismissed the wife's constitutional petition, reasoning that she had abandoned the plea of Khula during the first appeal and that her bare statement of aversion was insufficient to warrant the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court, contending that established legal precedents, specifically the principles laid down in Khurshid Bibi, dictate that once a wife asserts a strong aversion to her husband and claims an inability to live within the limits prescribed by Allah, a decree for dissolution of marriage by way of Khula must follow without further inquiry. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether, under the circumstances, the petitioner was entitled to a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula.
Questions settled- Is a wife's assertion of strong aversion and inability to live with her husband sufficient to grant a decree for dissolution of marriage by way of Khula?
- Does the law require further inquiry into the reasons for a wife's aversion when she seeks Khula?
- Is the High Court's refusal to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 justified when a plea for Khula is allegedly abandoned in lower courts?
- BI LA L KHAN vs MUNAWAR KHAN and another1984 SCMR 1249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the petitioner's civil revision. The core legal question involved whether the sale of a vacant plot of land, alleged to be part of the village Shamlat, by a non-co-owner vendor to a non-co-owner vendee was valid against the Village Proprietary Body. The Supreme Court held that since the concurrent findings of fact by the lower appellate court and the High Court established that the suit land formed part of the village Shamlat and neither the vendor nor the vendee were co-owners in the village proprietary body, the sale was rightly declared void and ineffective regarding the interests of the Village Proprietary Body. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding proprietary rights and village common lands will not be interfered with under leave to appeal when no substantial question of law or legal flaw is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Whether the sale of a village Shamlat plot by a non-co-owner is void against the Village Proprietary Body?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding village land ownership in a petition for leave to appeal without a substantial question of law?
- BHUDAJI alias VITHAL vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1598 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
- BHOLLA vs KHURSHID BIBI AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1124 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
- BHAWALNAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD., CHISHTIAN vs QADEER AHMAD1984 PLC 1389 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
- BENGAL OIL MILLS LTD. AND ANOTHER vs ZARDULLAN KHAN1984 PLC 877 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
- BEHRAM SHAH AND 9 OTHERS vs M. YOUNAS AND 6 OTHERS1984 SCMR 102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court regarding a dispute over the succession and management of the shrine of saint Diwana Baba situated in Tehsil Daggar, District Swat. The core legal questions involve whether the initial suit was barred by time, whether the appointment and proceedings of the Jirga under Regulation II of 1975 complied with the mandatory legal requirements, and whether the confirming authority properly applied its mind to the Jirga verdict. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the Jirga members failed to reach a unanimous decision on vital issues, that the proceedings violated Regulation II of 1975, and that the confirming authority committed a material irregularity by failing to apply its mind properly to the verdict. The key principle laid down is that a Jirga's verdict must be unanimous and follow proper statutory procedure, and the confirming authority must independently and properly apply its mind thereto.
Questions settled- Whether a Jirga's verdict is legally sustainable when its members fail to reach a unanimous decision on vital issues?
- Does the failure of a confirming authority to properly apply its mind to a Jirga verdict constitute a material irregularity?
- Whether the appointment of non-local members to a Jirga without fulfilling required conditions vitiates the proceedings?
- BEGUM SHAMIM FIRDAUS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 22 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
- Begum SARWAR KHATOON vs LAND COMMISSION, PUNJAB AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 87 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal through special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition concerning Land Reforms Regulation (M.L.R. 115). The core legal question is whether a tube-well owned by a declarant exclusively or jointly, but not installed on their own land, makes the owner eligible for additional Produce Index Units under paragraph 8(2)(ii) of the Regulation read with subsequent notifications. The Supreme Court held that a notification issued under paragraph 4(8) of the Regulation operates as a subordinate, explanatory measure and cannot substitute or repeal the substantive provisions requiring the tube-well to be installed on the declarant's own land. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, establishing that the main condition requiring the tube-well to be situated on the declarant's land must be satisfied to claim additional land units.
Questions settled- Whether a tube-well owned by a declarant but not installed on their own land makes them eligible for additional Produce Index Units under paragraph 8(2)(ii) of Land Reforms Regulation (M.L.R. 115)?
- Does a notification issued under paragraph 4(8) of Land Reforms Regulation (M.L.R. 115) override the substantive condition that a tube-well must be installed on the declarant's land?
- BEGUM AZHARI BASHIR vs ABDUL HAMID CHOWDHARY and 5 others1984 MLD 1047 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-09Read full judgment →
- BEGUM ATIYA HASSAN AND 3 OTHERS vs HABIB FADOO1984 CLC 1127 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-28Read full judgment →
- BATI vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 384 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant was convicted and sentenced under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife. The appellant challenged his conviction, arguing that the murder occurred under sudden and grave provocation due to his wife's infidelity, citing evidence of semen found on swabs taken from the deceased as proof of her illicit relationship. The Supreme Court examined whether the presence of semen on the deceased's person, in the context of a marital relationship, constituted evidence of infidelity sufficient to invoke the plea of grave and sudden provocation. The Court held that the mere presence of semen on a married woman does not conclusively prove illicit sexual intercourse with a third party, as it could be attributed to relations with her husband. Furthermore, the Court determined that the appellant failed to establish a case of flagrante delicto. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction, ruling that mere suspicion of infidelity does not mitigate a charge of murder to a lesser offense under Exception 1 to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.
Questions settled- Does the presence of semen on a deceased married woman constitute conclusive proof of infidelity?
- Can mere suspicion of a spouse's infidelity satisfy the requirements for the defense of grave and sudden provocation under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the doctrine of flagrante delicto apply when there is no direct evidence of the deceased being caught in the act of adultery?
- BASHIRUDDIN vs Mst. SUGHRA BEGUM and another1984 MLD 1217 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
- BASHIR vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1296 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-18Read full judgment →
- BASHIR MASIH vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2788 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-27Read full judgment →
- BASHIR HUSSAIN vs Mst. FATIMA BI1984 SCMR 588 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an order of remand passed by the lower appellate court. The respondent had filed a pre-emption suit and was ordered to deposit one-fifth of the pre-emption money by a specific date. Although she handed the amount to her counsel in time, the counsel failed to deposit it into court within the stipulated period, leading the trial court to reject the plaint. The District Judge remanded the matter for a decision on merits, holding that the litigant should not suffer for her counsel's default, a view endorsed by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure grants courts wide discretion to extend time for doing acts even after the expiry of the originally fixed period, provided the discretion is exercised judiciously. The Court affirmed that a litigant should not be penalized for the non-intentional or non-wilful default of her counsel when she has fulfilled her duty.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff can be made to suffer for the default or negligence of her counsel in depositing pre-emption money in time?
- Does Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure empower the court to extend time for doing an act even after the original period has expired?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the payment of money to counsel?
- BASHIR HUSSAIN and others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2969 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-24Read full judgment →
- BASHIR BAIG AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 816 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-31Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED vs THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1526 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED vs Mst. SHAHZADI BEGUM.1984 CLC 1348 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED vs HABIB BANK LTD. AND OTHERS1984 PLC 615 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED vs AHMADUL HAQ SIDDIQUI1984 CLC 1105 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-09Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs ZAHEERUD DIN and another1984 SCMR 1418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an urban settlement case concerning the auction of a unit in a composite property. The petitioner's initial auction in 1965 was cancelled after he failed to pay the full earnest money. Subsequently, the respondent succeeded in a 1973 auction, which the petitioner challenged before settlement authorities after a delay of nearly eight years. Although the petitioner initially succeeded before the settlement authority, the High Court restored the respondent's auction purchase, citing the petitioner's negligence, belated challenge, and the respondent's status as a bona fide purchaser. The core legal question involves whether discretionary relief under constitutional jurisdiction ought to be granted to a party guilty of prolonged silence and laches. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that leave to appeal must be refused because the petitioner remained silent for eight years, declining to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in such circumstances. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will decline to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favor of a party who has remained silent and delayed challenging an adverse administrative action for an unreasonable period.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favor of a petitioner who remained silent for eight years before challenging an administrative auction?
- Does an unexplained delay of nearly eight years in challenging an auction purchase bar a party from obtaining relief in constitutional and discretionary jurisdictions?
- BASHIR AHMAD vs WAJID ALI SHAH1984 MLD 493 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs UNITED BANK LTD.1984 PLC 1486 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-31Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1056 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a criminal appeal against a death sentence confirmed by the Lahore High Court for murder and house trespass. The petitioner challenged his conviction, arguing lack of motive, impossibility of identification due to darkness and confusion, and discrepancies between medical evidence and ocular testimony regarding the time of death. The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution successfully established the petitioner's identity and guilt despite alleged investigative flaws. The Court held that the ocular testimony of the injured witnesses, who were present at the scene and suffered injuries during the incident, was natural and credible. The Court rejected the defense's arguments regarding the time of death and identification, noting the presence of moonlight and the witnesses' familiarity with the accused. While the Court deprecated the perfunctory and slipshod investigation by the police, it ruled that such procedural deficiencies did not undermine the reliability of the direct evidence. Consequently, the conviction was upheld, and the petition was dismissed, affirming that consistent ocular evidence corroborated by medical findings is sufficient for conviction in capital cases.
Questions settled- Does the failure of an investigating officer to collect material evidence like blood-stained items automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
- Can the testimony of injured witnesses be relied upon even if the police investigation is found to be perfunctory or slipshod?
- Does a discrepancy in the estimated time of death based on stomach contents override direct ocular testimony of the occurrence?
- BASHIR AHMAD vs SARDAR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1984 CLC 2158 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 challenged an order of the Superintending Canal Officer reversing the Divisional Canal Officer's decision regarding the change of water supply source (Chakbandi). The core legal questions involved whether the Superintending Canal Officer gave cogent reasons for his decision, whether the petitioner was denied a hearing, and whether the Superintending Canal Officer was competent under section 20 of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 to reverse or modify an order rejecting an application. The Lahore High Court held that the Superintending Canal Officer had provided adequate reasons, that the hearing objection lacked substance, and that the power to 'modify' under section 20 of the Act is broad enough to encompass altering, changing, or varying the lower officer's decision, thereby validating the reversal. The court established that the statutory power of the Superintending Canal Officer to confirm or modify decisions under the Canal and Drainage Act includes the authority to alter or vary a decision regardless of whether the Divisional Canal Officer accepted or rejected the initial application.
Questions settled- Whether the Superintending Canal Officer is competent to reverse an order of the Divisional Canal Officer under section 20 of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873?
- What is the scope and legal meaning of the term 'modify' in the context of section 20 of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873?
- Does section 20 of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 apply only when the Divisional Canal Officer accepts an application, or does it also apply to a rejection?