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.
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. THROUGH MANAGER, KATCHERI BAZAR1984 PLC 1083 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. AND 3 OTHERS vs CHAIRMAN NATIONAL1984 PLC 1342 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court challenged the interlocutory orders passed by the Chairman of the National Industrial Relations Commission suspending the dismissal of respondent employees. The core legal question was whether the Commission, upon a complaint filed under section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 for an unfair labour practice already committed, possesses the power to pass an ad interim order suspending dismissal or directing reinstatement. The Court held that Regulation 32 distinguishes between unfair labour practices already committed (where reinstatement or penal consequences follow a finding of guilt and conviction under section 53) and those likely to occur (where preventive measures can be ordered). Consequently, the Commission lacks jurisdiction to grant interlocutory reinstatement or stay dismissal orders in complaints concerning past acts of unfair labour practice. The petition was allowed, and the impugned suspension orders were declared without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether the National Industrial Relations Commission can suspend a dismissal order as an interim measure in a complaint filed under section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Does the power to direct reinstatement under Regulation 32 of the National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Rules 1973 depend upon a prior finding of guilt and conviction?
- What is the distinction between clause (1) and clause (2) of Regulation 32 regarding past versus threatened unfair labour practices?
- ALLAUDDIN ARSHAD vs Mst. NEELOFAR TAREEN AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 3369 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the judgments of the Family Court and the Additional District Judge, which decreed a suit for the recovery of dower. The core legal question was whether a Family Court retains jurisdiction under the Family Courts Act, 1964, to adjudicate a claim for dower when the dower amount had already been satisfied through the payment of gold ornaments, which were subsequently retained by the husband. The High Court held that once the dower debt was satisfied through the transfer of gold ornaments, the nature of the claim transformed from a dower recovery suit into a civil dispute regarding the recovery of specific property. Consequently, the Family Court lacked the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the matter fell outside the ambit of the Family Courts Act, 1964. The principle laid down is that where a dower debt has been fully satisfied, a subsequent dispute over the retention of the assets used for that satisfaction constitutes a civil matter triable by a civil court, not a family court.
Questions settled- Does a Family Court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of dower after the dower debt has already been satisfied?
- Does a dispute regarding the retention of gold ornaments, previously given as dower, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Family Court?
- Can a claim for the recovery of dower be converted into a civil suit once the dower debt is found to have been paid?
- ALLAUDDIN AND 10 OTHERS vs SHAUKAT ALI KHAN AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 261 · Sindh High Court · 1978-07-07Read full judgment →
- ALLAHDITO AND ANOTHERs/Accused vs THE STATE1984 PLD Karachi 223 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application for post-arrest bail arose out of a criminal case pending before the Court of Session, Nawabshah, where the applicants were facing trial under Sections 307, 504, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the applicants used hatchets and blunt weapons, causing twenty-one injuries (including fourteen incised wounds) to two victims amidst prior enmity, and subsequently absconded after obtaining pre-arrest bail. The applicants sought bail on grounds of an alleged compromise, a counter-case registered at another police station, and parity with a co-accused who was granted bail based on ex parte affidavits of prosecution witnesses. The High Court rejected the application, holding that non-compoundable offences cannot be bailed out on the ground of compromise, which instead indicates an attempt to tamper with evidence. The Court further laid down that ex parte affidavits sworn before Oath Commissioners by prosecution witnesses are not 'evidence' under the Evidence Act 1872 and cannot be relied upon to grant bail in heinous offences without proper judicial scrutiny.
Questions settled- Whether an unapproved compromise in a non-compoundable offence can form a valid ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Whether ex parte affidavits sworn by prosecution witnesses before an Oath Commissioner constitute legal evidence for the purpose of granting bail in serious offences?
- Under what circumstances may a court rely upon ex parte affidavits exonerating an accused to grant bail in heinous offences?
- ALLAHDINO vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Tharparkar, convicting the appellant under section 302 and section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of his wife and for causing grievous hurt to his mother-in-law, and sentencing him to death and rigorous imprisonment respectively. The core legal questions involved the assessment of ocular testimony, the scope of leave to appeal granted specifically to consider the quantum of sentence, and whether mitigating circumstances existed to alter the death sentence. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established its case through natural and injured ocular witnesses whose presence at the scene was unquestionable. However, considering the sudden provocation and background circumstances, the Supreme Court partly accepted the appeal by commuting the death sentence to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the conviction, adjusting fine and compensation orders, and extending the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the appellant. The key principle laid down is that while concurrent findings regarding eyewitness accounts from natural witnesses inside a home will be upheld, a sentence of death may be commuted to life imprisonment where the attack was preceded by sudden provocation arising from domestic disputes and complaints regarding character.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal granted solely to consider the quantum of sentence permits the reopening of the case on merits for seeking acquittal?
