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.
- BASHIR AHMAD vs Messrs AL-MADAD SOAP INDUSTRY1984 MLD 395 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-23Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs LIAQAT AL! AND OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 3045 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-06Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 58 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-05-28Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs ABDUL HAMEED AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 689 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing in limine a civil revision filed by the petitioner tenant. The petitioner had instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration that eviction orders passed against him by the Rent Controller and confirmed up to the Supreme Court were illegal and void, alleging fraud and that respondents were not the owners. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and the lower appellate court upheld the decision. The core legal question was whether a tenant, whose eviction order had been finalized by the Supreme Court and who unsuccessfully claimed adverse possession, could subsequently challenge those final judicial determinations through a fresh civil suit. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the attempt to reopen settled issues regarding tenancy and ownership constituted a classic misuse of legal process. The Court reaffirmed that such suits are barred by law and initiated contempt proceedings against the petitioner, alongside issuing show-cause notices to the drafting lawyers.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant can challenge a final eviction order confirmed by the Supreme Court by filing a subsequent civil suit for declaration?
- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when it attempts to relitigate issues already closed by the Supreme Court?
- Whether repeatedly agitating settled questions of tenancy and adverse possession amounts to an abuse of the process of the court?
- BASHIR AHMAD KHAN vs HAKIM ALI and 6 others1984 SCMR 1392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court concerning competing land proposals and allotments under the rehabilitation scheme. The facts involve land proposed in the petitioner's favour in April 1959, subsequently proposed and confirmed in the name of another respondent without notice to the petitioner, and later sold to third-party purchasers whose title became subject to litigation after the second respondent's allotment was cancelled for double allotment. The core legal question involves the true scope and intendment of paragraph 68 of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme (Part II), specifically whether a land proposal is automatically confirmed after the expiry of fifteen days if no objections are filed. The Supreme Court held that the case raises a question of general public importance regarding the interpretation of paragraph 68 that arises frequently. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine the correct legal position, while directing that status quo regarding possession be maintained.
Questions settled- What is the true scope and intendment of paragraph 68 of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme Part II regarding the confirmation of land proposals?
- Does a land proposal under the rehabilitation scheme stand automatically confirmed after the expiry of fifteen days if no objections are filed?
- What are the mandatory conditions and procedure required for the confirmation of proposals under paragraph 68 of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme?
- BASHIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 352 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-01Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD and another vs IRSHAD MUHAMMAD KHAN and others1984 SCMR 1531 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the payment of court-fee on a memorandum of appeal in a pre-emption suit. The petitioners filed an appeal against the dismissal of their suit, affixing court-fee based on the law applicable at the time of the original plaint. However, the office objected, noting that the Finance Act, 1973, which came into force before the appeal was filed, required a higher court-fee based on net profits. The District Judge allowed the petitioners to make up the deficiency, but the High Court, in revision, held that the court-fee must be determined by the law prevailing at the time of filing the appeal and that the appeal should have been dismissed as time-barred. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the District Judge's order allowing the deficiency to be made up was legally sustainable and whether the High Court, upon finding the order contrary to law, should have decided the matter itself rather than remanding it.
Questions settled- Is the court-fee payable on a memorandum of appeal determined by the law in force at the time of the original plaint or the law in force at the time the appeal is presented?
- Can a court allow a party to make up a deficiency in court-fee after the expiry of the limitation period without an application for extension of time under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- When a High Court finds a lower court's order regarding court-fee deficiency to be contrary to law in a revision petition, is it required to decide the matter itself or remand it back to the lower court?
- BASHIR AHMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 663 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-18Read full judgment →
- BASHARATULLAH KHAN vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 610 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-03-06Read full judgment →
- BASHARAT KHAN vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1033(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 25-5-1983 in a murder case. The core legal question addressed by the Court was whether the grounds presented in the review petition justified a re-examination of the previous judgment. Upon hearing the petitioner's counsel at length, the Court determined that the petition was frivolous. The Court held that the petitioner's arguments essentially sought a reappraisal of evidence and a re-evaluation of factual findings to achieve a different conclusion, which is not a permissible ground for review. The Court reaffirmed that the impugned judgment had already been carefully considered in light of the contentions raised during the original hearing and that the case did not warrant a reappraisal of evidence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the review petition, establishing the principle that a review jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely to re-argue questions of fact or to seek a reappraisal of evidence already adjudicated upon by the Court in its final judgment.
