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.
- AIJAZ AHMED ZUBARI vs THE XTH CIVIL JUDGE & RENT CONTROLLER, KARACHI1984 CLC 3445 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-23Read full judgment →
- AHMED vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1573 · Sindh High Court · 1983-07-24Read full judgment →
- AHMED HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3092 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-07-14Read full judgment →
- AHMED HUSSAIN & Co vs AHMAD RAZA KHAN1984 PLD Karachi 23 · Sindh High Court · 1983-07-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two cross second appeals arising from an ejectment proceeding initiated by a landlord against a tenant of a disputed property transferred under the settlement laws. The core legal questions involved whether the tenant committed a default in payment of rent under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, whether the landlord was bound to supply copies of title documents upon request, and how the rate of rent ought to be determined based on municipal assessments. The court held that the tenant indeed committed default by failing to pay or tender any rent within the statutory three-month period following the receipt of the section 30 notice, notwithstanding any bona fide doubts regarding title or delay in issuing the notice. Furthermore, the court held that rent controllers are bound by the latest municipal assessment of the specific premises in question under section 30 of the Act. The appeals were accordingly disposed of, dismissing the tenant's appeal on the issue of default and partially accepting the landlord's appeal to revise the rate of rent.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant loses statutory protection against default under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 by failing to pay or tender rent within three months of receiving notice?
- Is a transferee of property from the Settlement Department legally required to supply copies of transfer documents such as P.T.O. and P.T.D. to a recorded tenant upon request?
- Can rent control authorities go behind or alter the latest municipal assessment of a property when determining the rate of rent under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Does a delay of several years in issuing a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 invalidate the notice or absolve the tenant from paying rent?
- AHMED DIN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 823 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Leave to appeal was granted to two convicts, Ahmed Din convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death, and Hakim Ali convicted under section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment, to examine whether the conviction of the former should have also been under section 304, Part I and whether the latter was entitled to a reduced sentence. The dispute arose over land rights, tenancy, and the removal of harvested wheat produce from a threshing floor, resulting in a violent clash between rival parties leading to injuries and the deaths of two persons. The Supreme Court examined the evidence regarding the sudden fight, the nature of the injuries inflicted by the appellants, and the background of revenue disputes concerning superdari of the produce. Ultimately, the court evaluated the applicability of lesser penal provisions in light of the sudden altercation and mutual dispute over the agricultural produce.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 should be altered to section 304, Part I in cases of sudden fights arising from property disputes?
- Are co-accused entitled to a reduced sentence when the main accused's conviction is converted from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
- How does a pre-existing revenue dispute and superdari order regarding agricultural produce affect the determination of common object or intent in a sudden criminal occurrence?
- AHMED AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1441 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
- AHMED ALIM vs MESSRS GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER CO. OF PAKISTANLTD. AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 122 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-23Read full judgment →
- AHMAD YAR vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS1984 PLC 1180 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
- AHMAD YAR vs HASSAN ALI SHAH AND 14 OTHERS1984 CLC 3413 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-22Read full judgment →
- AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 772 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges a conviction under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a complaint filed by a Station House Officer (S.H.O.) against the petitioner for allegedly filing a false application to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police. The core legal question was whether the complaint filed by the S.H.O. was competent under the mandatory provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given that the initial application was addressed to the D.I.G. The Court held that Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 requires that for offences under Sections 172 to 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, cognizance can only be taken upon a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or their superior. Since the S.H.O. lacked this authority, the complaint was incompetent, rendering the entire proceedings void for want of jurisdiction. The Court further noted that the appellate court had imposed an illegal sentence exceeding the statutory maximum fine. The conviction and sentence were quashed.
Questions settled- Does a plea of guilty restrict the High Court's revisional jurisdiction to examine the legality of a conviction?
- Can a court take cognizance of an offence under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 upon a complaint filed by an officer other than the one to whom the false application was addressed?
