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.
- ASHIQ ALI and 3 others vs MUHAMMAD HASHIM and 8 others1984 MLD 951 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-20Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ ALI alias GHULAM MURTAZA SOMRO vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 2000 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-14Read full judgment →
- ASHFAQUE vs Mst.BEGUM BIBI alias BEGO BIBI and another1984 CLC 2587 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-15Read full judgment →
- ASHFAQ SHAHID vs WAHEED ULLAH GORAYA AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 393 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-24Read full judgment →
- ASHFAQ HUSSAIN RANA vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 69 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-05-17Read full judgment →
- ASHFAQ AHMED MEMON AND ANOTHERS vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER &1984 CLC 1987 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-22Read full judgment →
- ASHFAQ AHMAD vs Mian WAHEEDUDDIN AND OTHERS1984 CLC 925 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-03Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR and FAZLA vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2469 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-13Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2443 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-22Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI ASAD vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND 3 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 384 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-05Read full judgment →
- ASGH AR ALI vs THE STATE1984 MLD 314 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-17Read full judgment →
- ASAD AZHAR vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 990 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-24Read full judgment →
- ARSHAD MAHMOOD SIDDIQUI vs MUHAMMAD HAROON1984 CLC 1750 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal concerns an ejectment application filed against a tenant for default in rent payment. The original landlord transferred the premises to the appellant during the pendency of the litigation. The core legal questions were whether a successor-in-interest (purchaser) can rely on a default committed during the tenure of the previous landlord, and whether the tenant had proven an agreement to adjust repair costs against rent. The lower courts dismissed the application, holding that the default was not available to the new landlord and that the tenant's claim regarding repair adjustments was established. The High Court held that under Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the right to evict for default is not personal but attaches to the property, thus passing to the transferee. Furthermore, the Court found that the lower courts misread the evidence regarding the alleged repair agreement, noting inconsistencies in the tenant's pleadings and testimony. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the tenant was directed to vacate the premises, establishing that a successor landlord inherits the right to prosecute eviction proceedings based on prior defaults.
Questions settled- Can a successor landlord rely on a default in rent payment committed during the tenure of the previous landlord?
- Does the right to evict a tenant for default pass to a transferee of the property under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
- Can a court accept a witness's testimony as true merely because the opposing party failed to cross-examine on that specific point, if the testimony contradicts the party's own pleadings?
- ARSHAD JAVID vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2669 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-19Read full judgment →
- ARSHAD JAVED BUTT vs MESSRS ITTEHAD CHEMICALS1984 PLC 1316 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-18Read full judgment →
- ARSHAD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1381 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-08Read full judgment →
- ARSHAD AHMAD vs NASEER AHMAD1984 CLC 1682 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
- ARS HAD MAHMOOD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1827 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-06Read full judgment →
- ARK NAVIGATION COMPANY OF PAKISTAN Ltd. and anothers vs Messrs ESSO1984 SCMR 1535 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses two distinct matters. In the first matter, the Court dismissed an appeal as time-barred, holding that the appellant failed to provide an adequate explanation for a 41-day delay in filing beyond the limitation period. The Court declined to grant leave to sue in forma pauperis at that stage, directing the petitioner to pursue such relief before the trial court under the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. In the second matter, the Court considered a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order regarding a temporary injunction in a suit for permanent injunction. The Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's refusal to grant the injunction but expressed concern over the delay in the trial court proceedings. Consequently, the Court directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within three months, requiring a report to the High Court and the Supreme Court if the deadline is not met.
Questions settled- Can an appeal be entertained when the application for a copy of the impugned judgment is made after the expiry of the limitation period without adequate explanation for the delay?
- Is a request to sue in forma pauperis maintainable before the Supreme Court after the appeal has been dismissed as time-barred?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's order regarding a temporary injunction?
- Can the Supreme Court issue specific directions to a trial court for the expeditious disposal of a pending suit?
- ARK NAVIGATION COMPANY OF PAKISTAN Ltd. and another vs Messrs ESSO1984 SCMR 1518 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-08-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' appeal regarding an application to sue in forma pauperis. The petitioners sought permission to initiate a lawsuit for the recovery of Rs. 29,92,000, representing the cost of a vessel or insurance proceeds, claiming they lacked the means to pay the requisite court fees following the events of 1971 in East Pakistan. Although the Deputy Collector had verified the petitioners' financial inability, the High Court rejected the application based on the perceived merits of the underlying claim. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioners had subsequently been granted permission to sue as paupers in separate proceedings involving different parties. Finding that the petitioners' pauper status had been recognized elsewhere, the Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal to examine the High Court's dismissal. The Court also condoned the delay in filing the petition, subject to future exceptions, and directed that the appeal be prepared on the existing record with liberty to file additional documents.
Questions settled- Can an application to sue in forma pauperis be rejected based on the merits of the underlying claim?
- Does a previous declaration of pauper status in separate proceedings impact an application to sue as a pauper in a new suit?
- ARIFULLAH HAROON vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1444 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
- ARIF MUTIN BHUTTA vs THE STATE1984 PLD Lahore 383 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-20Read full judgment →
- ARIF IQBAL HUSSAIN BHATTI vs Sh. RIAZ AHMAD AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1780 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-20Read full judgment →
- ARIF AND OTHERSs vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 124 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Leave to appeal was granted in this criminal matter to reappraise the uncorroborated evidence and examine discrepancies regarding the motive in a murder case. The incident involved the fatal attack on the deceased by multiple armed appellants resulting in numerous injuries. The trial court convicted the appellants under sections 148 and 302 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing them to imprisonment, which the High Court subsequently upheld along with a compensation order under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court evaluated the credibility of the natural and non-partisan eye-witnesses, the medical evidence, and the recoveries of incriminating weapons. The court held that where ocular testimony is of unimpeachable and high credibility, it does not require corroboration as a matter of law, and the absence of a proven motive does not weaken otherwise reliable eye-witness accounts. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the convictions and sentences.
Questions settled- Does unimpeachable ocular testimony require corroboration to sustain a conviction for murder?
- Can the absence of a proven motive cloud or weaken otherwise credible eye-witness testimony?
- Whether the testimony of a witness related to both parties can be relied upon without independent corroboration?
- ARIF AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 124 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan to reappraise the evidence in a criminal matter where the appellants were convicted under sections 148 and 302 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Sharif. The core legal question involved the reliability of uncorroborated ocular testimony and whether discrepancies and a rejected motive warranted setting aside the conviction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the testimony of the eye-witnesses was natural, credible, and unimpeachable, thereby ruling out the necessity of corroboration. The Court laid down the principle that high-quality, trustworthy ocular testimony from non-partisan or related witnesses who have no animosity toward the accused is sufficient to establish guilt without requiring independent corroboration, even if the prosecution's alleged motive is found to be far-fetched or weak.
Questions settled- Is corroboration mandatory for ocular testimony that is found to be of a credible and unimpeachable character?
- Does the absence or rejection of a motive affect the culpability of the accused when strong ocular testimony is present?
- Can the testimony of a witness related to both the complainant and the accused be relied upon without independent corroboration?
- ARIF ALI and others vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, FAISALABAD and others1984 MLD 381 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-18Read full judgment →
- Arif Ali And Another vs The StatePTCL 1984 (CL) 398 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-22Read full judgment →
- ARDESHIR COWASJEE vs BYRAM D. AVARI and 4 others1984 CLC 2494 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-23Read full judgment →
- AOQEELUDDIN and 5 others vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE1984 CLC 2607 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-07Read full judgment →
- ANWARUL HAQ vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 448 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-13Read full judgment →
- ANWARUL HAQ vs Mst. HANIFAN AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 1788 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-21Read full judgment →
- ANWARI KHATOON vs PAYMENT OF WAGES AUTHORITY AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLC 163 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-22Read full judgment →
- ANWAR vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1051 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
- ANWAR PASHA vs Pin STATE1984 P Cr. L J 359 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-30Read full judgment →
- ANWAR MASIH Convict vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 332 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-08Read full judgment →
- ANWAR KHAN vs LIPTON PAKISTAN LTD. AND OTHERS1984 PLC 1057 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
- ANWAR KHAN vs KHAN SAHIB AND OTHERS1984 CLC 963 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
- ANWAR JAVAID vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1565 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-10Read full judgment →
- ANWAR HUSSAIN vs PIONEER STEEL MILLS LTD1984 PLC 52 · Labour Court · 1983-05-29Read full judgment →
- ANWAR HUSSAIN vs AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1984 PLD Supreme Court 194 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition concerns whether an employee of the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, a statutory corporation, could maintain a civil suit for declaration and injunction against the termination of his service. The core legal question was whether the relationship between the employee and the statutory corporation was governed by the principle of master and servant, thereby precluding a suit for reinstatement. The Supreme Court held that the petition was meritless and dismissed it. The Court affirmed that the principle of master and servant applies unless specific statutory safeguards intervene to restrict the employer's freedom. Since the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance 1961 left the regulation of service conditions entirely to the Bank’s discretion, the relationship was purely contractual. Consequently, the employee lacked a legal character to seek a declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, and his remedy for wrongful termination was limited to a suit for damages rather than reinstatement. This judgment reinforces that employees of statutory corporations without specific statutory protections are governed by common law master-servant principles.
Questions settled- Does the principle of master and servant apply to employees of a statutory corporation where the governing statute leaves service conditions to the discretion of the corporation?
- Is a suit for declaration and injunction under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 maintainable for an employee of a statutory corporation governed by the principle of master and servant?
- Can an employee of a statutory corporation claim reinstatement if the corporation has not violated any statutory provision or rule regarding service conditions?
- ANWAR GILL vs MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR and another1984 SCMR 1528 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent by the Lahore High Court for the murder of a young Christian girl under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had initially convicted the respondent based on the testimony of an eye-witness and the recovery of a blood-stained knife, sentencing him to imprisonment for life. However, the High Court accepted the respondent's appeal and acquitted him after disbelieving the eye-witness testimony and the recovery evidence. Upon hearing the petitioner's counsel and reviewing the record, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court had rightly discarded the compromised eye-witness testimony and the recovery, leaving no sustainable evidence to maintain the conviction. The Court found no misreading or non-appreciation of evidence by the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the acquittal. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court's judgment acquitting an accused will not be interfered with when the primary evidence and eye-witness accounts are found unreliable and no misreading of evidence is established.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of acquittal when the High Court has rightly disbelieved the eye-witness testimony and recovery?
- Can a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be maintained solely on discredited eye-witnesses and unverified weapon recoveries?
- Whether a petition for leave to appeal against acquittal is maintainable when the High Court has not misread or ignored any material portion of the prosecution evidence?
- ANWAR AND 8 OTHERS vs ABDUL RAUF AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLD Peshawar 15 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-09-06Read full judgment →
- ANWAR ALI--Applicant vs KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KARACHI1984 MLD 820 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-04Read full judgment →
- ANWAR AHMAD AND OTHERS vs SAIFULLAH AND 11 OTHERS1984 PLD Rev. 30 · Board of Revenue · 1984-05-23Read full judgment →
- ANWAR ABBAS vs MESSRS K. P. TENGRA & CO LTD.1984 PLC 652 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
- ANSAR BURNEY vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 200 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
- ANSAR AHMED vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2630 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-06Read full judgment →
- ANNO OR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs PAKISTAN AND 4 OTHERS1984 CLC 753 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-02Read full judgment →
- ANJUMANEASNA ASHARI (REGD.) vs THE GOVERNMENT OF SIND THROUGH SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT AND 11 OTHERS1984 CLC 1845 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-30Read full judgment →
- ANJUMAN-E-MASIHI, MAZDOOR UNION, SIALKOT, (REGD.), C. B. A. vs OCTROI1984 PLC 479 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-01-23Read full judgment →
- ANJUMAN BASHINDGANEIQBAL COLONY AND 2 OTHERS vs MESSRS FRIENDS1984 CLC 1946 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-21Read full judgment →
- ANJUMA N BA HBOODEISLAM vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 4 OTHERS1984 CLC 1357 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-10Read full judgment →
- ANISUDDIN AND 2 OTHERS vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, EXCISE1984 PLC (C. S.) 304 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1983-05-15Read full judgment →
- ANIS ALI KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND and another1984 MLD 328 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
- ANIS A HMAD RUSH DI AND ANOTHER vs Mst. ZULEKHA AND 9 OTHERS1984 CLC 748 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
- ANFORDS (PAKISTAN) LIMITED vs DENTOGENE LABORATORIES LIMITED1984 MLD 208 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-15Read full judgment →
- AN WAR VINCENT vs BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 762 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-01-15Read full judgment →
- AMJAD RASHID KHAN MALIK vs Mrs. ZUBEDA RASHID KHAN AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2851 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment from the Sindh High Court addresses two miscellaneous applications arising out of a partition and administration suit in which a consent preliminary decree was passed, involving the proposed withdrawal of the suit by the plaintiff and the substitution of legal representatives of a deceased third-party auction purchaser. The core legal questions concern whether a plaintiff retains an absolute right to withdraw a suit after a preliminary decree has been passed, and whether the court can permit the substitution of legal representatives of a third-party auction purchaser using inherent powers under the Code of Civil Procedure. The court held that while a plaintiff generally has an unfettered right to withdraw a suit unconditionally, this right is curtailed once a preliminary decree is passed, rights are determined, or a third party acquires enforceable rights under the proceedings. Furthermore, the court held that even if specific provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply, the court can invoke its inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to substitute the legal heirs of a deceased auction purchaser to ensure complete justice. The key principles laid down are that a plaintiff cannot unilaterally withdraw a suit to nullify rights acquired by third parties under a preliminary decree, and that inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be utilized to bring legal representatives on record when a party or successful purchaser dies during proceedings.
Questions settled- Does a plaintiff retain an absolute right to withdraw a suit after a preliminary decree has been passed?
- Can a plaintiff and defendants nullify rights lawfully acquired by a third-party auction purchaser under a preliminary decree by withdrawing the suit?
- Can the court use its inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to substitute the legal representatives of a deceased auction purchaser when specific provisions of the Code do not apply?
- AMJAD MAHMOOD vs THE STATE AND OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 837 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
- AMJAD ASGHAR vs DIVISIONAL MANAGER UTILITY STORES CORPORATION AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 770 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- AMJAD AHSAN vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, SYSTEM LTD.1984 PLC 764 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-29Read full judgment →
- AMIRUDDIN SHAH vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 1090 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-01-30Read full judgment →
- AMIR MUKHTAR AND 3 OTHERS vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, FAISALABAD1984 PLC 1207 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- AMIR KHAN vs MALIK SHER JAN AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Quetta 146 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-05-21Read full judgment →
- AMIR BUX vs SECRETARYGENERAL, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR1984 P Cr. L J 1741 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
- AMIR BUX and others vs GHAYASUDDIN and others1984 SCMR 1400 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The dispute in this matter concerns the transfer of an available property under settlement laws, which was initially ordered to be transferred through negotiations to a general attorney acting for the respondents. Upon failure to pay the reserve price in cash within the stipulated time, the transfer was cancelled and the property was transferred to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, who was the occupant. The respondents challenged this cancellation in revision, which was rejected by the Settlement Commissioner. Subsequently, the respondents successfully invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court on the ground that an extension of time had been granted to them to make the payment. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to examine whether the respondents had the locus standi to challenge the transfer. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the original application and departmental records clearly established that the general attorney acted on behalf of the respondents, making their application for extension competent, and precluded the appellants from raising new factual pleas regarding forgery which were outside the scope of leave granted.
Questions settled- Whether a principal has the locus standi to challenge the cancellation of a property transfer where the initial application was made by their general attorney?
- Can an appellant raise a new factual plea regarding a forged document when leave to appeal was granted on a specific limited question?
- Does an application for extension of time for payment made by the actual principals through their recognized attorney render the proceedings competent?
- AMIR BAKHSH AND OTHERS vs WAHID BAKHSH AND 6 OTHERS1984 CLC 1557 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
- AMIR BAKHSH and 11 others vs SANWAL KHAN and another1984 MLD 897 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-18Read full judgment →
- AMIR AND ANOTHERConvict vs THE STATE1984 PLD Lahore 326 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-19Read full judgment →
- AMIR ALI vs THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, JHANG AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 3372 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-29Read full judgment →
- AMIR ALI AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 521 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Amir Ali, Mokha, and Mohabat against the refusal of pre-trial bail by the High Court. The petitioners were accused under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Jamat Ali. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail when the investigating officer, an Assistant Superintendent of Police, concluded after examining numerous witnesses that the petitioners were not present at the scene of the occurrence. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that the finding of the investigating officer was based on sufficient material, thereby creating a reasonable doubt regarding the participation of the petitioners that warranted the grant of bail at this stage. The Court laid down the principle that the benefit of an investigating officer's reasoned opinion regarding the non-participation or absence of an accused at the crime scene can be extended to grant bail to the accused.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to bail when the investigating officer's report concludes that the accused was not present at the scene of the occurrence?
- Can the benefit of doubt arising from an investigating officer's report be extended to an accused at the bail stage?
- ANISURREHMAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2066 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-11Read full judgment →
- AMIR AFZAL vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2239 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
- AMIN MOHIUDDIN FOUNDATION LTD. vs Tax COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARACHI (EAST)1984 PTD 282 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- AMIN KHAN vs JANAB GUL AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 937 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 30th April, 1977, whereby the respondents were acquitted of the murder charge of the appellant's brother. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's acquittal based on discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, and doubts regarding the presence of the complainant at the crime scene. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court's reappraisal of the evidence was sound, given that the direct motive was against the complainant himself, making his unhurt survival implausible, and that the medical evidence contradicted the eye-witness testimony. The key principle laid down is that where ocular testimony is in material conflict with medical evidence and improbable regarding the presence of interested witnesses, the resulting benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, and an appellate court will not interfere with a well-reasoned acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court should interfere with an acquittal when ocular evidence is in conflict with medical evidence?
- Does the absence of injury to a complainant who was allegedly the primary target cast doubt on his presence at the scene?
- Is an acquittal sustainable when the High Court's appreciation of evidence is found to be free from material flaws?
- AMIN BEG AND ANOTHER vs RIAZ AHMAD AND 4 OTHERS1984 CLC 3209 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
- AMI MUHAMMAD and 3 others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2286 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
- AMERICAN EXPORT INC. and anothers vs UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN Ltd. and another1984 CLC 2575 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-26Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH SHAH vs UNIVERSAL OIL & VEGETABLE GHEE MILLS LTD,, LAHORE1984 PLC 1320 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-18Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH KHAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 605 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-07Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH KHAN SINDHOO vs SHABIR HUSSAIN, S. H. 0. POLICE STATION1984 P Cr. L J 3096 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-23Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ AND OTHERS1984 CLC 2126 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-01Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH and 4 others vs The STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2798 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-16Read full judgment →
- AMANULLA H KHAN vs EIDAT SHAH1984 P Cr. L J 1352 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-27Read full judgment →
- AMANAT ALI vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1260 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
- AMANAT ALI AND 3 OTHERS vs Haji MUHAMMAD AL11984 CLC 362 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Regular Second Appeal arises from a pre-emption suit where the appellants (vendees) contested the respondent's (pre-emptor) claim, arguing estoppel based on the respondent's alleged participation in the sale bargain. The trial court and the first appellate court both ruled against the appellants on the issue of waiver/estoppel. The appellants challenged the appellate court's judgment, arguing that the court failed to discuss the evidence presented by their witnesses. The High Court observed that while the right of pre-emption can be waived by conduct, the appellate court had failed to properly evaluate the evidence regarding the respondent's alleged participation in the bargain. The Court held that a finding of fact cannot be sustained if it is reached without discussing the material evidence on record. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate judgment and remanded the case to the first appellate court with directions to decide the matter afresh after a thorough discussion of the evidence concerning the issue of waiver.
Questions settled- Does the mere presence of a pre-emptor at the time of a sale bargain or their participation in the transaction automatically amount to a waiver of the right of pre-emption?
- Can a finding of fact by an appellate court be sustained if the court fails to discuss the material evidence on the record?
- Under what circumstances does a pre-emptor's conduct constitute a waiver of the right of pre-emption?
- AMAN ULLAH vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION1984 PLC 491 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-08Read full judgment →
- AMAN ULLAH SHAH vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF SHAH and others1984 SCMR 1292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a second appeal on the grounds that the matter was concluded by concurrent findings of fact and that questions regarding the appreciation of evidence were outside the scope of second appellate review. The dispute concerned the validity of a will allegedly executed by the deceased in favor of the appellant, which the respondent challenged as forged and fictitious, further pleading that the deceased was suffering from Marzul Maut and lacked a disposing mind, and that the property was ancestral, governed by custom restricting alienation. The trial court and the first appellate court concurrently held that the execution of the will was not proved. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that since the execution of the will was not established, the subsidiary issues regarding the nature of the property and the testator's mental capacity became irrelevant. The Court reaffirmed the principle that concurrent findings of fact regarding the non-execution of a document cannot be reopened in a second appeal.
Questions settled- Can questions regarding the appreciation of evidence be examined in a second appeal?
- Does a finding that a will was not executed render subsidiary issues regarding the nature of the property and the testator's mental capacity irrelevant?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the first appellate court binding in a second appeal?
- AMAN ELECTRONICS SALES AND SERVICES vs ABDUL HAMID and 6 others1984 CLC 2532 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-30Read full judgment →
- AM1R AHMAD vs ABDUL HAMID1984 MLD 461 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-16Read full judgment →
- AM IR vs IFTIKHAR JILLANI AND OTHERS1984 CLC 3038 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-05Read full judgment →
- ALVIA TABLEEGHI TRUST AND 8 OTHERS vs MUJEEBUR RAHMAN ALVI AND 71984 CLC 796 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil suit was instituted by the Alvia Tableeghi Trust and its trustees against a fellow trustee (defendant No. 1) and associated partners, seeking a declaration of ownership, possession, and accounts in respect of a salt works ("Khurshid Salt Works"). The plaintiffs claimed that defendant No. 1 was instructed to purchase the salt works for the benefit of the Trust but improperly executed the sale agreement in the name of a bogus partnership firm (Habib Ocean Industries) created by him. The primary legal issue was whether defendant No. 1 purchased the property on his own behalf or for the benefit of the Trust, and whether the absence of a formal trust resolution or non-rectification of the sale agreement barred the claimed relief. The High Court of Sindh held that the preponderance of oral and documentary evidence established the property was negotiated and purchased for the Trust, funded substantially through trust resources and guarantees. Consequently, the Court decreed that the Trust was the owner, ordered delivery of possession, directed execution of necessary transfer documents, and issued a preliminary decree for accounts.
Questions settled- Whether an agent or trustee who purchases property in the name of a private partnership after being instructed to buy it for a trust holds that property for the benefit of the trust?
- Does the absence of a recorded resolution by trustees invalidate a transaction negotiated by a trustee on behalf of the trust?
- Is a suit for declaration of title and possession maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 without seeking formal rectification of the underlying sale agreement?
- Can a court grant consequential relief of possession in a suit for declaration when such relief arises out of the pleadings without claiming perpetual injunction?
- ALTAF HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2680 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-02Read full judgment →
- ALTAF AHMAD ASMAT vs SARFRAZ HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 1308 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two connected constitutional petitions challenging the validity of viva voce tests conducted by the Punjab Public Service Commission for the posts of Civil Judges. The petitioners, who failed to secure selection, contended that the interviews were invalid because they were conducted by the Chairman or a Senior Member sitting singly with an interview committee, rather than by the full Commission as allegedly required under the Punjab Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1978. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that Section 3(5) of the Ordinance expressly validates proceedings of the Commission despite any defect in its constitution. Furthermore, the Provincial Government's administrative instructions permitting a single member to conduct interviews for Grade 16 and 17 posts carried the binding force of statutory rules. Finally, the Court emphasized that constitutional writ jurisdiction is discretionary and must be exercised in aid of justice; since the interview committee included two High Court Judges and an Additional Law Secretary, no injustice was shown to have occurred.
Questions settled- Whether the proceedings of the Punjab Public Service Commission are invalidated if interviews are conducted by a single member or the Chairman instead of the full Commission?
- Can administrative instructions issued by the Provincial Government carry the binding force of statutory rules?
- Should the High Court exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to set aside an irregular proceeding if no substantial injustice has been caused to the petitioner?
- ALPHA INSURANCE Co. LTD. vs MESSRS DECORATIVE ARTS AND 2 OTHER1984 CLC 87 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-18Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN vs RAB NAWAZ MALIK1984 MLD 888 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-02Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD., LAHORE vs ABDUL MAJEED1984 PLC 640 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-22Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs V. C. KHILNANI AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLD Karachi 127 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. After the original defendant's death, his legal heirs were brought on record and granted leave to defend on the condition of furnishing security, by a consent order. Upon the defendants' failure to furnish security within the stipulated time, the suit stood decreed. The defendants subsequently applied under Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside the decree, citing medical treatment abroad as the reason for non-compliance. The High Court of Sindh considered whether Order XXXVII Rule 4 applies to decrees passed due to non-fulfillment of conditional leave to defend, and what constitutes 'special circumstances' thereunder. The Court held that Order XXXVII Rule 4 applies broadly to all decrees passed under Order XXXVII except on merits. However, 'special circumstances' required a higher standard than 'sufficient cause', referring to rare and exceptional events. Finding no such exceptional circumstances, the Court dismissed the application.
Questions settled- Does Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to set aside a decree passed upon a defendant's failure to comply with a conditional order granting leave to defend?
- Can an ex parte decree passed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be set aside under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What constitutes 'special circumstances' for setting aside a decree under Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs MESSRS M. S. ABBAS BUS SERVICE AND 41984 PLD Azad J & K 57 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs ABDUL SATTAR1984 PLC 800 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-05-31Read full judgment →