Questions settled- Can a review petition be maintained solely to seek a reappraisal of evidence?
- Is a request to reach a different conclusion on questions of fact a valid ground for review?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to re-examine factual findings in a review petition?
- BASHARAT ALI AND ANOTHER vs ALLAH WASAYA AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 739 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition arising from a Land Reforms dispute. The petitioners, who were minors at the material time, sought the grant of land under the Land Reforms Act, 1977, claiming entitlement as cultivating tenants. Upon failing to establish their status as recorded tenants, they alternatively argued for the grant of land on a second-priority basis as landless tenants, asserting preference over the respondents who were landowners. The Supreme Court examined the proceedings and noted that the petitioners' claim was factually doubtful, particularly given their status as minors with a living father who was himself a landowner. The Court observed that the father appeared to be attempting to acquire land by utilizing his minor sons' names. Finding no merit in the petitioners' bona fides, the Court dismissed the petition. The judgment reaffirms that claims for land grants under land reform legislation require genuine status as tillers of the soil and that courts will scrutinize the bona fides of applicants to prevent the circumvention of land reform objectives.
Questions settled- Can minor children claim land grants as cultivating tenants when their father is a landowner?
- Does the failure to establish status as a recorded tenant preclude a claim for land grant on a second-priority basis?
- Are courts required to examine the bona fides of applicants in land reform grant proceedings?
- BASHARAT ALI and 4 others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2958 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →
- BARZA vs STAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD1984 PLC 576 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-11-14Read full judgment →
- BARKAT vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS1984 CLC 951 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-18Read full judgment →
- BARKAT and another vs MU H A MMA D S A LEEM1984 MLD 920 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-13Read full judgment →
- BARKAT ALI vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1269 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-19Read full judgment →
- BARKAT ALI AND 2 OTHERS vs PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 411 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-08Read full judgment →
- BANK OF AMERICA vs ALAM & BROS. AND 6 OTHERS1984 CLC 3393 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed under Section 12 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, challenging an interlocutory order passed by the Special Court (Banking) which dismissed the appellant's application for the appointment of a commissioner to inspect, survey, and sell pledged goods. The core legal question was whether an appeal lies against an interlocutory order of a Special Court that does not dispose of the entire case. The Court held that the appeal was incompetent, affirming that the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Ordinance explicitly bars appeals from interlocutory orders that do not conclude the entire proceedings. The Court emphasized that the Ordinance is a special law designed for expeditious recovery, and its provisions regarding the finality of interlocutory orders prevail over general procedural laws like the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The principle laid down is that the right of appeal under the Ordinance is restricted to final judgments or orders that dispose of the entire case, and interlocutory orders of the Special Court cannot be challenged through appeal or revision.
Questions settled- Does an appeal lie against an interlocutory order of a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, if the order does not dispose of the entire case?
- Can the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, be invoked against interlocutory orders of a Special Court constituted under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Does the definition of 'order' in Section 2(14) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, expand the scope of appealable orders under Section 12 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- BALUCHISTAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs CENTRAL_BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS1984 CLC 2192 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 4th February 1975 passed by respondent 4, which classified imported spindle-holders (bolster units) and plastic rings under Item No. 84.38(C) of the Customs Tariff, attracting a 50% ad valorem duty plus sales tax. The core legal question was whether spindle-holders (bolster units) qualify as parts of textile spindles under heading 84.38(C) or fall under the residuary heading 84.38(D) of the Pakistan Customs Tariff. The Sindh High Court held that the alternate remedies of appeal and revision were illusory since the appellate and revisional authorities had already predetermined the issue, rendering the constitutional petition maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution. On merits, the Court held that bolster units are merely supports to hold the spindle and do not constitute a part of the spindle itself; therefore, they do not fall under heading 84.38(C) but under the residuary heading 84.38(D) at 20% ad valorem duty. The key principle laid down is that the existence of an alternate remedy is no bar to a constitutional petition if such remedy is illusory, and that mechanical parts used to support a device do not automatically become parts of that device for tariff classification purposes.
Questions settled- Whether the existence of an alternate remedy by way of appeal and revision bars a constitutional petition when such remedies are illusory?
- Can spindle-holders and bolster units be classified as parts of textile spindles under heading 84.38(C) of the Pakistan Customs Tariff?
- Does a support device used to hold a spindle become a part of the spindle itself for customs duty assessment?