- Are the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the filing of complaints mandatory?
- What is the legal consequence when a mandatory condition for the exercise of jurisdiction by a court is not fulfilled?
- AHMAD SAEED AND OTHERS vs THE MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 66 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed against a common judgment delivered by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. The primary legal question presented in these petitions pertains to the correct interpretation of the provisions of Section 114, as introduced by the Punjab Tenancy (Amendment) Act 1952. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the issue of a three-day delay in filing one of the petitions, ultimately condoning the delay subject to all just exceptions. Regarding the merits, the Court observed that leave to appeal had already been granted in a connected matter, Ghulam Fatima and others v. Rahim Bakhsh and others, which involved the same legal question regarding the interpretation of the aforementioned statutory provision. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal in the present petitions as well, directing that they be heard alongside the connected case. The Court further ordered the provision of security in the amount of Rs. 1,000 for each case and permitted the parties to supplement the existing record with additional documents as necessary.
Questions settled- Can a delay in filing a civil petition for special leave to appeal be condoned if the reasons provided are sufficient?
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when the central legal question is already pending in a connected matter?
- AHMAD KHAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2023 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
- AHMAD KHAN and another vs BAZ KHAN and 5 others1984 SCMR 1214 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that affirmed the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts regarding a disputed land transaction. The core legal question concerned whether a co-sharer could unilaterally sell land recorded as 'Shamilat Deh' (joint village property) to a family member, thereby excluding other co-sharers. The petitioners argued that the sale was valid as the vendor was a co-sharer in possession and that the transaction remained unchallenged for five years. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the lower courts' findings that the land was joint property of the village proprietary body and that the sale was a fictitious and sham transaction intended to deprive other co-sharers of their rights. The Court affirmed that while a co-sharer may possess land in excess of their share pending partition, they cannot alienate joint property to the detriment of other co-sharers through collusive transactions. The judgment reinforces the principle that sham transactions involving joint property are legally voidable and cannot be used to misappropriate common land for exclusive benefit.
Questions settled- Can a co-sharer unilaterally sell land that is part of the Shamilat Deh to a family member?
- Does a co-sharer's possession of land in excess of their share entitle them to alienate that land to the detriment of other co-sharers?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the nature of land as Shamilat Deh subject to interference in civil revision?
- AHMAD HASSAN and 2 others vs INAYAT ULLAH and another1984 MLD 484 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
- AHMAD DIN vs KARAM ELAHI1984 CLC 2165 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-18Read full judgment →
- AHMAD DIN vs FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER1984 SCMR 37 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal as incompetent on the grounds that he was not a civil servant. The petitioner, formerly an employee of the Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, had been removed from service, and his subsequent departmental appeal resulted in the conversion of his removal into an accepted resignation. The core legal question was whether the petitioner held the status of a civil servant at the time of his removal, thereby entitling him to invoke the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred by failing to determine the petitioner's status at the relevant time of his removal, particularly given that the Pakistan Agricultural Research Council Ordinance, 1981, came into force after the impugned administrative order. The Court established the principle that the status of an employee must be determined based on their position at the time of the impugned action, rather than relying on subsequent legislative changes that might not retrospectively alter that status.
Questions settled- Does the establishment of a corporate body under the Pakistan Agricultural Research Council Ordinance 1981 automatically divest an employee of their status as a civil servant?
- Is the Federal Service Tribunal required to determine an appellant's status as a civil servant at the time of the impugned administrative order rather than at the time of the appeal?
- Can an employee be deemed an employee of a newly established corporate body if they were removed from service prior to the commencement of the relevant ordinance?
- AHMAD BAKHSH and another vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1316 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
- AHMAD AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 179 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1983-10-17Read full judgment →
- AHMAD ALI and anothers vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others1984 CLC 2667 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-18Read full judgment →
- AHMAD ALI AND 5 OTHERS vs COLONY TEXTILE MILLS LTD., MULTAN1984 PLC 1127 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-07Read full judgment →
- AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING WORKSHOP, BAHAWALPUR vs MUHAMMAD1984 PLC 1268 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD NAZIR1984 PLC 486 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
- AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER, AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY ENGINEERING DIVISION, MAKLI vs MUHAMMAD BAKHSH AND 49 OTHERS1984 PLC 383 · Labour Court · 1984-02-04Read full judgment →
- AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES FIELD BULLDOZERS UNION, D. I. KHAN vs REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, D. I. KHAN DIVISION1984 PLC 499 · Labour Court · 1983-03-30Read full judgment →
- AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK vs Sh. MUHAMMAD AYUB1984 CLC 1696 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-31Read full judgment →
- AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN vs Syed NASIM RAZA1984 PLC 791(2) · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
- Agha ZULFIQAR ALI SHAH AND 10 OTHERSs vs SAIFUL AND 8 OTHERS1984 CLC 1734 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-08Read full judgment →
- Agha ZAHEERUDDIN KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 3882 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-12Read full judgment →
- Agha RAFIQUE AHMAD vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 751 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Sind Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's challenge regarding his absorption in government service after being declared surplus as an Assistant Traffic Manager. The core legal question concerned the interpretation of clause (ii) of rule 9-A of the Sind Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, specifically whether a surplus employee not given a post of equivalent or comparable grade could be appointed to a post of any lower grade however low. The Supreme Court held that the phrase "to a post of lower grade" does not mean a post of any grade howsoever low, but refers to the next lower grade when an equivalent or comparable post is unavailable. The Court ruled that giving unfettered power to appoint surplus staff to the lowest grade would defeat the protective purpose of the rule and the implementing circulars. Consequently, the Court set aside the Service Tribunal's order and directed the immediate implementation of the government's initial absorption order.
Questions settled- Whether the phrase 'to a post of lower grade' under rule 9-A of the Sind Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974 permits appointment to a post of any grade howsoever low?
- Can a surplus government employee be absorbed in a post far below their equivalent grade when higher posts are available?
- Whether an order passed by the Chief Secretary for the absorption of a surplus employee under rule 9-A must be implemented in letter and spirit?
- AGHA MUHAMMAD vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SIBI AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLD Quetta 68 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-11-27Read full judgment →
- AGHA JAN AND ANOTHER vs KUNDAL KHAN1984 SCMR 1042 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment, which had affirmed an appellate court's decision to grant an injunction in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether a court could issue an injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, to restrain individuals who were not parties to the pending suit from proceeding with land mutation attestations. The Supreme Court held that the injunction was improperly granted, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the District Judge, and restoring the trial court’s initial refusal to grant the injunction. The Court clarified that the discretionary power to grant an injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 1(a), Code of Civil Procedure, is strictly limited to restraining a "party to the suit." Consequently, an injunction cannot be legally issued against non-parties, regardless of the underlying circumstances of the transaction or the statutory obligations of public officials like the Tehsildar regarding land mutations.
Questions settled- Can an injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure be issued against persons who are not parties to the suit?
- Does the discretionary power of a court under Order XXXIX, Rule 1(a), Code of Civil Procedure extend to restraining non-parties from performing acts like land mutation attestation?
- Agha HUSSAIN NAQVI vs DIRECTOR OF LABOUR WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 673 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Agha HUSSAIN NAQVI vs DIRECTOR OF LABOUR WELFARE and others1984 SCMR 1275 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former civil servant, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal challenging his compulsory retirement from service. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner's appeal before the Service Tribunal was competent and whether his subsequent representations in 1981 could revive a cause of action arising from his retirement in 1964 and the alleged disposal of his departmental appeal in 1966. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal correctly determined that the departmental appeal had been disposed of in 1966, a finding supported by the departmental record. Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, as the Service Tribunals Act precluded appeals against departmental orders issued before 1st July 1969. The Court affirmed that a civil servant cannot revive a stale claim for reinstatement by filing fresh representations decades after the initial retirement, as such actions do not enlarge the period of limitation or confer a fresh cause of action. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant revive a stale claim for reinstatement by filing fresh representations decades after retirement?
- Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against a departmental order passed before 1st July 1969?
- Does a subsequent representation to a departmental authority enlarge the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Agha AQEEL NASIR vs INSPECTORGENERAL POLICE, QUETTA1984 SCMR 788 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of the petitioner's service appeal by the Baluchistan Service Tribunal, which upheld the refusal of the Inspector-General of Police to reinstate the petitioner as an Inspector of Police following his conviction by a Military Court and subsequent grant of pardon. The core legal question is whether the grant of pardon under section 143 of the Pakistan Army Act entitled the petitioner to automatic reinstatement in service and barred departmental action. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a free or granted pardon does not restore a convicted person to a public office forfeited in consequence of a conviction, though it may remove the disability for a fresh appointment. The Court affirmed that directions to consider reinstatement 'as per service rules' do not mandate automatic restoration to service, reinforcing the principle that executive pardon does not wipe out the forfeiture of public office resulting from a valid criminal conviction.
Questions settled- Whether upon the grant of pardon under section 143 of the Pakistan Army Act a convicted person is entitled to reinstatement in service?
- Does a free pardon restore a convicted person to a public office forfeited by or in consequence of a conviction?
- Does rule 16.3 of the Police Rules 1934 bar departmental action when an officer has been convicted rather than acquitted?
- Agha ABDUR RAHMAN vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 499 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police challenging the High Court judgment that dismissed his appeal against conviction and sentence under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, and section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as recorded by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption. The core question involved whether the concurrent findings of guilt based on extortion, extra-judicial confession, and causing hurt were sustainable, and whether the sentence warranted interference. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the conviction was fully merited and supported by trustworthy evidence, finding no ground to interfere with it. However, considering that the conviction entailed departmental consequences, the Court partially allowed the appeal only to the extent of modifying the substantive sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently rather than consecutively. The key principle laid down is that while concurrent findings of fact on criminal conviction based on reliable ocular and medical evidence will not be disturbed by the apex court, the manner of serving sentences of imprisonment can be adjusted in appropriate circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act are sustainable when supported by ocular and medical evidence?
- Can sentences of imprisonment for distinct offences under the Pakistan Penal Code be ordered to run concurrently by the Supreme Court?
- Whether an extra-judicial confession corroborated by prosecution witnesses and medical evidence is sufficient to uphold a conviction?
- AFZAL ALI GILL vs THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1984 SCMR 1278 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an unsuccessful plaintiff, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing his civil revision petition. The petitioner was a grantee of land under the Tube-well Sinking Scheme administered by the Thal Development Authority, whose land was resumed in 1958 for non-fulfilment of conditions. In 1979, the petitioner instituted a civil suit challenging the resumption, alleging a lack of notice and hearing. The trial court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision, finding that due notice had been served. The High Court dismissed the subsequent civil revision petition. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was afforded a show-cause notice prior to the resumption of the grant. The Supreme Court held that concurrent factual findings by the lower courts established that proper notice had indeed been issued and served, and the petitioner failed to repudiate such evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, laying down that concurrent factual findings regarding service of notice, supported by record evidence, will not be interfered with in leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent factual findings regarding the service of notice can be interfered with in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Is resumption of land valid when supported by evidence of proper notice and service to the grantee?
- AFTAB AHMED vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 735 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-28Read full judgment →
- ADMINISTRATOR, KAMBAR MUNICIPALITY vs KHAN ANWAR BAIG and 3 others1984 MLD 767 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-28Read full judgment →
- ADMINISTRATOR CO-OPERATIVE TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KHANEWAL vs KAMAL-UD-1984 PLC 1515 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-20Read full judgment →
- ADIL ZAKA KHAN AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE AND 4 OTHERS1984 PLD Lahore 376 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
- ADDUL HAQ vs MU HAMMAD HABIB AND OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 3102 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-11Read full judgment →
- Additional Secretary, Ministry Of Finance And 2 Other vs Ministry Of FinancePTCL 1984 (CL) 49 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs INDIAN DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD1984 PTD 39 · Delhi High Court · 1981-09-17Read full judgment →
- ADAMJEE PAPER AND BOARD MILLS LTD. vs MARITIME AGENCIES LTD.1984 CLC 440 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This order disposes of two interlocutory applications: one by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for rejection of the plaint due to improper valuation, and another by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 6 read with Rule 10 seeking a delivery order for a consignment of 4,812 bales of wood-pulp imported as industrial raw material.
The core legal questions involved whether the court could correct an arbitrary valuation under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 where consequential relief is sought, and whether the court could order the delivery of goods under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 subject to furnishing security where a defendant asserts a lien for a money claim.
The High Court held that courts possess inherent power to correct arbitrary suit valuations. It directed the plaintiffs to revalue the suit at Rs. 11 lacs, representing the actual value of the asserted lien, and pay ad valorem court-fees. Furthermore, finding that it was 'just and convenient' under Order XXXIX Rule 10 and Section 94(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to avoid severe industrial disruption, the Court directed the defendants to issue the delivery order upon the plaintiffs furnishing a bank guarantee for Rs. 11 lacs to secure the defendants' potential money claim.
Questions settled- Does the court have the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to correct an arbitrary or undervaluation of a suit filed under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-Fees Act 1870?
- Can the court under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 order the interim delivery of goods to their owner subject to securing the defendant's money claim via a bank guarantee?
- Does a finder or bailee claiming a contractual or statutory lien on goods have an absolute right to withhold delivery of all goods when their monetary claim is significantly less than the total value of the goods?
- ACHAR and 6 others vs AHMAD and 3 others1984 MLD 169 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-21Read full judgment →
- ABUL MOKARRAM MUHAMMAD and 2 others vs Haji NAZIR AHMED KHAN1984 MLD 938 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
- ABUL KALAM vs BASHIR AHMAD RANA AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2997 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-12Read full judgment →
- ABUBAKAR AND 11 OTHERS vs Mirza M. FAZAL ALI BAIG AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 2110 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-08Read full judgment →
- ABU BAKAR AND OTHERS vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1699 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
- ABID SHAH AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 937 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-27Read full judgment →
- ABID NAZIR vs HABIB BANK LTD1984 PLC 645 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-03Read full judgment →
- ABID HUSSAIN vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND THROUGH CHIEF SECETARY, S&GAD1984 PLD Karachi 269 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition concerns the recovery of Rs. 5,172,000 seized by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) during a raid in 1976. The petitioner sought the return of the funds, which were held by the authorities after lower courts and the government failed to resolve his claim, instead directing him to file a civil suit. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise constitutional jurisdiction to order the release of the property, given the existence of a pending civil suit and the state's argument regarding disputed facts. The Court held that the constitutional jurisdiction was appropriate because the civil suit was not an equally efficacious, speedy, or adequate remedy, and the state's possession of the funds under Section 524 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 did not constitute confiscation but rather a trusteeship for the true owner. The Court established that where a public functionary fails to perform a ministerial duty, the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar constitutional relief if that remedy is not equally beneficial and expeditious.
Questions settled- Does the phrase 'at the disposal of the Provincial Government' under Section 524 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 imply the confiscation of property?
- Can a High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to order the return of seized property when a civil suit regarding the same subject matter is pending?
- Is the existence of an alternative remedy by way of a civil suit an absolute bar to the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction for the performance of a public duty?
- Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with findings of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal in constitutional jurisdiction?
- ABID HUSSAIN BOKHARI AND OTHERS vs DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION1984 CLC 1222 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-27Read full judgment →
- ABID alias Bhola vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2553 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-31Read full judgment →
- ABID ALI vs Sheikh MUHAMMAD JAMAL1984 MLD 60 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUS SATTAR vs MUHAMMAD JAME EL AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2296 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUS SALAM KHAN vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS THROUGH DIVISION1984 PLC 572 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-07-25Read full judgment →
- ABDURREHMAN vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1502 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This jail petition is directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the petitioner's appeal in a murder case. The petitioner was accused of murdering the deceased on December 5, 1979, at District Mansehra. The First Information Report was lodged by the widow of the deceased, who was informed by eyewitnesses at the scene. At the trial, the prosecution relied upon ocular testimony of eyewitnesses, medical evidence, and a motive arising from previous litigation. The trial court and the High Court believed the testimony of the independent eyewitnesses, which was duly corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of a firearm from the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the ocular testimony of the eyewitnesses, even without further corroboration, was sufficient to sustain the conviction. Consequently, the court found no fit case for the grant of leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Is the ocular testimony of independent eyewitnesses sufficient by itself to sustain a murder conviction?
- Whether medical evidence and weapon recovery serve as sufficient corroboration in a murder trial?
- When will the Supreme Court refuse to grant leave to appeal in a criminal matter concurrent on facts?
- ABDUR REHMAN/Petitioner vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY1984 MLD 911 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN vs THE STATE1984 PLD Lahore 122 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN vs THE SECRETARY, C & W DEPARTMENT1984 SCMR 112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's service appeal concerning seniority and promotion. The appellant, a junior clerk who joined service in the erstwhile B & R Department, challenged his permanent allocation to the Buildings Department rather than the Highways Department and sought promotion as an Accounts Clerk from the date a junior was promoted. The core legal question was whether the appellant had a vested legal right to be allocated to the department of his choice based on options invited by the Government, and whether the cancellation of a prior notification restored a joint cadre and joint seniority. The Supreme Court held that inviting options merely ascertains the wishes of staff to accommodate them where possible and creates no vested right to an allocation according to choice, as public interest and organizational changes remain paramount. The Court concluded that the appellant failed to establish any entitlement, and consequently dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Does an invitation of options by the Government create a vested legal right for a civil servant to be allocated to the department of their choice?
- Whether the cancellation of an allocation notification automatically restores a joint cadre and joint seniority position for ministerial staff?
- Can a recommendation report of an Anomally Committee be made the basis for asserting or claiming a legal right in service matters?
- ABDUR REHMAN vs RAABIA BIBI AND 7 OTHERS1984 PLD Lahore 407 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN vs KARIM KHAN1984 CLC 2640 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN vs Haji ABDUL HAMID1983 PLD Quetta 49 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-09-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN Represented by his Legal Heirs vs Mst. BIBI FATIMA1984 SCMR 1444 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a land inheritance dispute involving the estate of Ferozedin, who died in 1937, leaving behind a son (appellant) and a daughter (respondent). The respondent filed a suit for joint possession of her share of the land, which the trial court decreed. The District Judge reversed this, but the High Court restored the trial court's decree. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the respondent had been ousted from the property for more than ten years, thereby barring her claim through adverse possession. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the respondent's receipt of produce from her brother corroborated her claim of entitlement and negated the plea of ouster. The Court emphasized that when evaluating claims of ouster between siblings, particularly involving an illiterate Pardahnashin lady, evidence must be viewed in the context of their relationship. The Court affirmed that the High Court correctly applied the principles regarding the setting aside of findings of fact in second appeals as established in precedent.
Questions settled- Can a claim of ouster be established against a female heir when she has been receiving a share of the produce from the property?
- Does the receipt of produce from a brother by a sister corroborate her claim to joint possession of inherited land?
- Under what circumstances can a finding of fact regarding ouster be reviewed in a second appeal?
- ABDUR REHMAN KHAN and others vs COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION and others1984 CLC 2660 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN CHOWDARY vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 626 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-03-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAUF vs MEssRs INSHAALLAH MASHAALLAH WEAVING1984 PLC 1723 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-05-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 402 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID vs SUNSHINE COTTON MILLS LTD. AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1059 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID vs SARFRAZ ARSHAD KHAN and 2 others1984 MLD 244 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID vs DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, FAISALABAD1984 PLC 1021 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1377 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-31Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAllAK and another vs ABDUL GHAFOOR1984 MLD 1135 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHIM vs ABDUL KHALIQ QURESHI AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging an ejectment order. The Rent Controller, whose decision was upheld by the Additional District Judge, had ordered the petitioner's eviction from the premises on the ground of the respondent-landlord's personal need. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's judgment suffered from any legal error or error of principle warranting interference. Upon hearing the parties, the Supreme Court found no such error in the High Court's decision. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. However, acknowledging that the petitioner was conducting business on the premises, the Court granted the petitioner two months to vacate and deliver peaceful possession to the respondent, based on an undertaking provided by the petitioner in open court to avoid execution proceedings. The principle affirmed is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding ejectment for personal need absent a legal error.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in rent matters absent a legal error?
- Can the Supreme Court grant a grace period for vacating premises upon an undertaking by the tenant?
- ABDUR RAHIM vs ABDUL KHALIQ QURESHI AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 365 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAFIQ ALAM vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, P. 0. F., WAH CANTT.1984 PLC (C. S.) 709 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-10-23Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH vs SETTLEMENT COM MISSIONER/AD MINISTRATOR (RP), MULTAN1984 CLC 1383 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-19Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH vs Mst. BASHIR BEGUM1984 PLD Azad J & K 76 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-07-16Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH KHAN vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1384 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-28Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH KHAN vs Mst. BILQUIS BEGUM1984 SCMR 39 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from civil petitions challenging a common judgment of the High Court of Sind which dismissed the petitioner's first rent appeals against the orders of the Rent Controller directing his ejectment. The core legal question concerns the justification for striking off the tenant's defence under rent restriction laws due to non-compliance with a tentative rent order. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the High Court—rejecting the petitioner's explanation for failing to comply with the tentative rent order and finding a lack of diligence in pursuing the case—were unexceptionable and warranted no interference. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming that tenants must remain diligent regarding the progress of pending proceedings and cannot evade statutory compliance obligations based on counsel's illness without showing sufficient diligence.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant's defence can be struck off for non-compliance with a tentative rent order?
- Does the illness of a counsel absolve a tenant from the duty to remain diligent regarding the progress of a rent case?
- Are concurrent findings of lower tribunals regarding non-compliance with rent orders open to interference by the Supreme Court?
- ABDULLAH KHAN vs Mst. AMTUL BEGUM and others1984 MLD 11 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-29Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH KHAN vs FAZAL REHMAN KHAN1984 PLD Peshawar 121 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-11-29Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH KHAN vs ABDUL MAJEED1984 PLD Karachi 178 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-18Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH JAN vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 734 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which confirmed the death sentence imposed on the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The appellant contended that the prosecution's ocular evidence conflicted with medical findings, specifically regarding the trajectory of the gunshot wounds and the deceased's stomach contents, suggesting a different time of death. The appellant further argued that the prosecution failed to prove the motive and that the absence of a notice to produce the weapon undermined the case. The Supreme Court examined the testimony of two eye-witnesses, finding their accounts consistent and credible, and noted that the medical evidence did not contradict the prosecution's version of events. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, supported by the eye-witness testimony and the appellant's prolonged abscondance. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence, affirming that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the appellant's culpability for the murder.
Questions settled- Does a conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case?
- Can the prolonged abscondance of an accused be considered as corroborative evidence of guilt?
- Is the testimony of an eye-witness who is a friend of the deceased inherently unreliable?
- ABDULLAH HUSAIN HAROON vs THE PROVINCIAL ELECTION AUTHORITY, SIND1984 PLD Karachi 472 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH BIIAL vs ADAMALI J1WAJEE CHARITABLE TRUST1984 CLC 166 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-12Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH BHAI vs ADAM ALI JIWAJEE CHARITABLE TRUST1984 SCMR 41 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Sind at Karachi which dismissed the tenant's second appeal and maintained the concurrent findings of the two lower courts ordering his ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings regarding default in rent warranted interference in second appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner failed to point out any error of law in the impugned judgment, thereby upholding the concurrent findings and dismissing the petition for leave to appeal. However, considering the circumstances, the Court granted the petitioner a period of four months to vacate the premises and make alternate arrangements, subject to the continued payment of monthly rent.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of lower courts on default in payment of rent can be interfered with in second appeal without showing an error of law?
- Can the Supreme Court grant a grace period to a tenant for vacating premises subject to the payment of monthly rent?
- ABDULLAH AND OTHERS vs ABDUL MAJEED1984 SCMR 258 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Karachi High Court dated 20-5-1982, which reversed the findings of the Rent Controller and remanded the ejectment case. The respondent, holding a permanent transfer deed (P.T.D.), sought the eviction of the petitioners as tenant and sub-tenants. The petitioners contested the relationship of landlord and tenant by alleging that the respondent's P.T.D. was fraudulent and void. The Rent Controller ruled in favor of the petitioners, but the High Court reversed this, holding that the Rent Controller, possessing limited jurisdiction, could not sit in judgment over the P.T.D. The core legal question is whether a Rent Controller can adjudicate upon the validity or fraudulent nature of a permanent transfer deed. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller's jurisdiction is limited and cannot extend to challenging title documents like a P.T.D., but clarified that this conclusiveness is restricted to rent proceedings and does not bar the petitioners from agitating the matter of fraud before an appropriate forum. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether a Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to examine the validity or fraudulent nature of a permanent transfer deed?
- Does the conclusiveness of a permanent transfer deed in rent proceedings foreclose a tenant's right to challenge its validity in another appropriate forum?
- Can a Rent Controller sit in judgment over title documents issued under the settlement hierarchy?
- ABDULLAH AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1243 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDULALI P. JIVANI vs PAKISTAN THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER PAKISTAN1984 CLC 3257 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL, KHALIQ vs ATTOCK. ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.1984 PLC 1435 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WASEY JAMIL AND ANOTHER vs MRS. NASREEN TAFAZAL1984 CLC 1031 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHID vs GHULAM MURAMMAD1984 MLD 1198 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHID AND 9 OTHERS vs Mst. OHULAM GHAUS1A AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 3385 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHEED vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3138 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHEED vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LOCAL1984 PLC (C. S.) 769 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-01-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHEED QURESHI vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPAR1 MENT, LAHORE1984 PLC (C. S.) 54 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-05-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHEED KHAN vs Mst.AZRA KHANUM and other1984 SCMR 1283 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from eviction proceedings initiated by the respondents/landlords against the petitioner/tenant. The Rent Controller ordered the petitioner's eviction, a decision subsequently upheld by both the Additional District Judge in appeal and the High Court in second appeal. The petitioner challenged these orders before the Supreme Court, primarily contending that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that all lower courts had reached a concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner, which was supported by cogent reasons and evidence. The Court held that since the petitioner failed to demonstrate any omission or misreading of evidence by the lower courts, there was no justification to reopen the matter, as it was concluded by a finding of fact. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, though the Court granted the petitioner two months to vacate the premises, conditional upon the payment of rent and voluntary surrender of the property.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts in rent eviction proceedings?
- Is a petition for special leave to appeal maintainable when the petitioner fails to point out any omission or misreading of evidence by the courts below?
- ABDUL WAHAB vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 873 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →