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.
- ZEBA TEXTILE MILLS vs GHULAM HAIDER AND 4 OTHERS1983 PLC 1095 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-02Read full judgment →
- Zawwar Hussain, Member AZMATULLAH KHAWAJA vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COMMUNICATIONS1983 PLC (C. S.) 425 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-03-01Read full judgment →
- ZARIF KHAN AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1983 PLD Peshawar 58 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of a regular second appeal and a civil revision petition involving common questions of law and fact regarding whether first mortgagees had acquired ownership of suit lands by prescription under Article 148 of the Limitation Act 1908. The appellants/defendants contended that the creation of various sub-mortgages by the first mortgagees within the sixty-year limitation period constituted acknowledgments of the original mortgages under Section 19 of the Limitation Act 1908, thereby resetting the limitation period and rendering the suits premature. The High Court observed that for an acknowledgment to be valid under Section 19, it must be in writing and signed by the party making it. Since the sub-mortgages were oral transactions recorded via revenue mutations, which do not bear the signatures of the parties, they failed to meet the mandatory statutory requirements. Furthermore, the court ruled that sub-mortgagees have no privity of contract with the original mortgagors, and the creation of a sub-mortgage does not terminate the original mortgage. Consequently, the court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, declaring the mortgagees owners by prescription, and dismissed both matters.
Questions settled- Does the creation of an oral sub-mortgage recorded via a revenue mutation constitute a valid acknowledgment of the original mortgage under Section 19 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Is a signature or writing mandatory for an acknowledgment to extend the limitation period under Section 19 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Does a sub-mortgagee have privity of contract or estate with the original mortgagor?
- Can a purchaser of the equity of redemption challenge the validity of the original mortgage created by their vendor?
- ZAREENA BIBI vs ZAHOOR AHMAD1983 CLC 2798 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-14Read full judgment →
- ZAMIR-UL-HAQUE vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 245 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-09-25Read full judgment →
- ZAMAN vs THE STATE1983 PLD Supreme Court 191 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the appellant's criminal revision against his conviction for possessing large quantities of vegetable ghee and sugar in contravention of provincial foodstuffs control laws. The core legal question was whether a merchant storing a large quantity of vegetable ghee in his godown without a distribution system in force constituted illegal hoarding or violated the relevant distribution orders. The Supreme Court held that the mere possession of a large stock of vegetable ghee by a merchant, without proof that he refused to sell to customers or withheld goods from the market, does not constitute hoarding or an offence under the law. The Court laid down the principle that to establish hoarding by a merchant, it must be proved either that the merchant was not offering the goods for sale or that he refused to sell to a customer on the plea of no stock.
Questions settled- Does the mere possession of a large quantity of vegetable ghee by a merchant constitute hoarding under the West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958?
- What must be proved to establish that a merchant or shopkeeper is hoarding a controlled foodstuff?
- Does storing goods in a godown to replenish shop supplies amount to an infraction of the N.-W. F. P. Vegetable Ghee (Distribution) Order, 1971 when no formal distribution system is in force?
- ZAKIR HUSSAIN SYED vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN,1983 PLC (C. S.) 119 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-10-31Read full judgment →
- ZAKAWAT ALI SHIGHRI AND ANOTHER vs SHAH DIN AND 6 OTHERS1983 CLC 1259 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-13Read full judgment →
- ZAIBTUN TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS1983 PLD Supreme Court 358 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals by textile mill owners challenging the levy of excise duty on production capacity under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The core legal question was whether the legislature, by empowering the Central Board of Revenue to determine production capacity and levy duty, had unconstitutionally abdicated its essential legislative functions or engaged in excessive delegation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the legislation was valid. The Court affirmed that while essential legislative functions cannot be delegated, the legislature may delegate regulatory and administrative tasks to expert bodies, especially when technical details are involved. The Court rejected the argument that the legislature had effaced itself, noting that the legislature retained ultimate control. Furthermore, the Court held that the rules of natural justice were not violated, as the statutory review mechanism provided an adequate opportunity for affected parties to be heard. The judgment reinforces the principle that the doctrine of separation of powers in Pakistan is functional rather than rigid, allowing for necessary delegation to administrative agencies to implement legislative policy effectively.
Questions settled- Does the delegation of power to a subordinate authority to determine production capacity for tax purposes constitute an unconstitutional abdication of legislative function?
- Can a lack of hearing at the initial stage of an administrative tax determination be cured by a subsequent hearing before a review board?
- Is the doctrine of separation of powers in the Pakistani constitutional system so rigid as to prohibit all delegation of legislative power to the executive?
- Does the simultaneous notification of guiding principles and production capacity violate the requirements of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944?
- ZAHUR ELAHI vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR AND OTHERS1983 P Cr. LJ 2013 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →
- ZAHUR AHMED AND OTHERS vs Asst. KHURSHID BIBI AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1238 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-22Read full judgment →
- ZAHOOR HUSSAIN vs CHAIRMAN, EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 1829 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-20Read full judgment →
- ZAHOOR Alias ZAHOOR HUSSAIN AND 9 Others vs TILE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 992 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- ZAHOOR AHMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2168 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-26Read full judgment →
- ZAHOOR AHMAD AND 2 Other vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, EDUCATION1983 PLC (C. S.) 1279 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1983-07-25Read full judgment →
- ZAHID HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 420 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-13Read full judgment →
- ZAHID ALI vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2153 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-31Read full judgment →
- ZAHEER-UL-HASAN SAJAD vs COLONY TEXTILE MILLS LTD.1983 PLC 577 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
- ZAHEER vs THE STATE1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 188 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- ZAHEER AHMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2600 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-01Read full judgment →
- ZAHEER AHMAD AND Another vs ABDUL AZIZ AND Othsrss1983 SCMR 559 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, defendants in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a house, challenged the dismissal of their Regular First Appeal by the High Court. The trial and appellate courts concurrently found that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, whereas the defendants defaulted by refusing communications. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that time was of the essence of the contract and that a scored-out clause in a subsequent agreement indicated an intention to bar specific performance. The Supreme Court held that a party who prevents the completion of a transaction cannot plead that time is of the essence. Furthermore, the Court held that the legal effect of a scored-out portion of a document must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and cannot be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court without being raised in the courts below. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a party who prevents the completion of a transaction plead that time was of the essence of the contract?
- Whether the legal effect of a scored-out portion of an agreement can be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court without being pleaded in the written statement?
- Does the right to get a sale-deed registered survive for a reasonable time beyond the period specified in the agreement when time is not strictly of the essence?
- ZAHEER AHMAD AND 6 OTHERS vs ALLAH DITTA AND 15 OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 256 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged the dismissal of an application under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which sought the rejection of a plaint alleging fraud and forgery in consolidation proceedings. The core legal question was whether Section 26 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960, which bars civil court jurisdiction over matters determinable by consolidation authorities, precludes a civil suit alleging that a decision was procured through fraud and misrepresentation. The High Court held that civil courts possess plenary jurisdiction to examine whether a decision of a special tribunal was obtained by fraud or mala fides. The Court reasoned that fraud vitiates all proceedings, rendering an order a nullity, and that statutory bars on jurisdiction do not protect orders procured through fraud or acts where the statute is used as a cloak for mala fide conduct. Consequently, the Court affirmed that allegations of fraud in consolidation proceedings are justiciable by civil courts, and the revision petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does Section 26 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960 bar a civil suit alleging that a consolidation order was obtained through fraud?
- Can a civil court examine the validity of an order passed by a special tribunal if it is alleged to be a nullity due to fraud?
- Is a revision petition before the High Court competent against an order of a Civil Judge dismissing an application under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the jurisdiction of a civil court extend to declaring an act mala fide even when the statute provides for the finality of orders?
- ZAFFAR ABBAS vs The STATE1983 SCMR 780 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from a criminal petition seeking leave to appeal against the refusal of bail by the High Court in a case registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in a murder case when the ballistic evidence contradicts the prosecution's allegation of firing the fatal shot and the accused has remained incarcerated for a significant period. The Supreme Court converted the petition into a criminal appeal and held that the appellant was entitled to the concession of bail in view of the forensic discrepancy regarding the crime empty and the duration of custody. The key principle laid down is that where ballistic evidence fails to corroborate the firearm recovery attributed to the specific accused facing a murder charge, and the accused has suffered prolonged pre-trial detention, a case for further inquiry is made out under criminal jurisprudence.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to bail when the crime empty recovered from the spot does not match the gun recovered from him?
- Does prolonged incarceration for sixteen months constitute a ground for granting bail in a capital charge?
- Can a criminal petition for leave to appeal be converted into a criminal appeal by the Supreme Court?
- ZAFARULLAH vs MOBASHIR AHMED AND ANOTHER1983 P Cr. L J 1480 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-11Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR SAEED vs SHARFUL HAQ QURESHI AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 2625 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-11Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR IQBAL vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1949 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-02Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2211 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-08Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR ALI SOOMRO AND 3 OTHERS vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1983 CLC 731 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
- ZABAR DIN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (SIND) AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 3002 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-10Read full judgment →
- YUSUF vs ZUBEDA AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 489 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-21Read full judgment →
- YOUSUF vs FAZAL KARIM1983 CLC 2219 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns applications for the readmission and restoration of two First Rent Appeals that were dismissed for non-prosecution under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether Article 168 of the Limitation Act, 1908, prescribing a thirty-day limitation period for applying for the readmission of an appeal dismissed for want of prosecution, applies to applications seeking restoration of appeals filed under the special provisions of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The High Court held that since the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance is a special and local law providing a period of limitation different from the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908, only specific provisions mentioned in Section 29(2)(a) apply, making Article 168 inapplicable. Consequently, such restoration applications are governed by the residuary limitation period of three years under Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The key principle laid down is that where a special law prescribes a different period of limitation, exclusionary rules under Section 29 of the Limitation Act apply, leaving applications not specifically provided for to be governed by the residuary Article 181.
Questions settled- Does Article 168 of the Limitation Act, 1908 apply to an application for the restoration of an appeal dismissed for default under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Which article of the Limitation Act, 1908 governs an application for the readmission of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution under a special law when no specific article applies?
- Do the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908 apply exclusively to proceedings before a regular court or do they also extend to tribunals and special forums?
- YOUSUF RAZA AND Another vs The STATE1983 SCMR 1220 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This jail appeal arises from the conviction and sentence of the appellants, Yousaf Raza and Asif Raza, for murder and murderous assault. The prosecution case alleged that during a altercation involving the appellants' family, Yousaf Raza fired a double-barrel gun and Asif Raza fired a pistol, resulting in the death of Abdur Rashid and injuries to Rehmatullah. The trial court convicted the appellants under sections 304 Part-II, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which conviction and modified sentences were largely maintained by the High Court of Sind. Upon leave to appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the appellants acted in the right of private defence while attempting to rescue a family member from a mob attack. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution's upgraded version regarding the use of stones was an afterthought and that the injuries sustained by the family member were extremely minor. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. The key principle laid down is that minor injuries and improved allegations regarding a mob attack cannot substantiate a plea of private defence against a deadly assault.
Questions settled- Whether minor injuries sustained by an accused can justify a plea of right of private defence against a deadly assault?
- Can an improved version regarding the nature of a mob attack introduced later during the trial be accepted to alter the foundation of the prosecution case?
- Whether the conviction under section 304 Part-II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is sustainable when the evidence disproves the existence of a grave and sudden provocation or valid private defence?
- YASIN AND Others vs Mst. HUSSAIN BIBI (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) AND Other1983 SCMR 1250 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-10Read full judgment →
- YARA AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 8 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
- YAR MUHAMMAD KHAN vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION1983 SCMR 813 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition challenging an order of the Chairman, Federal Land Commission, which declared certain land transactions of the appellant void under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The core legal questions involved the competence of the Chairman sitting singly to exercise revisional powers and the legality of declaring long-settled land transactions void without properly examining statutory criteria of bona fides. The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, holding that declaring an exchange transaction fictitious merely on the grounds of unequal produce index units was insufficient without considering the statutory factors outlined in Explanation III to paragraph 7 of the Regulation. The Court set aside the impugned orders to the extent of the exchange transaction and remanded the matter to the Federal Land Commission for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Whether the Chairman of the Federal Land Commission sitting singly is competent to exercise revisional powers under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
- Can an exchange of land under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 be declared void solely on the ground that the produce index units of the exchanged lands are unequal?
- What factors must be considered by the Land Commission while determining the bona fides of a land transaction under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
- YAQUB SHAH vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (PUNJAB) AND Other1983 SCMR 230 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of a suit regarding the transfer of a property. The petitioner claimed to have filed a KNCH form in 1959 for the transfer of a house in Rawalpindi but took no action for fourteen years until the property was disposed of via public auction in 1973. Subsequent challenges, including an appeal and a constitutional petition, were unsuccessful. The petitioner argued that because the prior constitutional petition was dismissed in limine solely on the grounds of laches, a subsequent civil suit was not barred. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's conduct, specifically the inordinate delay in pursuing his claim, disentitled him to any equitable relief. Consequently, the Court found the case unfit for the grant of leave to appeal and dismissed the petition. The judgment reinforces the principle that a litigant's conduct, particularly unreasonable delay and inaction, serves as a valid ground for denying judicial relief, regardless of the procedural history of prior litigation.
Questions settled- Does the dismissal of a constitutional petition on the ground of laches bar a subsequent civil suit regarding the same subject matter?
- Can a petitioner who delays action for fourteen years regarding a property transfer claim relief against a public auction?
- Does the conduct of a petitioner, specifically inordinate delay, disentitle them to relief in a petition for leave to appeal?
- YAQUB AND 13 OTHERS vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, WEST1983 CLC 2524 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-08Read full judgment →
- YAQOOB vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2276 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-03Read full judgment →
- YAQOOB vs Mst. HASSO AND OTHEIRS1983 CLC 580 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-05Read full judgment →
- YAQOOB ALI vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 1671 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
- YAHYA BAKHTIAR vs The STATE1983 SCMR 568 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a conviction for electoral misconduct. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution successfully established that the appellant was responsible for large-scale rigging in the constituency in question, either directly or through agents, as required under the relevant legal framework. The Supreme Court held that while the evidence demonstrated that rigging had indeed occurred on a large scale within the constituency, the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant was personally responsible for such acts, either directly or through any other person, within the meaning of the applicable law. Consequently, the Court set aside the judgment of the Special Court dated 31-3-1981 and acquitted the appellant, discharging his bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that a conviction for electoral misconduct under the Holders of Representative Offices (Punishment for Misconduct) Order, 1977, requires specific proof of the accused's direct or vicarious involvement in the alleged rigging, and mere proof of rigging in a constituency is insufficient to sustain a conviction against a specific candidate without connecting them to the act.
Questions settled- Does proof of large-scale rigging in a constituency automatically establish the criminal liability of a candidate under the Holders of Representative Offices (Punishment for Misconduct) Order, 1977?
- What is the standard of proof required to connect a candidate to electoral rigging under the Holders of Representative Offices (Punishment for Misconduct) Order, 1977?
- YACOOB AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 1111 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-15Read full judgment →
- WORKERS UNION vs HUSSAIN SUGAR MILLS, JARANWALA1983 PLC 289 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
- WEST PAKISTAN TANK TERMINALS LTD. vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL1983 PLC 65 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-24Read full judgment →
- WEST PAKISTAN SOCIETY FOR THE REHABILITATION OF THE DISABLED vs BADAR1983 PLC 388 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- WAZIR KHAN vs The STATE1983 SCMR 427 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the Lahore High Court's dismissal of a bail application filed by the petitioner, who was accused of offences under Sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner had been detained for over two years and nine months without the trial commencing, primarily because his co-accused brother, a military officer, had not been apprehended due to the military authorities' refusal to surrender custody. The High Court had denied bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, attributing the delay to the abscondence of the petitioner's brother as a person acting on his behalf. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the delay was neither attributable to the petitioner nor to anyone acting on his behalf, as the non-apprehension was due to the military's refusal to surrender custody. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail to the petitioner.
Questions settled- Can the abscondence of a co-accused brother be deemed an act of a person acting on behalf of the accused to deny statutory bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether an accused is entitled to statutory bail when the delay in trial is caused by the state's inability to apprehend a co-accused due to jurisdictional or administrative hurdles?
- WATER. AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Miss AKHTAR ROSELINE AND ANOTHER1983 PLC 895 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-21Read full judgment →
- WASEEM HASSAN vs The STATE1983 SCMR 901 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the conviction and sentencing of the petitioner under Section 7 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 for committing Zina-bil-jabr. The trial court convicted the petitioner and his co-accused, while acquitting another co-accused. On appeal, the Federal Shariat Court acquitted the co-accused due to his age and lack of maturity, but upheld the conviction of the petitioner based on the consistent testimony of the prosecutrix and corroborating medical evidence. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the appreciation of evidence by the Federal Shariat Court regarding the petitioner's guilt warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully established its case beyond doubt through reliable ocular and medical evidence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of a prosecutrix in a Zina-bil-jabr case requires corroboration when supported by medical evidence?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts when the guilt is established beyond doubt?
- Whether a juvenile co-accused lacking sexual maturity can be acquitted while maintaining the conviction of another minor accused found physically fit?
- WAQF MUHAMMAD MEHAR ELLAHI vs ABDUL RAZZAK LTD.1983 CLC 3285 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil second appeal arises from an ejectment matter filed by the landlord against the tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment and damage to the leased godown. The Rent Controller allowed the application and ordered ejectment, but the First Appellate Court reversed the decision, holding that the tenant was not a willful defaulter because rent was sometimes paid in lump sum and the landlord's collector failed to collect it. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the tenant had committed a default in the payment of rent and whether the First Appellate Court misread the evidence. The High Court held that the tenant is under both a contractual and a statutory obligation to pay rent monthly, and the landlord is not required to find the tenant to collect rent. The Court ruled that subsequent tenders by cheque or deposits in court after the default period cannot wipe off an already committed default, and the First Appellate Court's finding was based on a misreading of evidence. The appeal was allowed and the Rent Controller's order restored.
Questions settled- Does an ordinance imposing a duty to pay rent require the landlord to find the tenant and collect rent?
- Can a deposit of rent in court made after the expiry of the due date wipe off an already committed default?
- Is a finding of fact by the First Appellate Court liable to be set aside in second appeal if it is based on a misreading of evidence?
- WAPDA vs SIRAJ DIN AND ANOTHER1983 PLC 570 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs SAEED AHMAD1983 PLC 1274 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-01Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs RASHID AHMAD KHAN1983 PLC 1071 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs RAMZAN MUHAMMAD AHD 3 OTHERS1983 PLC 1035 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-18Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs MUHAMMAD ZAHEER1983 PLC 963 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-08Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs MUHAMMAD YASIN1983 PLC 867 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-28Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL1983 PLC 598 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-09-14Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs MUHAMMAD DIN1983 PLC 600 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-10-30Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM1983 PLC 1081 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-11Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs AMANATULLAH KHAN1983 PLC 111 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
- WAPDA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS KHANZADA1983 CLC 1792 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-22Read full judgment →
- WAPDA AND 3 OTHERS vs ABAIDUR REHMAN AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 1066 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-07Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD vs ZAINAB KHATOON1983 CLC 321 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-13Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD vs PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, ISLAMABAD AND 5 OTHERS1983 CLC 3192 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS vs CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE1983 CLC 2023 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-14Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs Malik MANZOOR AHMAD AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 3140 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-24Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs Mst. HAMIDA BAI1983 SCMR 191 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against a High Court judgment upholding the eviction of tenants from residential premises. The landlord initially filed ejectment applications under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, but passed away during proceedings. His widow subsequently issued notices under Section 14(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, seeking summary eviction. The tenants challenged the validity of these notices, arguing they failed to meet the prescribed two-month notice period. The Supreme Court addressed whether the failure to comply with the statutory notice period rendered the eviction order invalid. The Court held that while the notice period is a statutory requirement for the tenant's benefit, the tenants' failure to raise this technical objection before the Rent Controller, coupled with the significant passage of time before the eviction order, precluded them from challenging the notice's validity. The Court affirmed that such technical objections cannot be raised to defeat the spirit of summary relief provisions when no prejudice is demonstrated, upholding the High Court's decision to dismiss the appeals.
Questions settled- Can a tenant challenge the validity of a notice under Section 14(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 for the first time in appeal?
- Does the failure to comply with the statutory notice period under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 automatically invalidate an eviction order if no prejudice is shown?
- Is a technical objection regarding the notice period sustainable when the tenant has allowed the proceedings to continue for a significant duration without raising the issue?
- WALI MUHAHMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-01Read full judgment →
- WAJID ALI AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 183 · Lahore High Court · 1965-02-23Read full judgment →
- WAJAHAT HUSSAIN vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 1238 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-25Read full judgment →
- WAJAHAT HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE AND 2 OTHERS1983 P Cr. L J 1180 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-25Read full judgment →
- WAJAHAT HUSSAIN AND 7 Other vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY, ZAKAT &1983 PLC (C. S.) 760 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-06-14Read full judgment →
- WAHID SHAH vs HAIDER MIRZA1983 PLD Karachi 628 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This First Rent Appeal challenged an order passed by the Rent Controller allowing an application under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, for the eviction of a tenant based on the landlord's personal requirement as a person over 60 years of age. The core legal questions were whether the pendency of a prior ejectment case under Section 15 barred a Section 14 application, whether the renewal of a tenancy agreement constituted a new tenancy for eligibility purposes, and whether strict compliance with the notice period was required. The Court held that Section 14 provides a distinct, summary cause of action separate from Section 15, and the pendency of the latter does not bar the former. It further held that the tenancy commenced in 1968, prior to the landlord reaching 60, making him eligible. Finally, the Court ruled that substantial compliance with the notice period is sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements, provided the ejectment order is passed after the expiry of the mandatory period. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the pendency of a rent application under Section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 bar a landlord from filing a separate application under Section 14 of the same Ordinance?
- Does the renewal of a tenancy agreement constitute a new tenancy for the purpose of determining if a landlord was over 60 years of age at the time of renting?
- Is strict compliance with the two-month notice period under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 required, or is substantial compliance sufficient?
- WAHID BAKHSH vs PROFESSOR OF PATHOLOGY, QUAID-I-AZAM MEDICAL1983 PLC (C. S.) 264 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-09-18Read full judgment →
- WAHEED TEXTITE MILLS vs MALANG1983PLC 152 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-27Read full judgment →
- WAHEED TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs UBAIDULLAH1983 PLC 731 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-06Read full judgment →
- W. D. WAHIDY AND 2 OTHERS vs Mst. AMINA BI1983 CLC 497 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-13Read full judgment →
- VIQAR HAIDER vs KANEEZ FATIMA AND OTHERS1983 CLC 91 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-22Read full judgment →
- VIQAR AHMED vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF1983 PLD Karachi 196 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
- UTMA vs PUNJAB LOCAL COUNCILS ELECTION AUTHORITY1983 CLC 2479 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-20Read full judgment →
- UTILITY STORES CORPORATION, SARGODHA AND 2 Other vs ZAFAR MAJID1983 PLC 1079 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-11Read full judgment →
- USMAN GHANI vs MESSRS MECHANIZED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN LTD.1983 PLC 692 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-09-04Read full judgment →
- USMAN AHMAD ANSARI vs MESSRS UNION STEEL MILLS1983 CLC 2686 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-08Read full judgment →
- UNITED TEXTILE MILLS LTD., FAISALABAD vs THE PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT1983 SCMR 397 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from proceedings initiated by the Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation against the petitioner-Company for its winding up due to the company's inability to meet its financial liabilities. The High Court, through a Single Judge and subsequently a Division Bench in an Intra-Court Appeal, ordered the winding up and the appointment of a liquidator. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that a secured creditor could not initiate winding-up proceedings without first surrendering its security. The Supreme Court examined the record and the impugned judgment to determine whether this legal point had been raised before the High Court. The Court held that the petitioner had failed to raise this specific contention before the Division Bench of the High Court. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner could not be permitted to introduce a new legal argument at the appellate stage that was not presented in the lower court. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed on the basis that the issue was not agitated below.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner raise a legal contention in the Supreme Court that was not argued before the High Court?
- Is a secured creditor required to surrender its security before initiating winding-up proceedings under the Companies Act?
- UNITED CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1983 CLC 2544 (1) · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-12Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LTD., SUKKUR vs ABDUL WAHAB KAZI AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLC 237 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-08-09Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LTD. vs SAJJAD HAIDER1983 PLC 882 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-22Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LTD. vs IQBAL RAZA1983 PLC 345 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LTD. vs AIJAZ AMIN1983 CLC 530 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal under section 15(4) of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 arises out of an ejectment proceeding where the tenant's defence was struck off for alleged non-compliance with a tentative rent order passed under section 13(6) of the Ordinance, leading to an order of eviction sustained by the first appellate court. The core legal questions involved whether the second appeal was maintainable under the repealed law, whether the Rent Controller properly determined the arrears of rent approximately as mandated by law, and whether direct acceptance of rent by the landlord constituted a waiver of the deposit order. The Sindh High Court held that the right of second appeal is a vested right preserved upon the initiation of proceedings under the repealed law, and that a tentative rent order failing to specify exact calculations or leaving determination to the tenant is defective. Furthermore, issues of waiver through direct acceptance of rent require evidence and a proper hearing. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller. The key principles established include the preservation of vested rights of appeal and the mandatory requirement for the Rent Controller to precisely determine approximate arrears in tentative rent orders.
Questions settled- Whether the right of second appeal under the repealed Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is preserved when proceedings were initiated prior to the promulgation of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Does a tentative rent order that leaves the calculation or verification of arrears to the parties or the tenant comply with the mandatory requirements of section 13(6) of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Whether the direct acceptance of rent by a landlord outside the court at a higher rate can constitute a waiver of a tentative rent order requiring deposits to be made in court?
- Is the Rent Controller required to finally determine the rent due even after ordering eviction by striking off the tenant's defence under section 13(6) of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- UNITED BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER vs ABDUL WAHAB KHAN1983 CLC 824 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LTD, vs JAMSHED SADIQ1983 PLC 554 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LTD vs NAZIM ALI1983 PLC 579 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
- UMRAO ALI AND OTHERS vs NOOR ELAHI AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1528 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-16Read full judgment →
- UMRA AND 8 Others vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER1983 SCMR 67 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether an allottee could claim re-allotment of land resumed from him as excess and allotted to an informer, on the basis of subsequent accretion to his verified claim. The appellant had received land allotment which was later reduced upon an informer's complaint, and the excess land was resumed and allotted to the informer. Years later, the appellant sought re-allotment of this resumed land based on subsequent enhancements and inheritance of units. The Settlement Commissioner and High Court repelled the claim, holding that the accretions occurred after the valid resumption and allotment to the informer, and that the appellant had earlier acquiesced to the resumption. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that subsequent accretions to an allottee's claim cannot justify the retrospective reopening of a valid prior allotment made to an informer based on information supplied, where the excess land was resumed with the appellant's acquiescence. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an allottee can claim re-allotment of land previously resumed as excess on the basis of subsequent accretion to his verified claim?
- Can subsequent accretions to a claimant's entitlement justify the retrospective reopening of an allotment lawfully made to an informer?
- Does an allottee who acquiesces to the resumption of excess land retain a right to reclaim it upon a later increase in his claim units?
- UMER FARIN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 1 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- UMARHAYAT vs WAPDA AND ANOTHER1983 PLC 646 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-30Read full judgment →
- UMAR HAYAT vs The STATE1983 SCMR 877 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the Peshawar High Court's judgment affirming the petitioner's conviction and sentences under Section 302 and Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Haji Sarwar and the attempted murder of two prosecution witnesses. The petitioner sought to challenge the conviction on the basis of enmity and alleged discrepancies in the prosecution's case, specifically regarding the motive and the sequence of the firing. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, including the ocular testimony of three eyewitnesses and the recovery of the crime weapon, finding no merit in the challenge to the conviction. Regarding the sentence, the Court rejected the argument that the motive was unclear or that the circumstances warranted a reduction in the death sentence. The Court also noted that while the petitioner claimed a potential compromise had been reached between the parties, no such formal settlement was presented. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the conviction and sentences imposed by the lower courts.
Questions settled- Does a discrepancy in the motive stated in the F.I.R. versus the trial testimony automatically invalidate a conviction?
- Can a sentence of death be reduced solely on the basis of a claimed, but unverified, compromise between the parties?
- Is ocular testimony from closely related witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction when corroborated by recovery of the crime weapon?
- UMAR HAYAT vs SHATITAJ SUGAR MILLS LTD.1983 PLC 387 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-12-18Read full judgment →
- UMAR HAYAT KHAN NIAZI vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 383 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-11-07Read full judgment →
- UMAR HAYAT AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1983 PCr. LJ 2247 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-10Read full judgment →
- UMAR DIN vs MUHAMMAD BOOTA1983 CLC 156 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-19Read full judgment →