- BALUCHA vs The STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2277 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-07Read full judgment →
- BAKHTYAR AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 PLD Peshawar 51 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-04Read full judgment →
- BAKHTIAR AND 3 OTHERS vs MEMBER III, BOARD OF REVENUE, BALUCHISTAN, QUETTA AND 20 OTHERS1984 PLD Quetta 158 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order by the Member, Board of Revenue, which reversed mutation entries in the revenue record that had been made in favor of the petitioners. The petitioners had obtained these entries following the dismissal of a civil suit for partition, claiming this dismissal granted them rights. The core legal questions were whether a dismissed civil suit confers rights justifying revenue record alteration, whether mutations made without notice to affected co-sharers are valid, and whether the Board of Revenue possesses the jurisdiction to entertain a second revision to correct such illegalities. The Court held that the Board of Revenue’s order was correct, ruling that the petitioners’ mutation entries were void as they were made in flagrant violation of the mandatory notice requirements under the Land Revenue Act, 1967. The Court established that revenue officers cannot vary entries without proper legal basis or notice to interested parties. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Board of Revenue has broad revisional powers under the Land Revenue Act, 1967, to intervene at any time to rectify patent illegalities and prevent the perpetuation of void orders.
Questions settled- Does a dismissed civil suit for partition confer rights upon a party to alter revenue record entries?
- Are mutation entries made without notice to the affected co-sharers void in law?
- Is the Board of Revenue competent to entertain a second revision under the Land Revenue Act, 1967?
- Can the Board of Revenue exercise its revisional jurisdiction to correct illegalities even after a significant lapse of time?
- BAKHTAWAR vs SHER MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1984 CLC 2248 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-03Read full judgment →
- BAIGO AND OTHERS vs GHULAM RASOOL AND OTHERSPLD 1984 Rev. 12 Punjab · Board of Revenue · 1983-10-09Read full judgment →
- BAIDULLAH JAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 481 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
- BAHAWALNAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD., CHISHTIAN vs RANA SHAUKAT ALI1984 PLC 1514 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-20Read full judgment →
- BAHAWAL vs MUHAMMAD DIN AND OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 3031 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-22Read full judgment →
- BAHAWAL AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 369 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-22Read full judgment →
- BAHADUR vs The DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DADU and 5 others1984 MLD 841 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-07Read full judgment →
- BAHADUR vs COLLECTOR, JHANG AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2955 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a series of writ petitions challenging the unilateral cancellation of state land allotments by the Collector, Jhang, under the Tubewell Scheme. The core legal question was whether the Collector possessed the authority to cancel these allotments without issuing prior notice or affording the allottees an opportunity to be heard. The Court held that the cancellation orders were void and of no legal effect. The ratio of the decision is that administrative authorities, when exercising powers that adversely affect the rights of individuals, are bound by the fundamental principles of natural justice, specifically the rule of audi alteram partem. The Court emphasized that no person can be condemned unheard, and any order passed in violation of this principle is arbitrary and without lawful authority. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders, declaring them void, while clarifying that this does not preclude the authorities from initiating fresh proceedings in accordance with the law, provided that proper notice and an opportunity of hearing are extended to the affected allottees.
Questions settled- Can a Collector cancel an allotment of state land without issuing a prior notice to the allottee?
- Are the principles of natural justice applicable to administrative orders cancelling land allotments?
- Is an order passed by an administrative authority without affording an opportunity of hearing void?
- BAHADUR KHAN vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR AND 2 OTHERS1984SCMR 208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a Peshawar High Court judgment concerning the murder of Muhammad Ayub and injuries to his father, Bahadur Khan. The petitioner challenged the acquittal of Muhammad Anwar and Feroz Din, and sought the enhancement of the sentence of Mir Zaman, who was convicted of causing grievous hurt rather than murder. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appraisal of medical evidence regarding the lethality of the abdominal injury inflicted by Mir Zaman, and whether such injury constituted culpable homicide under Section 299 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to properly evaluate the medical evidence, specifically regarding whether the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Court affirmed that a person is deemed to have caused death by bodily injury even if medical intervention might have prevented it. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal against Mir Zaman’s acquittal for murder but refused leave regarding the other respondents.
Questions settled- Can a court determine if an injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature even if the medical expert does not explicitly state so?