- Does the testimony of an injured eyewitness present inside the house carry high probative value in a murder trial?
- Whether sudden provocation arising from a deceased wife's refusal to accompany her husband and complaints regarding his character constitutes a mitigating circumstance for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- ALLAHDINO and anothers vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2312 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-27Read full judgment →
- ALLAHDINO alias DINO and 3 others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2242 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
- ALLAHDAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 627 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
- ALLAHABAD CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY vs NAZIR QURESHI and 41984 MLD 99 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-09Read full judgment →
- ALLAH YAR vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1255 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-10Read full judgment →
- ALLAH YAR AND OTHERS vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 741 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition filed by tenants against concurrent orders of their ejectment. The core legal question concerned whether tenants, upon setting up an agreement to sell executed by the previous owner's husband and filing a suit for specific performance, could withhold rent and deny the relationship of landlord and tenant after receiving notice of the property's sale via a registered deed to the respondent. The Supreme Court held that the tenants could not lawfully deny the relationship of landlord and tenant or withhold rent for a prolonged period based merely on an unproven receipt lacking authorization, and that Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 afforded no protection in these circumstances. The key principle laid down is that pending a specific performance suit, tenants who fail to pay rent after receiving valid notice of transfer are rightly adjudged defaulters, and interim relief or stay of eviction cannot be granted to protect possession against a landlord duly established through a registered deed.
Questions settled- Can a tenant deny the relationship of landlord and tenant and withhold rent upon setting up an agreement to sell?
- Does Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 protect a tenant from eviction for default in rent when a suit for specific performance is pending?
- Can a Civil Court grant interim relief to stay eviction proceedings after a tenant has been legally adjudged a defaulter under rent restriction laws?
- ALLAH YAR AND 7 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3071 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
- ALLAH WASAYA vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 929 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-06Read full judgment →
- ALLAH WASAYA vs SARDAR SHAH1984 PLD Lahore 59 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arose from an order of the District Judge, Bahawalpur, affirming the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement embedded within a compromise application filed in a previous appellate proceeding, to which the petitioner was a beneficiary but not a direct party. The trial and appellate courts rejected the plaint on the ground that the petitioner lacked a cause of action due to being a stranger to the contract. The High Court considered whether a stranger to a contract could enforce a benefit reserved for him under an exception to the doctrine of privity of contract. The High Court held that while the general rule requires privity, an exception exists under Section 94 of the Trust Act 1882 where an obligation in the nature of a trust is created. The court determined that the petitioner's claim fell within this exception, thereby disclosing a valid cause of action. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision, set aside the rejection of the plaint, and remanded the suit for trial on the merits.
Questions settled- Can a court reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 simultaneously while dismissing an application for temporary injunction?
- Can a beneficiary who is a stranger to a contract enforce a contractual provision made for their benefit under the law of Pakistan?
- Does an obligation created under a compromise agreement constitute an encumbrance in the nature of a trust under Section 94 of the Trust Act 1882?
- ALLAH WASAYA AND ANOTHER vs ABDUL MAJID AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1582 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over land ownership where the petitioners claimed title based on an unregistered and unstamped sale deed executed in 1939, while the respondents claimed inheritance rights following the death of the original owner. The petitioners, who remained in possession of the land, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction after the respondents asserted their rights based on inheritance mutations. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the sale deed inadmissible. The District Judge reversed this decision, but the Lahore High Court, relying on the Privy Council's ruling in Prabodh Kumar Das v. Dantmara Tea Co. Ltd., held that Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 does not confer a right of action on a transferee in possession but acts only as a shield for a defendant. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the restrictive interpretation of Section 53-A, which limits its application to a defendant, remains valid in light of subsequent jurisprudence from the High Court of West Pakistan that suggests a broader application.
Questions settled- Does Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 confer a right of action on a transferee in possession under an unregistered contract of sale?
- Can a transferee in possession rely on Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 as a plaintiff to assert title, or is it limited to a defense?
- Is the principle that Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 acts only as a shield for a defendant still applicable in post-independence Pakistani jurisprudence?
- ALLAH WARAYO vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 2100 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-08Read full judgment →
- ALLAH WARAYO AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1747 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
- ALLAH RAKHA vs THE STATE1984 PLD Lahore 395 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
- ALLAH RAKHA alias RAKHA vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 491 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant was convicted by the trial court for the murder of a 14/15-year-old girl by inflicting multiple knife blows, receiving a sentence of death, which was confirmed by the High Court. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to examine the sentence, the reliability of the eyewitnesses, and the plea of grave and sudden provocation based on an alleged engagement and an assertion of seeing the deceased compromising with a witness. The core legal question revolved around the credibility of the eyewitness testimony and whether the appellant's plea of grave and sudden provocation was established. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the plea of grave and sudden provocation and engagement rested on unverified hearsay and improbable assertions, while the eyewitnesses, including an independent and natural witness, conclusively established the prosecution's case. The key principle laid down is that uncorroborated hearsay regarding a motive or engagement cannot substantiate a plea of grave and sudden provocation in the face of direct, reliable eyewitness testimony establishing premeditated brutality.
Questions settled- Whether uncorroborated hearsay regarding an engagement can substantiate a plea of grave and sudden provocation in a murder trial?
- Does the testimony of an independent eyewitness possessing land near the scene of the crime qualify as reliable and natural evidence?
- Whether brutality displayed in committing a murder precludes interference with a confirmed death sentence?
- ALLAH NAWAZ MALIK vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH COLLECTOR1984 PLC (C. S.) 18 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-08Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1071 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (CENTRAL ZONE) PLANNING AND EVALUATION, PUNJAB LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 56 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-05-24Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs REHMATULLAH AND 4 OTHERS1984 CLC 849 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and 5 others1984 P Cr. L J 2240 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-11Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs GUL MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 672 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-28Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs A. C./COLLECTOR AND OTHERS1984 CLC 417 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-10Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 433 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-28Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA AND ANOTHER vs Mst. KHURSHID BEGUM AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 598 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition seeking leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dated 13-11-1982, whereby a habeas corpus petition filed by respondent No. 1 was accepted and the detenu was ordered to be released. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's order in habeas corpus proceedings granting freedom to the detenu bars the husband or father from taking legal or criminal proceedings against the detenu or her alleged paramour for any alleged criminal offenses. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the apprehension of the petitioners is misconceived and that the order of the High Court does not stand in the way of proceedings being taken against any party who may be committing a criminal offense. The key principle laid down is that habeas corpus orders releasing a detenu do not grant immunity from future or independent criminal proceedings.
Questions settled- Does a habeas corpus order releasing a detenu bar criminal proceedings against the detenu or other parties?
- Can a husband initiate legal proceedings against his wife or her alleged paramour despite a High Court habeas corpus order releasing her?
- ALLAH DITTA and 5 others vs KHAN MUHAMMAD1984 CLC 2699 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-19Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA and 2 others vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1585 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DIN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (URBAN)1984 SCMR 1538 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of property No. S-60-R-31, Mozang Road, Lahore, which had been the subject of prolonged litigation. Following a previous remand order from the High Court, the Settlement Commissioner was directed to conduct a fresh measurement of the premises in the presence of the parties and perform a personal inspection to determine the transfer of the property. The Settlement Commissioner subsequently determined that the petitioner, Allah Din, was in actual possession of a specific area measuring 3 Marlas and 123 square feet, and ordered the transfer of this area to him. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court, arguing he was entitled to additional area, but the petition was dismissed on the grounds that the findings were factual and no objections were raised during the inspection. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner could not claim the transfer of any area beyond what was found to be in his actual possession. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Can a claimant seek the transfer of property area that is not in their actual possession?
- Does a finding of fact made by a Settlement Commissioner after personal inspection warrant interference in writ jurisdiction?
- ALLAH BUX vs GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and 2 others1984 CLC 2481 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-08Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BUKSH vs MESSRS LEVER BROTHERS, RAHIMYAR KHAN1984 PLC 1703 · Labour Court · 1984-09-25Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1606 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs GHULAM RASUL1984 PLD Rev. 1 · Board of Revenue · 1981-02-11Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER and another1984 SCMR 1357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning evacuee agricultural land originally temporarily allotted to the petitioner in 1947, which allotment was cancelled and confirmed in favor of the respondent's father in 1952 without challenge from the petitioner. The core legal question is whether the petitioner could claim fresh allotment of the land based on subsequent litigation and a declaration that he was unaffected by an earlier writ petition, despite his original rights having been extinguished in 1952. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner's temporary allotment was cancelled and the land was confirmed to the respondent's predecessor in 1952 without any challenge, his rights had attained finality, rendering subsequent litigation irrelevant and incapable of reviving any claim. The key principle laid down is that an unchalleged cancellation and confirmation of land creates a finality of rights, and a party whose rights stood terminated prior to general resumption orders cannot revive or claim entitlement through collateral or subsequent proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether an unchallenged cancellation of a temporary allotment and confirmation in favor of another party attains finality precluding subsequent claims?
- Can a party whose rights stood terminated by an earlier administrative order revive entitlement through collateral litigation?
- Does a declaration that a party is not affected by a specific judgment operate to create new property rights where none previously existed?
- ALLAH BAKHSH and others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2648 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-24Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Supreme Court 47 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal examines whether the jurisdictional requirements of the second proviso to subsection (12) of section 2 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 were satisfied in transferring a composite property comprising residential and commercial units to a claimant displaced person, and whether a local occupant could claim the property as available property under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The appellants, local occupants of a shop, challenged the transfer of the shop combined with a chaubara to the respondent, arguing that the horizontal division principle was violated and the order constituted a nullity. The Supreme Court held that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner acted within his competent jurisdiction in dividing and transferring the property to a primary claimant beneficiary for proper rehabilitation, and that a final order of transfer, even prior to the issuance of provisional transfer documents, takes the property out of the category of available property under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs, affirming that past and closed transactions of validly transferred properties cannot be reopened by subsequent policy changes.
Questions settled- Does a final order determining the entitlement of a party to a property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 take the property out of the category of available property under Settlement Scheme No. VIII even if provisional transfer documents have not been issued?
- Whether local occupants can challenge a past transfer order as a nullity and claim the property under Settlement Scheme No. VIII when the original transfer was made by a competent authority acting within its jurisdiction?
- Does the combination of a residential unit with a non-adjoining shop by a Settlement Authority during the horizontal division of a composite property render the transfer order a nullity?
- Does a change in the mode of transfer or the subsequent conferment of rights on local occupants permit the reopening of past and closed transactions?
- ALLAH BAK HSH and others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2945 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BACHAYO vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2727 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-21Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BACHAYA vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1388 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-01Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAC HAYA vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3250 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-07Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BA KHSH AND OTHERS vs KHUDA BAKHSH AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 729 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning a pre-emption suit where a sale effected on 30-11-1973 was pre-empted through a plaint presented to a Tehsildar on 27-11-1974 during the absence of the Civil Judge, and later placed before the Civil Judge on 2-12-1974. The core legal question is whether the suit can be regarded as instituted within limitation when the plaint was filed before a Tehsildar authorized by the District Judge to receive the same. The High Court had held that the suit was validly instituted within time before an authorized officer. Before the Supreme Court, it was contended that the term 'officer' competent to receive plaints means an officer of the court ordinarily competent, and that a Tehsildar does not qualify, relying on precedent. The Supreme Court found that the question raised requires consideration, granted leave, ordered security, and directed the interim stay order to continue.
Questions settled- Whether a suit can be regarded as within limitation when the plaint is filed before a Tehsildar authorized by the District Judge during the absence of the Civil Judge?
- Does the term 'officer' competent to receive plaints mean an officer of the court ordinarily competent to receive plaints?
- ALL-PAKISTAN POSTMEN AND OTHER WORKERS' UNION (REGD.) vs ALL-1984 PLC 1608 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1982-11-02Read full judgment →
- ALI ZAMAN vs QASIM JAN AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLD Azad J & K 61 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-05-04Read full judgment →
- ALI UMAR vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), KARACHI and 21984 CLC 2613 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ali Umar vs Collector Of Customs (Appraisement), Karachi And 2 OtherPTCL 1984 (CL) 373 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-13Read full judgment →
- ALI UMAR AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR1984 SCMR 809 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a civil dispute over the inheritance of the late Mst. Kaniz Akhtar, whose property mutation in favour of her husband, Muhammad Anwar, was challenged by her mother and brother on the ground that her marriage was invalid due to minority, subsequent repudiation upon puberty, and divorce. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, but the appellate court and subsequently the Peshawar High Court in revision set aside the decree, holding that the marriage was not invalid under the Child Marriage Restraint Act even if she was under 16, and that she was likely above 18 based on a prior property sale. Upon a petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court overlooked material circumstances and conflicting evidence regarding the deceased's exact age at the time of her marriage and death. The Court held that leave to appeal should be granted to thoroughly examine the factual inferences regarding the deceased's age, the legal validity of a marriage contracted below certain ages without a wali in light of Islamic jurisprudence, and the applicability of prior precedents from the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Is the inference as to the age of the deceased drawn by the High Court correct based on the evidence on record?
- What was the age of the deceased at the time of the nikah and what is its effect on the validity thereof?
- Could a marriage be validly performed without a wali for nikah under the relevant legal and Islamic principles?
- What is the effect of the observations in Mst. Bakhshi v. Bashir Ahmad in the light of further observations in Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal?
- ALI SHAN vs The STATE1984 SCMR 173 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against his conviction for the murder of his first cousin, which arose from a trivial dispute regarding plants sown near a wall. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness, Mst. Sufaidan, when other witnesses were disbelieved or abandoned. The Supreme Court held that the petition had no merit and dismissed it, ruling that the testimony of the sole eyewitness was credible and that the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts suffered from no legal infirmity or violation of appraisal principles. The key principle laid down is that a criminal conviction can lawfully rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single eyewitness if found credible and reliable by the courts of fact.
Questions settled- Can a criminal conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with the concurrent appreciation of evidence by lower courts in the absence of a violation of appraisal principles?
- ALI NAWAZ RAJPUT vs MUHAMMAD ALI and another1984 SCMR 1213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's Regular Second Appeal in a pre-emption suit. The petitioner had instituted a civil suit for possession through pre-emption regarding agricultural land, which was later dismissed as withdrawn by the trial court upon a statement made by his advocate. The petitioner challenged the withdrawal, claiming it was unauthorized. The District Judge and the High Court affirmed the dismissal, finding that the counsel had withdrawn the suit on the instructions of the petitioner's special attorney, who was empowered under a valid power-of-attorney to compromise the matter. The Supreme Court reviewed the record, including the testimony of the advocate, and concluded that the evidence fully supported the lower courts' concurrent findings. Finding no misreading of evidence or defect in the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court held that it was not a fit case for interference. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused, and the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an advocate can withdraw a suit based on instructions conveyed through a plaintiff's special attorney possessing a valid power of attorney?
- Can concurrent factual findings by lower courts regarding the authority to withdraw a suit be challenged in the absence of evidence misreading?
- ALI MURAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2804 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-22Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD, through his Legal Haris and another vs NAIMATULLAH1984 MLD 1154 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-03Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1407 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-13Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs OCCUPIER OF ADAMS TEA BLENDING FACTORY, LYAR I1984 PLC 589 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-11-02Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 94 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellants' writ petition against the cancellation of their land allotment. The core legal question was whether land purchased in open auction by a non-Muslim evacuee who paid the entire price and stamp duty prior to partition, but without a registered sale-deed executed before evacuating to India, assumed the status of 'evacuee property' or remained State land capable of allotment under the Ejected Tenants Scheme. The Supreme Court held that proprietary rights pass to the purchaser once the transfer is authorized and the proper dues and price are paid in full, rendering formal execution or registration of a conveyance deed unnecessary for title to mature against third parties. Consequently, the disputed land was correctly treated as evacuee property, and the subsequent allotment to the appellants under the Ejected Tenants Scheme was illegal and void. The key principle laid down is that full payment of the purchase price and compliance with conditions complete the sale transaction for establishing proprietary rights against third parties, irrespective of the lack of a registered sale-deed under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Questions settled- Whether proprietary rights in land pass to a purchaser upon full payment of the price and authorized transfer, notwithstanding the absence of a registered sale-deed?
- Does land where the purchase price was fully paid by a non-Muslim evacuee before partition assume the status of evacuee property?
- Can land validly declared as evacuee property revert to the Provincial Government without an order or decree of a court?
- ALI MUHA MM A D vs THE PROVINCE OF SIND and 5 others1984 MLD 257 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-28Read full judgment →
- ALI KHAN vs THE STATE1984SCMR 716 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sind which set aside the appellant's acquittal under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and convicted him of murder, sentencing him to imprisonment for life. The incident occurred inside a police station where both rival parties—one carrying an injured relative and the other arriving regarding a prior assault—confronted each other in a highly charged emotional state, culminating in the appellant inflicting a fatal knife injury on the deceased. The core legal question was whether the conviction for murder under section 302 was sustainable or whether the circumstances brought the case within the exceptions for sudden and unpremeditated combat. The Supreme Court held that the evidence demonstrated a sudden quarrel and lack of premeditation in the heat of passion, aggravated by mutual provocation and a verbal altercation, thereby attracting Exception IV to section 300. Consequently, the Court partially allowed the appeal, altering the conviction from murder under section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code, and reduced the sentence accordingly, laying down principles regarding the application of sudden quarrel exceptions where injuries on the accused side are suppressed by prosecution witnesses.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code can be altered to section 304, Part I when a fatal injury is inflicted during a sudden quarrel without premeditation?
- Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused and his witnesses by police eye-witnesses falsify the prosecution version of a unilateral attack?
- Whether an incident occurring within the precincts of a police station during a confrontation between rival groups amounts to a sudden fight in the heat of passion under Exception IV of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- ALI KHAN vs ALI KHAN AND 3 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 318 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-05Read full judgment →
- ALI KHAN and others vs ALI ZAMAN and others1984 SCMR 1343 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a suit for declaration filed by the respondents, claiming ownership of disputed land based on their status as mortgagees in possession for over sixty years, thereby extinguishing the mortgagors' rights. The core legal question was whether the transfer of mortgagee rights via Mutation No. 88 in 1911—attested by the son of the original mortgagee on his father's behalf—was valid, and whether the respondents had acquired title through prescription. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, finding the mutation invalid due to the son's lack of authority to attest during the father's lifetime. However, the appellate court and the High Court reversed this, finding that the original mortgagee had fully acquiesced to the transfer, as evidenced by long-standing revenue records and the absence of any challenge by the original mortgagee or his successors. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings, holding that the acquiescence of the original mortgagee validated the transaction. The key principle laid down is that where a transfer of rights is recorded in revenue documents and remains unchallenged by the original title holder or their successors for decades, such acquiescence validates the transaction despite initial procedural irregularities in the attestation of mutation.
Questions settled- Can a mutation of mortgagee rights be considered valid if attested by the son of the mortgagee on behalf of his father, provided there is subsequent acquiescence?
- Does the long-standing absence of a challenge to a mutation in revenue records constitute evidence of acquiescence by the original title holder?
- Is it permissible for the Supreme Court to consider new documents not presented as evidence before the trial or appellate courts?
- ALI HAYDER and anothers vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2673 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
- ALI HASSAN vs QUTAB DIN alias QUTBA1984 CLC 2414 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →
- ALI HASSAN SHAIKH vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2177 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-05Read full judgment →
- ALI HASSAN SHAH vs D. G. AGRICULTURE AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 611 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from an order of the Punjab Services Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's appeal concerning the denial of full pay during the period of his suspension. The core legal question is whether a civil servant, upon acquittal from a criminal charge by way of benefit of doubt, is automatically entitled to the balance of his pay for the suspension period under the applicable rules. The Supreme Court held that the competent authority is legally empowered to withhold the balance of pay and allowances if a civil servant is not acquitted honourably, but rather on the basis of a benefit of doubt. The key principle laid down is that acquittal by giving the benefit of doubt does not constitute an honourable acquittal for the purpose of claiming full back benefits and emoluments during suspension.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant acquitted on the basis of a benefit of doubt is entitled to full pay for the period of suspension?
- Does an acquittal giving the benefit of doubt amount to an honourable acquittal for claiming emoluments during suspension?
- ALI HASSAN AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1286 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
- ALI HAIDER SHAH vs MANZOOR MEHDI AND OTHERS1984 CLC 946 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
- ALI GOHAR AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 486 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-23Read full judgment →
- ALI GOHAR AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1111 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-11Read full judgment →
- ALI ASGHAR vs Mst. KHATOON HADI1984 MLD 639 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
- ALI AQUAT ALI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2549 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-08Read full judgment →
- ALI AKBAR vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1292 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →
- ALI AKBAR vs GULZAR ALI SHAH1984 PLD Karachi 252 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two first appeals against a judgment and decree passed by a District Judge in summary suits filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The appellant challenged the trial court's dismissal of his applications for leave to appear and defend, which resulted in the suits being decreed against him. The core legal question was whether the service of summons was valid when the mandatory copy of the plaint was not annexed, thereby triggering the limitation period for filing an application for leave to defend under Article 159 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Court held that the service was improper because the summons did not comply with the prescribed form requiring the plaint to be attached. Consequently, the limitation period for seeking leave to defend did not commence. The Court set aside the decree and remanded the case for the trial court to decide the appellant's application for leave to defend on its merits. The key principle established is that in summary suits, strict compliance with the prescribed summons form, including the attachment of the plaint, is mandatory for valid service.
Questions settled- Does the failure to annex a copy of the plaint to the summons in a summary suit invalidate the service of summons?
- Can the limitation period for filing an application for leave to defend under Article 159 of the Limitation Act 1908 commence if the summons served is not in the prescribed form?
- Is strict compliance with the prescribed form of summons mandatory in suits filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- ALI AHMAD vs DISTRICT MANAGER, PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION1984 PLC 844 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-09-09Read full judgment →
- ALI AHMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1332 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
- ALAMDAR HUSSAIN vs THE ST ATE1984 MLD 1385 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-15Read full judgment →
- ALAM SHER and another vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1520 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-21Read full judgment →
- ALAM KHAN AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 90 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of four appellants for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony of interested witnesses, which was partially disbelieved by the lower courts leading to the acquittal of co-accused, could sustain the conviction of the appellants without independent corroboration. The Supreme Court held that while the prosecution's ocular account was generally credible, the partial rejection of this testimony regarding other co-accused necessitated independent corroboration to safely convict the remaining appellants. The Court established the principle that where ocular evidence is not accepted in its entirety and some accused are acquitted based on discrepancies, it becomes unsafe to convict the remaining accused solely on that same testimony without additional corroborating evidence. In this case, the Court found that prolonged, unexplained abscondence served as sufficient corroboration for three appellants, but in the absence of such evidence or any opportunity for the accused to explain his non-availability during trial, the conviction of the fourth appellant, Masood Khan, was set aside, and he was acquitted.
Questions settled- Can the conviction of an accused be sustained on ocular testimony alone when that same testimony has been rejected by the court regarding other co-accused?
- Is prolonged abscondence of an accused sufficient corroboration to sustain a conviction when the ocular evidence is not accepted in its entirety?
- Does a failure to put the circumstance of abscondence to an accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the use of that abscondence as corroborative evidence?
- ALAM ALI vs Haji MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM1984 MLD 237 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
- AL-HAJ SYED GHAFFAR ALI vs GENERAL MANAGER, KARACHITELECOMMUNICATION REGION AND OTHERS1984 PLC 1574 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
- AKRAM vs Mst. SAKINA BEGUM AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Supreme Court 334 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court allowing a civil revision in a pre-emption matter. The core legal questions involved whether a pre-emptor can rely on the principle of substitution to antedate their status as a co-sharer from the date of a prior sale decree to defeat a subsequent sale, and whether a transfer within the period of limitation to a person with an equal or superior right of pre-emption defeats the plaintiff's suit under the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act, 1950. The Supreme Court held that the right of pre-emption must subsist at the time of the sale and the date of the decree, and the doctrine of substitution cannot be applied artificially to antedate the acquisition of ownership status prior to the actual execution and completion of the pre-emption decree. Furthermore, a transfer made within the period of limitation to a person having an equal or superior right effectively bars the pre-emption suit. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the principle of substitution allow a pre-emptor to be deemed an owner from the date of the original sale rather than from the date of the execution of the pre-emption decree?
- Must a pre-emptor possess a subsisting right of pre-emption contemporaneously at the time of the sale and up to the date of the decree?
- Does a transfer of property made within the period of limitation to a person with an equal or superior right of pre-emption defeat the plaintiff's pre-emption suit?
- Can an improvement in the status of a vendee-defendant or their transferee after the institution of the pre-emption suit affect the plaintiff's rights?
- AKRAM AND AMOTHER vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1000 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These two appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the constitutional petitions filed by the appellants. The core legal questions examined were whether the High Court should have declined to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction on the ground of non-payment of rent, and whether the Revenue Court had jurisdiction to enhance the rent fixed prior to 1976. The Supreme Court held that the finding of the High Court that the appellants approached the court with unclean hands due to non-payment of rent was incorrect, as the undisputed position revealed that rent had continuously been paid at the rate of Rs. 80 per annum per Jareeb during the disputed period, while the landlords sought an enhancement. The Court ruled that the writ petitions could not be dismissed on the ground of unclean hands and that the High Court failed to adequately address the merits and jurisdictional questions. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the matter was remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court should have declined to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction on the ground of non-payment of rent when rent was paid at the established rate?
- Whether a constitutional petition can be dismissed on the principle of unclean hands when the petitioner has continuously paid the undisputed historical rate of rent pending enhancement proceedings?
- Whether the Revenue Court had jurisdiction to enhance the rent fixed prior to 1976?
- AKRAM ALI and anothers vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2221 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-23Read full judgment →
- AKMAL AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1473 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND ANOTHER vs NAZAR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1724 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-07-10Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR ALl QADRI vs JAVED SILK FACTORY, GUJRANWALA1984 PLC 1157 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-26Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR ALI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1195 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-06Read full judgment →
- AKBAR vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1221 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-30Read full judgment →
- AKBAR KHAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1483 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-13Read full judgment →
- AKBAR COTTON MILLS LTD. vs MESSRS VES/OJUANOJO OBJEDINENUE1984 CLC 1605 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 and Section 3 of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937, seeking to stay a civil suit in favor of arbitration in Moscow per a contract clause. The core legal questions were whether the suit must be stayed under the 1937 Act and whether the court should exercise its discretion to stay proceedings under the 1940 Act given the practical difficulties of foreign arbitration. The court held that Section 3 of the 1937 Act is inapplicable absent an actual submission of the dispute to arbitration. Regarding Section 34 of the 1940 Act, the court held that the power to stay is discretionary and not absolute. The key principle laid down is that a court may refuse to stay proceedings if it is satisfied that the arbitration would effectively result in an ex parte decision or cause severe injustice, particularly where all evidence, witnesses, and relevant records are located in Pakistan and foreign exchange restrictions make foreign arbitration impracticable.
Questions settled- Does Section 3 of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937 apply to an arbitration agreement where no actual submission of the dispute has been made?
- Is the power of the court to stay legal proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 absolute or discretionary?
- Can a court refuse to stay a suit in favor of foreign arbitration if the location of evidence and witnesses makes the arbitration process impracticable for one party?
- AKBAR and another vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1571 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
- AKBAR alias GHULAM AKBAR vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3163 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-25Read full judgment →
- AKBAR ALI vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1288 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-26Read full judgment →
- AKBAR ALI vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SARDAR AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 1464 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-06Read full judgment →
- AKBAR ALI and others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2568 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
- AIJAZ MAHMOOD vs ISRARUL HAQUE--Responde1984 MLD 688 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-28Read full judgment →
- AIJAZ HUSSAIN QURESHI vs THI3 STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1517 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-13Read full judgment →
- AIJAZ HUSSAIN BHATTI vs Mst. AISHA KHATOON1984 CLC 2622 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-23Read full judgment →
- AIJAZ AMIN vs UNITED BANK LTD.1984 SCMR 514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an ejectment application filed by the landlord against the tenant under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Rent Controller passed a tentative rent order directing the tenant to deposit arrears and future rent. Upon the tenant's failure to deposit, the Rent Controller struck off the defence, which order was upheld by the first appellate court. However, the High Court in a second appeal set aside the orders and remanded the case, holding that the second appeal was competent. The petitioner landlord sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging both the maintainability of the second appeal before the High Court in light of the repeal of the 1959 Ordinance by the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and the merits of remanding the case. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised concerning the competency of a second appeal under the repealing legislation involve substantial questions of public importance. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted for an early hearing.
Questions settled- Whether a second appeal is competent against an appellate order passed after the repeal of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 by the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Does the right to file a second appeal constitute a vested right accrued to a party upon the institution of original proceedings under the repealed rent law?
- How do the savings and repeal provisions under Section 27 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 affect pending appeals filed under the repealed Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- AJAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1533 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-28Read full judgment →
- AIJAZ ALI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2681 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-01Read full judgment →