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.
- ABDUL WAHAB AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1921 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SUBHAN vs PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Manpower and 3 others1984 CLC 2815 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SHAKOOR vs Syed WAHID HUSSAIN1984 SCMR 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant against whom an ex parte decree of ejectment was passed, along with the refusal of the lower forums to set it aside. The core legal questions involve examining whether a note recorded by a Reader, rather than the Presiding Officer, regarding the service of notice is sufficient to authorize proceeding ex parte on a subsequent date without notice to the tenant, and whether the practice of recording orders or diaries by the Reader in rent cases accords with applicable law and practice. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions, requiring the record of the proceedings before the Rent Controller to be made available at the hearing, while directing that the ejectment order not be executed in the meanwhile upon furnishing security.
Questions settled- Whether a note recorded by the Reader and not the Presiding Officer is sufficient to effectuate service of notice on a tenant to proceed ex parte?
- Whether the practice of recording orders and diaries by the Reader in rent cases is in accordance with the law and practice applicable to the proceedings?
- ABDUL SHAKOOR vs SIRAJ DIN1984 CLC 1151 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDUL SHAKOOR vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, FAISALABAD1984 PLC 1225 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SHAKOOR vs Mst. AMTUL HAMID1984 CLC 846 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR YOUSUF vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, QUALITY STEEL WORKS1984 CLC 194 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR vs VTH SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 181 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges orders passed by the Sind Labour Court and Junior Labour Court dismissing the petitioner's application for reinstatement. The core legal questions involve whether a grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was mandatory at the relevant time, and whether the petitioner, designated as an Assistant Security Officer drawing Rs. 850 per month, fell within the definition of a 'workman' under the relevant labor laws. The court held that the requirement of a grievance notice was mandatory and that subsection (6) of section 25-A did not dispense with it, and further found that the petitioner was employed in a supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding Rs. 800 per month and exercising managerial functions, thereby excluding him from the definition of a workman. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing that supervisory staff drawing wages above the statutory threshold and performing managerial duties are excluded from the definition of workmen.
Questions settled- Whether a grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was mandatory for filing a petition for reinstatement?
- Does an employee working in an establishment necessarily have to be regarded as a workman if they are not covered by the definition of an employer?
- Whether an Assistant Security Officer drawing more than eight hundred rupees per month and performing supervisory duties falls within the definition of a workman?
- Can the disjunctive word 'or' in section 2(xxviii)(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 be read as 'and'?
- ABDUL SATTAR vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 137 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR and another vs THE STATE and another1984 P Cr. L J 2808 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SAMAD KHAN vs FAZAL HAQ KHAN1984 PLD Peshawar 253 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-04-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SAMAD AND OTHERS vs Shahzada GHULAM JILANI AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1036 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' constitutional challenge regarding land ownership rights in the former State of Chitral. The petitioners claimed ownership of certain lands and pastures (charagahs), arguing that the payment of 'qalang' (a form of tax or revenue) did not constitute rent, but rather a tax paid to the State, and that their payment of 'Ushr' further evidenced their status as owners rather than tenants. The Dir, Swat and Chitral Land Disputes Enquiry Commission had previously recommended treating the petitioners as tenants liable to pay rent, a finding upheld by the administrative authorities and the High Court. The core legal question is whether the payment of 'qalang' inherently signifies a tenancy relationship or whether it constitutes a tax payment consistent with ownership. The Supreme Court, finding that the points raised regarding the nature of 'qalang' and the status of the landholders required in-depth examination, granted leave to appeal to determine the legal character of these payments and the resulting land rights.
Questions settled- Does the payment of 'qalang' in the former State of Chitral constitute rent indicative of a tenancy or a tax indicative of ownership?
- Can long-standing possession of land, in the absence of other evidence, establish a claim of ownership against a finding of tenancy by a Land Disputes Enquiry Commission?
- Is the payment of 'Ushr' by a landholder sufficient legal proof of ownership status in the context of historical land disputes in Chitral?
- Abdul Salam vs The StatePTCL 1984 (CL) 29 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SALAM vs Mst. WASIM BEGUM1984 MLD 642 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SALAM vs Mrs.TAHIRA ZAIDI1984 CLC 2855 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from rent proceedings wherein the respondent-landlady obtained an ex parte ejectment order against the appellant-tenant from the Rent Controller, which was subsequently executed. The core legal question concerned the validity of the substituted service by publication and affixation, and whether the requirements of due diligence under procedural rules were fulfilled before declaring the tenant ex parte. The Sindh High Court held that the order for substituted service by publication and affixation was improper and illegal because the Controller failed to ensure that sufficient attempts and due diligence had been made to effect personal service, and the pre-conditions for substituted service were lacking. The Court laid down the principle that while strict provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure may not directly apply to rent proceedings, their underlying principles must be strictly followed when adopted, requiring multiple genuine attempts at personal service and adherence to safeguards such as the presence of witnesses before resorting to substituted service.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court examine whether an order for substituted service was properly passed by the trial court?
- What constitutes due and reasonable diligence by a serving officer before resorting to substituted service by affixation?
- Whether the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to rent proceedings when a Rent Controller adopts modes of service provided therein?
- Does an endorsement of 'left' on a registered postal cover raise a legal presumption that the tenant was avoiding service?
- ARIF vs HAMID ALI1984 MLD 1223 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SALAM QURESHI AND ANOTHER vs JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT OF BANKING FOR SIND AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Karachi 462 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves constitutional petitions challenging the validity of the constitution of a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, specifically questioning whether the presiding judge, Mr. Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, was qualified to be appointed as a "District Judge" under Section 5 of the Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the statutory requirement that a Special Court consist of a person who "is a District Judge" necessitates that the appointee must hold that specific post at the time of appointment. The court held that the term "is" should be construed liberally to mean "has been," thereby qualifying individuals who previously held the rank of District Judge. Furthermore, the court ruled that even if the appointment were technically defective, the de facto doctrine validates the judgments and decrees passed by the judge to prevent public confusion and protect private rights. The key principles established are that statutory language may be interpreted to avoid absurdity and that the de facto doctrine precludes collateral attacks on the validity of judicial appointments in private litigation.
Questions settled- Does the phrase 'is a District Judge' in Section 5 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 require the appointee to hold the post of District Judge at the exact time of appointment?
- Can the word 'is' in a statute be interpreted as 'has been' to fulfill the legislative intent?
- Are the judgments and decrees of a judge whose appointment is technically defective protected by the de facto doctrine?
- Can a plaint in a suit by a corporation be signed by a principal officer under Order XXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- ABDUL SA M AD vs COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ELECTION), HYDERABAD AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 232 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2543 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs NAZEER AHMAD AND 5 OTHERS1984 CLC 3054 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs MESSRS ESSO EASTERN INC.1984 PLC 140 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-10-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS1984 CLC 3052 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND 5 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 823 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-10-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN AND OTHERS vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 205 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' second writ petition. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of a subsequent constitutional petition challenging an order that was the subject of an earlier writ petition, which the petitioners' counsel had previously got converted into a civil revision, subsequently dismissed on the ground that a second revision was not maintainable. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners, having themselves abandoned their earlier writ petition by converting it into a revision, cannot justify filing a subsequent writ petition to challenge the same impugned order. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, reinforcing the principle that parties cannot bypass procedural bars by initiating successive overlapping challenges.
Questions settled- Whether a subsequent writ petition is maintainable after an earlier writ petition challenging the same order was converted into a revision at the instance of the petitioner?
- Does a second revision lie against an order passed in revision by a District Court?
- Can a party justify filing a fresh writ petition after abandoning their prior constitutional remedy?
- ABDUL REHMAN and 2 others vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION and 2 others1984 CLC 2586 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAQ vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3231 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAQ vs SURAJ GHEE MILLS LTD., SHEIKHUPURA /1984 PLC 1512 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-05-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAQ vs DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT (PREV), CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS AND OTHERS,1984 PTD 300 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAK vs MUHAMMAD YUSUF AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 1673 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAK vs AMINA BANO1984 MLD 825 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAK AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 431 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a direct appeal filed under Article 185(2)(b) of the Constitution of Pakistan against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court convicting the appellants for murder under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentencing them to imprisonment for life. The prosecution case was that the appellants, along with an absconding co-accused, attacked and killed the deceased on a public road in Quetta city. The trial and High Court both relied on ocular testimony from independent witnesses and corroborative recoveries. The Supreme Court considered whether the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses and whether discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence warranted interference. The Court held that the witnesses were independent, present in the ordinary course of their business, and that minor discrepancies regarding the number of blows did not undermine the credible prosecution case. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Whether eye-witnesses who happen to be present at the scene of a crime in the pursuit of their trade can be discredited solely on the basis of being chance witnesses?
- Does a minor discrepancy between ocular evidence and medical evidence regarding the number of weapon injuries vitiate an otherwise reliable murder conviction?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the appreciation of evidence in a criminal appeal?
- Abdul Razzak A. Thahim, J A.M. QURESHI vs PROVINCE OF SIND through Secretary to the Government of Sind, Revenue Department, Sind Secretariat, Karachi and 4 others1984 MLD 779 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZAK KHAN vs MUHAMMAD ILLAHI and 6 others1984 CLC 2724 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZAK AND ANOTHER MUHAMMAD SHAFAIT KHAN vs THE STATE ABDUL1984 P Cr. L J 1039 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZAK alias APPLA and anothers vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2708 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAUF KHAN vs MESSRS S. A. REHMAN & SONS, LAHORE1984 PLC 524 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1494 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS1984 PLC 386 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs SIND CLUB1984 PLC 390 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-08-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs SHARIFUDDIN1984 CLC 1175 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs MST. BASHIRAN1984 CLC 2677 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs Khawaja HAMAD HUSSAIN1984 MLD 914 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs JEHANG1R KHAN AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 1335 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE1984 PLC 1145 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs DIRECTOR, LABOUR WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND 4 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 104 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-05-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID NIZAMI AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 923 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID NIZAMI AND 2 OTHERS vs Mst. BUSHRA1984 CLC 719 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID MUGHAL vs MUHAMMAD SHABBIR ABBASI1984 SCMR 1172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a writ of quo warranto filed against the appellant, who had been elected as a Councilor for the Municipal Committee, Murree. The respondent challenged the appellant's eligibility, alleging disqualification under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, due to a prior conviction by a Summary Military Court for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court had accepted the respondent's petition, relying solely on the contents of the First Information Report (F.I.R.) to conclude that the appellant's conviction involved moral turpitude. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the conviction indeed involved moral turpitude and if the High Court's reliance on the F.I.R. was legally sound. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by treating the F.I.R. and a jail certificate as sufficient evidence to establish moral turpitude, noting that these documents were inadmissible for proving the specific findings of the Military Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, establishing that a conviction cannot be presumed to involve moral turpitude based on mere allegations in an F.I.R. without legal evidence of the specific findings of the convicting court.
Questions settled- Can a court determine that a conviction involves moral turpitude based solely on the contents of an F.I.R.?
- Is an F.I.R. admissible as legal evidence to prove the specific findings or grounds of a conviction by a Summary Military Court?
- Does a conviction by a Summary Military Court automatically constitute an offence involving moral turpitude for the purposes of election disqualification?
- ABDUL RASHID BUTT vs SECRETARY, SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION1984 PLC 938 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD RIAZ AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 450 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a civil suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, seeking a declaration of sole heirship regarding the estate of Mst. Fazal Jan and a perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents from collecting rent from the disputed property. The respondents contested the suit, asserting that the deceased had gifted the property to them via a registered gift deed. The trial court framed issues regarding the plaintiff's status as the sole heir and the validity of the alleged gift. Both the trial court and the appellate court ruled against the plaintiff, finding in favor of the defendants. The petitioners subsequently filed a civil revision before the High Court, which was dismissed. Upon petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the core issues involved questions of fact upon which the three lower courts had reached concurrent findings. The Court held that it would not reappraise evidence to reverse concurrent findings of fact in such circumstances. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by three lower courts in a civil matter?
- Is the reappraisal of evidence permissible in a petition for leave to appeal where lower courts have reached concurrent findings of fact?
- ABDUL RASHID and others vs ABDUL SALAM and others1984 MLD 167 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the conviction of the appellants under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while altering the death sentence of one appellant to imprisonment for life. The core legal question was whether the conviction of the appellants could be sustained safely on the solitary, uncorroborated testimony of an interested eye-witness who was the brother of the deceased and whose evidence was partially rejected regarding a co-accused. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that the testimony of an eye-witness, even if related to the deceased, can form the basis of a conviction if found natural, reliable, corroborated by a prompt First Information Report, and supported by medical evidence. The key principle laid down is that minor discrepancies or the acquittal of a co-accused do not discredit an otherwise truthful and natural witness whose presence at the scene is unquestionable, provided the testimony inspires full confidence.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a related and interested eye-witness?
- Whether the acquittal of one co-accused based on identity doubts necessitates the acquittal of other co-accused tried together?
- Is a prompt First Information Report considered sufficient corroboration for the testimony of an eye-witness?
- Does the presence of a witness at a shop opposite the place of occurrence render them a natural witness under criminal law?
- ABDUL RASHEED vs MANZOOR AHMED1984 MLD 621 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASH ID vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2299 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAllAK vs Mst. QAISER SULTAN and 2 others1984 MLD 147 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHMAN vs FAREED1984 CLC 1757 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHMAN vs ABDUL SHAKOOR1984 MLD 1140 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHIM vs Mst. SHAHIDA KHAN1984 PLD Supreme Court 329 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition challenges a common judgment of the Lahore High Court which set aside orders of the Family Judge and Additional District Judge dismissing a wife's suit for dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula. The core legal question was whether a wife seeking dissolution of marriage through khula is legally required to prove specific acts of cruelty or provide a rational basis for her aversion towards her husband. The Supreme Court held that where a wife exhibits a fixed aversion and extreme incompatibility of temperament, making it impossible for the spouses to live together within the limits prescribed by Allah, a case for khula is made out without needing to prove specific fault on the part of the husband. The Court laid down the principle that Islam does not force spouses into a hateful union, and if the marriage has irretrievably broken down, the court must satisfy its conscience regarding the impossibility of harmonious cohabitation and grant dissolution accordingly, upholding the High Court's remand for proper re-decision of the appeals.
Questions settled- Whether a wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula is required to prove specific acts of cruelty or maltreatment by the husband?
- Can the High Court interfere in writ jurisdiction with concurrent findings of Family Courts regarding khula?
- Does fixed aversion and extreme incompatibility of temperament constitute sufficient ground for the dissolution of marriage through khula?
- ABDUL R AZZAQ AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1708 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QAYYUM vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 571 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-27Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QAYYUM KHAN vs SPEAKER, LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF AZAD KASHMIR1984 PLC (C. S.) 308 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABDUL QAYYUM and another vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1511 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court cancelling the bail previously granted to the petitioners by the Sessions Court in a criminal case involving charges under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioners were accused of abducting and raping a minor girl, Mst. Majida. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in cancelling the bail based on the material available on the record, specifically the complainant's statement and medical evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that reasonable grounds existed to implicate the petitioners in the alleged offences. The Court held that the High Court's re-examination of the facts and its subsequent cancellation of bail was unexceptionable and did not warrant interference. The key principle affirmed is that an appellate court will not interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in bail cancellation matters when the lower court has properly evaluated the incriminating material, such as witness statements and medical reports, to establish reasonable grounds for the accused's involvement.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the authority to cancel bail granted by a Sessions Court if reasonable grounds exist for the accused's implication?
- Is the presence of abrasions on a victim's body considered supporting material for allegations of rape in bail proceedings?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in a bail cancellation matter if the decision is found to be unexceptionable?
- ABDUL QAYYUM AND ANOTHER vs Mst. KHURSHID JAHAN AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 710 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment order passed against the petitioner-tenants by the Rent Controller, which was upheld by the District Judge and the Lahore High Court. The respondent-landlady sought eviction of five tenants occupying five shops to reconstruct the building into a restaurant for her sons, having obtained the necessary municipal sanction. The core legal question was whether 'reconstruction' under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 requires the complete demolition of an existing building and the construction of a totally new one, or if substantial structural alterations suffice. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that 'reconstruction' does not necessitate complete demolition. The Court ruled that where a change of a substantial character is being effected—such as removing walls and raising new ones to convert five shops into a single large hall with a kitchen and pantry on the same foundations—it falls within the purview of reconstruction under the law, thereby justifying the eviction of the tenants.
Questions settled- Does the term 'reconstruction' under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 require the complete demolition of an existing building?
- Can substantial structural alterations, such as converting multiple shops into a single hall on the same foundations, constitute 'reconstruction' for the purposes of tenant eviction?
- What degree of structural change is necessary to satisfy the ground of reconstruction under rent restriction laws?
- ABDUL QAYYUM and 4 others vs PERVAIZ IQBAL and another1984 MLD 1438 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QAYYUM alias KALU vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2251 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QADOOS (REPRESENTED BY SHAUKAT ZAMAN) AND 8 OTHERS vs Haji1984 CLC 1235 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDUL QADIR vs MUHAMMAD MAHFOOZ1984 CLC 3511 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QADIR vs IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI and 3 others1984 MLD 777 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QADIR AND ANOTHER vs THE SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND 3 OTHERS1984 SCMR 50 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal is directed against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court whereby a constitutional petition arising out of an urban settlement case was allowed and a revisional order of the Settlement Commissioner was set aside. The dispute related to the precise identity of a shop versus a balakhana forming part of a composite building. The core legal questions involved the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the Settlement Commissioner to examine findings of fact and whether the revisional order suffered from misreading of evidence or surmises. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Settlement Commissioner's revisional jurisdiction extended to examining the legality, correctness, and propriety of subordinate orders, and he was fully competent to correct errors in findings of fact, even if concurrent. The Court further held that the Settlement Commissioner's conclusions were based on a proper perusal of the record and did not amount to misreading or surmises. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the Settlement Commissioner's order was restored, laying down the principle that a revisional authority under the relevant settlement laws may reappraise evidence and correct concurrent factual findings when legally justified.
Questions settled- Whether a Settlement Commissioner in revisional jurisdiction can interfere with concurrent findings of fact reached by subordinate authorities?
- What is the extent and scope of the revisional jurisdiction of a Settlement Commissioner under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Does the inclusion of a disputed room as part of a transferred shop based on pre-1958 possession and user constitute a misreading of evidence?
- ABDUL Q A DIR vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and 2 others1984 MLD 310 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUL NABI vs THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND 2 OTHERS1984 CLC 2028 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MANNA N vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1615 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MALIK vs THE STATE AND 3 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 3049 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MALIK vs SAEED AHMAD1984 P Cr. L J 386 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 166 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1983-10-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., TOBA TEK SINGH1984 PLC 1102 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-11-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs MUHAMMAD ALI1984 CLC 929 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs Mst. JAMILA KHATOON1984 CLC 2025 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1584 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition against the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, directing the eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of personal bona fide requirement under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether the landlord established his requirement in good faith, particularly given allegations that other shops were vacated and re-rented or acquired for another son. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's good faith, based on the record, were unexceptionable and that no interference was warranted in constitutional jurisdiction over questions of fact. The court laid down the principle that concurrent factual findings on personal bona fide requirement in rent matters will not be disturbed where the tenant fails to substantiate claims of mala fides with proper evidence and merely attempts to fill gaps in the record.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent factual findings regarding personal bona fide requirement of a landlord can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does the vacation of another shop for the use of a landlord's son disprove the good faith of a separate ejectment application?
- Can a party be permitted to lead additional evidence at the appellate stage merely to fill a lacuna in the trial evidence?
- ABDUL MAJID vs BOARD OF DIRECTORS, KHYBER VEGETABLE GHEE MILLS1984 CLC 2392 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs .THE STATE1984 SCMR 166 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1983-10-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID KHAN vs FAZALURREHMAN and another1984 CLC 2938 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJEED vs Syed NAZIMUDDIN1984 CLC 2691 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJEED vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUI-NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD.1984 PLC 1115 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJEED vs IBRAHIM1984 CLC 1596 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJEED vs GHULAM HAIDER and others1984 MLD 1555 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND 4 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 588 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-12-27Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF JUSAB vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EAST), KARACHI1984 PTD 280 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQUE vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1984 MLD 830 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQ vs THE STATE AND OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 3123 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1006 · Sindh High Court · 1983-07-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM vs Syed USMAN QURESHI and 3 others1984 MLD 1122 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR1984 CLC 1964 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM vs HASHMAT ALI AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 62 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed two constitutional petitions regarding a settlement dispute involving displaced persons and evacuee property. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Commissioner, in passing an order on 20-5-1970, had adhered to the specific conditions and directions stipulated by the High Court in a previous order of remand issued by a Letters Patent Bench in L.P.A. No. 950 of 1966. The Supreme Court examined the proceedings and concurred with the High Court's finding that the Settlement Commissioner had failed to comply with the mandatory conditions set forth in the remand order. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly exercised its constitutional jurisdiction to set aside the Settlement Commissioner's order. The Court affirmed that administrative or quasi-judicial authorities are bound to strictly follow the directions issued by a superior court in a remand order, and failure to do so renders the subsequent decision liable to be set aside through constitutional review.
Questions settled- Is a Settlement Commissioner bound to strictly comply with the conditions laid down by a High Court in an order of remand?
- Can a High Court set aside an order of a Settlement Commissioner in its constitutional jurisdiction if the Commissioner fails to follow a remand order?
- ABDUL KARIM KURESHI (REPRESENTED BY HEIRS) vs ABDUL KHALIQ1984 CLC 259 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM JAFFARANI vs UNITED BANK LTD AND 2 OTHERS1984 SCMR 568 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a summary suit filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the respondent bank for the recovery of outstanding dues based on a promissory note. The High Court of Sind had granted the petitioner conditional leave to defend the suit, subject to furnishing security equal to the entire claim amount. The petitioner challenged the imposition of this condition, arguing that the promissory note was an inchoate instrument filled in with an inflated amount after a great lapse of time, and that the underlying debts were time-barred. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that while the trial court has discretion to impose conditions under Order XXXVII Rule 3, such discretion must be exercised on judicial principles. The Court held that when a defendant raises a plausible, triable defence that is not illusory, imposing a condition of security for the entire claim may render the leave to defend illusory. The Court modified the condition, reducing the security to the amount of transactions occurring within the limitation period.
Questions settled- What are the judicial principles governing the exercise of discretion to grant conditional versus unconditional leave to defend in a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the admission of a signature on a blank document amount to an admission of 'execution' of a promissory note under the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881?
- Can a court impose a condition of full security for leave to defend when the plaintiff relies on a promissory note to enforce a time-barred debt under Section 25 of the Contract Act 1872?
- ABDUL JABBAR vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 3191 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JABBAR SIDDIQUI vs Government of Sind through Secretary.1984 CLC 2860 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDUL JABBAR KHAN vs The DIRECTOR, P.C.S.I.R. LABORATORIES, PESHAWAR1984SCMR 213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition seeking parity in promotion with respondents Nos. 4 to 12. The petitioner and the said respondents, employees of P.C.S.I.R. Laboratories, Peshawar, were promoted to Grade 17, but the respondents received additional benefits based on a policy decision granting Class I status and advance increments to officers holding a second-division M.Sc. degree. The petitioner, who possessed a third-division M.Sc. degree, was promoted separately as a special case based on experience and publications, and subsequently claimed discrimination. The core legal questions concerned whether the petitioner had a vested right to promotion and whether a case of discrimination was established. The Supreme Court held that promotion is a matter within the exclusive discretion of the competent authority without any vested right, and that the petitioner, having different qualifications and being promoted on a separate basis, failed to establish any discrimination. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a government employee have a vested right to promotion?
- Whether promotion falls within the exclusive discretion and judgment of the competent authority?
- Does differential treatment based on qualification policy constitute unlawful discrimination?
- ABDUL JABBAR KHAN vs PAKISTAN THROUGH COUNCIL OF ISLAMIC IDEOLOGY1984 PLC (C. S.) 435 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-01-19Read full judgment →