- Does a person who inflicts a fatal bodily injury remain liable for causing death even if proper medical treatment might have prevented the fatality?
- What constitutes culpable homicide under Section 299 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the causation of death by bodily injury?
- BAGO alias PATHAN AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3229 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by four applicants charged with offences under sections 307, 394, and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, following an alleged highway robbery and shooting incident. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the circumstances surrounding their identification and the evidence collected during the investigation. The Court observed that the applicants remained in police custody for approximately fifteen days prior to the identification parade, casting doubt on the reliability of the identification process at the pre-trial stage. Furthermore, the Court noted that the alleged extra-judicial confession was made to a minor and lacked sufficient weight for the purpose of denying bail. Holding that the applicants' complicity required further inquiry, the Court granted bail, invoking the principle that where there are reasonable grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of an accused, the case falls within the scope of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, necessitating the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Does holding an identification parade after fifteen days of police custody render the identification evidence doubtful for the purpose of bail?
- Does the presence of reasonable grounds for further inquiry into an accused's complicity entitle them to bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an extra-judicial confession made to a minor be considered sufficient evidence to deny bail?
- BAGH AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3222 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-24Read full judgment →
- BAG GA vs LAL HUSSAIN1984 SCMR 212 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which reversed concurrent findings of the trial court and the District Judge regarding the validity of a registered sale-deed. The respondent had filed a suit for declaration, alleging the sale-deed was fictitious and that no consideration was paid. The lower courts dismissed the suit, finding the deed genuine. The High Court, however, set aside these findings, holding that failure to prove the payment of consideration rendered the transaction ineffective, and reassessed the evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, identifying two core legal questions: first, whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, could interfere with concurrent findings of fact without identifying jurisdictional defects or material irregularities; and second, whether the mere failure to prove the actual payment of sale consideration at the time of conveyance vitiates a sale transaction where title was intended to pass. The Court noted the established principle that non-payment of price does not necessarily prevent title from passing if the parties intended the transfer.
Questions settled- Can a High Court in revisional jurisdiction interfere with concurrent findings of fact absent jurisdictional defect or material irregularity?
- Does the failure to prove the actual payment of sale consideration at the time of conveyance vitiate a sale transaction where title was intended to pass?
- BADRI ZAMAN vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1013 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a civil revision in limine. The petitioner had instituted a suit for declaration and possession, challenging a registered sale-deed dated 20th February 1954 as collusive, fraudulent, and without consideration, which was dismissed concurrently by the lower courts. The core legal question concerned the admissibility and validity of a certified copy of a registered sale-deed and the presumption of its fictitious nature when the original was allegedly not produced by the defendants. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings and the registered status of the sale-deed stood, noting that the petitioner failed to summon the identifying witnesses or the relevant Sub-Registrar's clerk, and omitted to challenge the corresponding revenue entries or seek cancellation of the sale-deed in a timely manner. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a certified copy of a registered sale-deed is inadmissible when the primary document is allegedly withheld?
- Does a failure to challenge revenue record entries or seek cancellation of a registered sale-deed preclude a later claim of fraud?
- Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the validity of a sale-deed warrant interference in civil revision or leave to appeal?
- BADAR DIN vs THE WEST PAKISTAN SOCIETY FOR THEREHABILITATION OF DISABLED1984 PLC 26 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-07-12Read full judgment →
- BADAR DIN (represented by Legal Heirs) vs Ch. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 31984 MLD 284 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-11Read full judgment →
- BACHOMAL vs The STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2797 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 193 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly giving false evidence during a murder trial. The appellant, who had initially supported the complainant during a preliminary inquiry, resiled from his statement during the subsequent trial, leading the trial court to issue a show-cause notice and eventually convict him for perjury. The core legal question was whether the trial court could validly take cognizance of the offence of giving false evidence without adhering to the mandatory procedural requirements. Upon review, the Court found that the trial court failed to file a written complaint as required by Section 195(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that in the absence of such a written complaint, the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment reaffirms the principle that strict compliance with the procedural bar under Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a prerequisite for prosecuting perjury.
Questions settled- Can a court take cognizance of an offence under Section 193 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without a written complaint as required by Section 195(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the filing of a written complaint by the trial court a mandatory prerequisite for prosecuting a witness for giving false evidence?
- BACHAL vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1571 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-01Read full judgment →
- BABU vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1932 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
- Babu MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BALUCHISTAN1984 PLD Quetta 80 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-11-16Read full judgment →
- Baboo MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs MUHAMMAD SHAH1984 PLC 1493 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-19Read full judgment →
- BABOO KHAN vs MAQBOOL AHMED1984 CLC 2599 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an ejectment application filed by the landlord through an attorney against the appellant tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment. The Rent Controller found the appellant to be a habitual defaulter and ordered his ejectment, which was challenged by the appellant in this appeal before the Sindh High Court. The core legal questions involved whether the tenant's failure to find the landlord excused rent payment default, and whether the power of attorney sufficiently authorized the attorney to file and verify the ejectment application. The Court held that a tenant unable to locate the landlord is nonetheless bound to deposit the rent with the Rent Controller, and that the power of attorney explicitly empowered the attorney to take legal action and institute proceedings. The Court further ruled that the Rent Controller is not bound to frame issues on frivolous or unsubstantiated pleas. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs, granting the appellant four months to vacate.
Questions settled- Does a tenant's inability to trace the landlord absolve the tenant from the responsibility of paying rent?
- Whether a general power of attorney authorizing legal action and proceedings permits an attorney to file and verify an ejectment application?
- Is a Rent Controller legally bound to frame an issue in respect of each and every plea raised in the pleadings?
- B. P. BISCUIT FACTORY Ltd. vs The DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE1984 MLD 68 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-05Read full judgment →
- B. D. BURNI vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1984 PLC 738 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-17Read full judgment →
- AZMAT HAYAT KHAN vs Q.MUSHIR AZAM1984 CLC 2635 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-26Read full judgment →
- AZIZURREHMAN vs ABDUR RAHIM1984 PLD Quetta 46 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-09-09Read full judgment →
- AZIZUR REHMAN vs KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION1984 PLC 428 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
- AZIZ AHMAD vs SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, QUETTA1984 PLD Quetta 106 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-11-16Read full judgment →
- AZIZ AHMAD vs ANWAR ALI. AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 1778 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-05Read full judgment →
- AZIZ AHMAD SIDDIQUI vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL, and another1984 MLD 872 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-07Read full judgment →
- AZIZ AHMAD MALIK vs PUNJAB BAR COUNCIL AND 15 OTHERS1984 PLD Lahore 389 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-19Read full judgment →
- AZHAR ALI vs Sh. MUHAMMAD RAEES SHAMSI AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLD Karachi 38 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-01Read full judgment →
- AZHAR ALI SHAHZAD vs UTILITY STORES CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD., SARGODHA AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 920 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- AZHAR ALI SHAH vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3220 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →
- AZEEM KHAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2720 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-03Read full judgment →
- AZAM KHAN vs THE STATE1984 PLD Peshawar 238 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-06-01Read full judgment →
- AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT, vs HABIBULLAH LONE1984 PLD SC (A J & K) 13 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-11-13Read full judgment →
- AZ1Z alias NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs Mst.ZOHRA and others1984 MLD 1490 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
- AVARI HOTELS LTD. vs HILTON INTERNATIONAL COMPANY1984 PLD Karachi 488 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
- AVAIS MAZHAR HUSSAIN vs GOVERNMENT OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 270 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a member of the Police Service of Pakistan, challenged his removal from service following disciplinary proceedings. Initially dismissed in 1975, he was reinstated but subsequently suspended and subjected to a fresh inquiry under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. Although the Inquiry Officer exonerated him, the Authorized Officer disagreed, leading to the petitioner's removal from service. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by the failure to provide the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the Authorized Officer's proposed action after the inquiry report was finalized. Relying on the principle established in Syed Mir Muhammad v. N.-W. F. P. Government, the Court noted that under rules 5 and 6 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973, it is a statutory requirement to furnish the accused officer with a copy of the inquiry report and allow them to offer an explanation against the proposed action before recommendations are sent to the Authority. Finding that this procedure was not followed, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Is it a statutory requirement to provide an accused government servant with a copy of the inquiry report before the Authorized Officer makes a recommendation to the Authority?
- Must an accused officer be given an opportunity to offer an explanation against the proposed action by the Authorized Officer after a formal inquiry has been conducted?
- Does the failure to provide an accused officer an opportunity to respond to the findings of an inquiry officer before the Authorized Officer makes a recommendation vitiate the disciplinary proceedings?
- AVA A. COWASJEE and 8 others vs NASREEN NIZAM SHAH and 4 others1984 CLC 2705 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a civil suit filed by nine plaintiffs seeking damages for various distinct grievances, including malicious trespass, wrongful arrest, and loss of business, arising from a single incident. The core legal question was whether the plaintiffs could pay a single maximum court fee on the aggregate value of their combined claims, or if they were required to pay court fees separately for each distinct subject matter under the Court Fees Act, 1870. The Court held that the plaintiffs are liable to pay court fees separately on each distinct claim presented in the plaint. The Court reasoned that while Order I, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 allows for the joinder of plaintiffs, this procedural rule does not override the substantive requirement under Section 17 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, which mandates that suits embracing two or more distinct subjects must be charged with the aggregate amount of fees payable for each subject separately. The principle established is that procedural joinder does not exempt plaintiffs from paying individual court fees on separate causes of action.
Questions settled- Does the joinder of multiple plaintiffs in a single suit under Order I, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, exempt them from paying separate court fees on distinct claims?
- Is a suit containing multiple claims for damages arising from different causes of action subject to Section 17 of the Court Fees Act, 1870?
- Does the maximum court fee limit prescribed by the Court Fees (Sind Amendment) Ordinance, 1977, apply to the aggregate value of all claims in a suit or to each distinct subject matter separately?
- AURANGZEB vs Syed AMJAD ALI1984 CLC 1765 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-31Read full judgment →
- AURANGZEB vs EJAZUL HASSAN KHAN AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Peshawar 49 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
- AURANGZEB SHAH vs The STATE1984 P Cr. L J 109 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-25Read full judgment →
- AURANGZEB KHAN vs ABDUR REHMAN1984 SCMR 1294 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision and denied a decree for possession based on a right of pre-emption. The petitioner, a contiguous owner, sought to pre-empt a land sale, while the respondent-vendee resisted the claim by asserting their status as a recorded owner in the Shamilat Deh Ghair Mumkin Kassi. The trial court and the High Court held that this ownership share placed the vendee on par with the pre-emptor, thereby defeating the claim. The core legal question was whether ownership of a share in such common land (Kassi) entitles a vendee to successfully resist a pre-emption claim. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' findings, holding that co-sharership in Kassi or Lakhti does entitle a party to successfully resist a pre-emption claim. The Court relied on established precedents confirming that such ownership status is sufficient to defeat a claim of superior pre-emption rights based on contiguity. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as lacking merit.
Questions settled- Does ownership of a share in Shamilat Deh Ghair Mumkin Kassi entitle a vendee to resist a claim of pre-emption?
- Can a contiguous owner successfully pre-empt a sale against a vendee who holds a share in Shamilat Kassi?
- AURANGZEB ABID AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 1558 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
- AURANG ZAIB vs SIND METAL CONTAINERS LTD.1984 PLC 849 · Labour Court · 1983-08-26Read full judgment →
- AURAGZEB A BID AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1764 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
- AULA MIAN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3051 (1) · Sindh High Court · 1983-07-17Read full judgment →
- ATTAUR REHMAN vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD QURESHI (deceased) through Legal1984 MLD 1014 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-05Read full judgment →
- ATTAULLAH JAN vs ABDULLAH JAN1984 PLD Supreme Court 222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a leave to appeal granted to examine whether the High Court was justified in entertaining a plea raised for the first time in second appeal—specifically, whether the disputed property qualified as 'rented land' under the relevant rent restriction law, thereby ousting the Rent Controller's jurisdiction. The appellant-landlord had filed an eviction petition against the respondent-tenant, which succeeded before the Rent Controller and the first appellate court. However, the High Court entertained the new legal-factual ground regarding the nature of the rented land and dismissed the eviction order without providing an opportunity for evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where a mixed question of fact and law regarding jurisdiction is raised for the first time in second appeal, the court cannot decide it solely on existing uncontested material without affording parties an opportunity to lead evidence. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the proceedings to the Rent Controller to frame an appropriate issue, record evidence, and decide the matter afresh.
Questions settled- Can a new ground involving a mixed question of fact and law regarding jurisdiction be raised for the first time in second appeal?
- What is the proper course for an appellate court when a party raises a new factual controversy regarding jurisdiction in second appeal?
- Whether an appellate court can decide a mixed question of fact and law without allowing parties an opportunity to lead evidence.
- ATTAR vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1180 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-08Read full judgment →
- ATTA MUHAMMAD vs NOT1984 SCMR 1109 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the validity of a gift of land made by a donor in 1969 to his heirs, which was subsequently challenged under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115). The core legal question was whether the gift was genuine and validly executed before the promulgation of the Regulation, and whether the Chairman of the Federal Land Commission had the authority to set aside the Chief Land Commissioner's validation of said gift. The Supreme Court held that the gift was validly made in favour of the donor's heirs, and the Chief Land Commissioner correctly validated the transaction. The Court ruled that the Chairman of the Federal Land Commission, in exercising revisional jurisdiction, had misread the evidence and exceeded the scope of his powers by failing to recognize the validity of the gift under the relevant provisions of the Regulation. The Court affirmed that once a gift to heirs is established, it is protected under the Regulation. The impugned order of the Federal Land Commission was declared to be of no legal effect, and the order of the Chief Land Commissioner was restored.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Land Commission have the authority to scrutinize and invalidate a gift made to heirs under the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 if the gift was made prior to the Regulation's promulgation?
- Is a gift of land to minors valid without formal delivery of possession when the donor is the legal guardian of the property?
- Can the revisional powers under paragraph 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 be exercised to re-examine factual findings that are supported by evidence?
- Does the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 apply to transfers of land made by a person in favour of their heirs?
- ATTA MUHAMMAD vs DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, RANGE MANAGEMENT1984 PLC (C. S.) 749 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-01-13Read full judgment →
- ATTA MUHAMMAD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 1316 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
- ATTA MUHA M MA D vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 927 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- ATLAS GROUP OF COMPANIES EMPLOYEES' UNION (C. B. A.) vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS AND 5 OTHERS1984 PLC 1482 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-06Read full judgment →
- ATLAS BATTERY LTD. vs SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE & LAND CUSTOMS, CIRCLE 'C', KARACHI AND OTHERS1984 PLD Supreme Court 86 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerned the proper basis for determining the value of goods for excise duty assessment under Section 4(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 read with Item No. 53(1) of its First Schedule. The appellant, a battery manufacturer, supplied storage batteries under special purchase contracts to specific institutions at higher contract prices while printing a lower figure on the batteries as the supposed retail price after deducting non-excisable charges such as transport, warranty, and special packaging. The Department demanded differential excise duty based on the contract prices, which the High Court upheld. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision, holding that under Section 4(2), the retail price fixed by a manufacturer must be inclusive of all charges and taxes and represent the price at which the goods are offered to the general body of consumers. Where multiple retail prices exist or unauthorized deductions are made from contract prices, the assessing officer retains statutory jurisdiction to verify whether the printed price truly constitutes the legal 'retail price'.
Questions settled- Does a manufacturer have absolute discretion to fix a printed retail price for excise duty purposes without inclusion of all taxes and charges under Section 4(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944?
- Can a manufacturer deduct transportation, warranty, and packaging costs from the contract price when determining the printed retail price for excise duty assessment under Section 4(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944?
- Whether the excise assessing officer has jurisdiction to question a printed retail price on goods if it does not conform to the statutory definition of retail price in Section 4(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944?
- Atlas Battery Limited Karachi vs Superintendent Central Excise and LandPTCL 1984 (CL) 250 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The dispute concerns the determination of 'retail price' for excise duty on storage batteries under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellants, manufacturers of batteries, challenged excise assessments, arguing they were entitled to deduct special contract costs—such as packing, warranty, and transport—from the contract price to arrive at a 'retail price' for duty purposes. The core legal question was whether such a price, which excluded these costs, satisfied the statutory definition of 'retail price' under Section 4(2) of the Act. The Supreme Court held that the appellants' printed price failed to meet the statutory requirements because Section 4(2) mandates that the retail price must be inclusive of all charges and taxes and represent the price offered to the general body of consumers. Consequently, the Court affirmed that a manufacturer cannot arbitrarily deduct costs to lower the excise base. Where a printed price does not conform to the statutory definition, the goods are assessable on an ad valorem basis under Section 4(1) of the Act, rather than the concessional retail price rate.
Questions settled- Does the definition of 'retail price' under Section 4(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, permit a manufacturer to deduct special contract costs such as packing and warranty from the price?
- Is a manufacturer's printed price on goods automatically binding for excise duty assessment if it does not reflect the price offered to the general body of consumers?
- What is the consequence under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, if a printed retail price fails to meet the statutory definition of retail price?
- ATIQURREHMAN and others vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM and another1984 SCMR 1469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where an ex parte decree was passed against minor defendants without a guardian ad litem. The High Court declared the decree a nullity, leading the trial court to revive the suit and appoint a guardian. The petitioners challenged this revival through a writ petition, which was dismissed on the merits by the High Court. After their subsequent appeals and a petition to the Supreme Court were dismissed, the petitioners filed a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to challenge the same revival order. The High Court dismissed the revision petition on the ground of res judicata. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, holding that once a matter has been fully adjudicated and disposed of by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction, the same issue cannot be re-opened through a revision petition, as it is barred by the general principles of res judicata.
Questions settled- Does the declaration of an ex parte decree against an unrepresented minor as a nullity wipe out the entire suit, or does it merely relegate the parties to the position they occupied when the illegality occurred?
- Can a party file a civil revision petition to challenge an order that has already been adjudicated and upheld on the merits in previous writ proceedings?
- Do the general principles of res judicata bar the re-opening of an issue in civil revision that was previously decided under writ jurisdiction?
- ATA MUHAMMAD vs MUNAWAR HUSSAIN AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 715 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, father of the prosecutrix, sought leave to appeal against the Federal Shariat Court's order dismissing his criminal appeal as incompetent against the acquittal of the respondent under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the Federal Shariat Court was bound to treat an incompetent appeal as a revision petition under the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that since no such request was made before the Federal Shariat Court during the proceedings, the petitioner should formally move that court in accordance with the law relating to revisional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court by treating an incompetent appeal as a revision must first make a formal request before that court.
Questions settled- Whether an incompetent criminal appeal against acquittal can be treated as a revision by the Federal Shariat Court without a formal request?
- Does the Federal Shariat Court possess revisional jurisdiction under Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- ATA MUHAMMAD and 2 others vs MEMBER, REVENUE BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 3 others1984 MLD 450 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-15Read full judgment →
- ASSOCIATED PRESS OF PAKISTAN vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1687 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-25Read full judgment →
- ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LABOUR WELFARE (CONCILIATION), MULTAN vs SALEEM1984 PLC 1208 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-13Read full judgment →
- ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT. PAKPATTAN AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 193 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-30Read full judgment →
- ASSISTANT CUSTODIAN, ENEMY PROPERTIES (BANKS) vs ZAMIR AHMAD1984 PLC 1069 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-12-03Read full judgment →
- Assessee vs Income Tax DepartmentPTCL 1984 (CL) 360 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
- ASSADULLAH vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER ,1984 PLC 1458 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-05-13Read full judgment →
- ASLAM PERVAIZ vs THE STATE1984 PLD Lahore 204 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by a convict seeking the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, requesting that his pre-trial detention be counted towards his sentence, after the appellate court had already signed and pronounced the judgment. The core legal question was whether the High Court, having become functus officio upon signing the judgment, could entertain such an application or exercise inherent powers to grant the relief. The Court held that the application was incompetent. It ruled that Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 expressly bars the alteration or review of a judgment once signed, except for clerical errors. The Court emphasized that Section 382-B is not an automatic, mandatory provision but requires judicial discretion, and the plea must be raised during the trial or appeal. Furthermore, the Court held that inherent powers under Section 561-A cannot be invoked to bypass express statutory prohibitions or to reconsider the quantum of sentence. Consequently, the application was dismissed as it sought to reopen a closed matter.
Questions settled- Can a High Court review or alter its own judgment in a criminal case after it has been signed and pronounced?
- Does the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply automatically, or does it require judicial discretion?
- Can the inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to bypass the statutory bar against reviewing a judgment?
- Is an application for the benefit of Section 382-B maintainable after the appellate judgment has become final?
- ASLAM KHAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2166 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-21Read full judgment →
- ASLAM CHUGHTAI vs CIVIL JUDGE AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 822 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
- ASLAM AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1861 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-03Read full judgment →
- ASIF MA HMOOD vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 838 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-09Read full judgment →
- ASIF ALI vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 439 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-19Read full judgment →
- ASIF AKHTAR MALHI AND ANOTHERS vs PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 558 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1545 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-24Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 930 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-07Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ HUSSAIN alias ACHHOO vs Mst. HASAN BANO AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2096 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-06Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ ALI vs BATA (PAKISTAN) LTD., LAHORE1984 PLC 1297 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →