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.
- Syed NIAMAT ALI AND 4 OTHERS vs Dewan JA1RAM DASS AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Supreme Court 5 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 arose from a High Court judgment that allowed a defendant's counter-claim for possession of agricultural land. The appellants had entered into possession under sale and development agreements with the original owner, who later sued for possession but died during the pendency of the suit. That suit abated under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to the late impleadment of his legal representatives. Subsequently, the appellants filed a separate suit, in which the deceased's legal representatives filed a counter-claim for possession. The Supreme Court examined whether a counter-claim for possession is maintainable under Order VIII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or as an equitable set-off. The Court held that a counter-claim is distinct from a set-off, which is restricted to money claims. While a court may treat a counter-claim as a plaint in a cross-suit, it cannot do so if such a suit is otherwise barred. Because the original owner's suit for possession had abated, and dispossession is a complete injury rather than a continuing wrong under Section 23 of the Limitation Act 1908, a fresh suit was barred under Order XXII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's decree.
Questions settled- Can a defendant plead a counter-claim for possession of land as a legal or equitable set-off under Order VIII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Under what circumstances can a court treat a defendant's counter-claim as a plaint in a cross-suit?
- Does the abatement of a suit for possession of land bar a subsequent counter-claim or cross-suit for the same relief under Order XXII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does forcible dispossession or ouster constitute a continuing wrong under Section 23 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Syed NAZIR HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 182 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1973-08-15Read full judgment →
- Syed NAZIR ALI SHAH vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1472 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
- Syed NAZAR ABBAS vs COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION SARGODHA AND 30 OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 482 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-05Read full judgment →
- Syed MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs MIR ALAM AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 655 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-05-06Read full judgment →
- Syed MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN ROKHARI vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1983 PLC (C. S.) 1276 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed MUSHARRAF RAZA vs Syed ALAY RAZA1983 CLC 2068 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-29Read full judgment →
- Syed MUKHTAR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT1983 PLD Lahore 310 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-13Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD SALIM JAN, vs MESSRS HABIB BANK LTD.1983 PLC 250 · Labour Court · 1983-05-20Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD SAEED vs Malik FARMAN AND ANOTHER1983 P Cr. L J 1338 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-21Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD RAFIQ SHAH vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FAISALABAD AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C.S.) 157 · Service Tribunal · 1981-04-29Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD KHURSHID ABBAS GARDEZI AND OTHERS vs MULTAN1983 PLD Supreme Court 151 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenges an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing an Intra-Court Appeal regarding land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Multan Development Authority. The petitioners contended that the acquisition was illegal because the Government failed to issue a specific notification under Section 1(3) of the Punjab Development of Cities Act, 1976, applying the Act to the City of Multan before declaring it a city or establishing an authority under Sections 3 and 4. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that a notification under Section 3(1) declaring an area a city inherently manifests the Government's intention to extend the Act to that area, as the Act cannot be applied to a city that has not yet been legally constituted. The Court emphasized that when reviewing actions by public authorities, courts must explore every possible avenue for validity before striking down an order. While acknowledging the petitioners' grievance regarding the harsh compensation limits under the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973, the Court found no legal error in the proceedings and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Does a notification declaring an area a city under Section 3(1) of the Punjab Development of Cities Act, 1976, satisfy the requirement of applying the Act to that city?
- Is it a duty of the courts to explore every possible avenue for the validity of an order passed by a public authority before striking it down?
- Can land acquisition proceedings be challenged on the ground that a separate notification applying the Act to the city was not issued under Section 1(3) of the Punjab Development of Cities Act, 1976?
- Syed MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) vs DEPUTY1983 CLC 908 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-23Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SHAH vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS1983 PLC 372 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-12-18Read full judgment →
- Syed MOWAHED HUSSAIN vs Syed KARAM ALI SHAH1983 SCMR 1015 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's Letters Patent Appeal regarding the transfer of a disputed property. The petitioner, an Assistant Land Reclamation Officer, occupied House No. 62 in Khanewal and sought its transfer by filing a C.H. Form in April 1960. The property, however, was categorized as 'C' and disposed of through a lottery system to the respondent. The petitioner challenged this disposal, arguing that he was in possession and had applied for transfer prior to the lottery, and that the Settlement Authorities failed to follow mandatory procedures under Settlement Scheme V, specifically regarding the publication of lists and the opportunity to file objections. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner raised substantial questions of law concerning the interpretation of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and the procedural compliance of the Settlement Department. Finding that these issues required deeper examination, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the disposal of the property violated the statutory scheme and the rights of the claimant.
Questions settled- Whether a property categorized for disposal through lots can be transferred to a claimant who filed a C.H. Form prior to the lottery?
- Are Settlement Authorities required to publish lists of properties under Settlement Scheme V and provide a mandatory period for filing objections?
- Does the disposal of a property under paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, require compliance with preceding paragraphs?
- Syed MOHIUDDIN vs M. N. MANGRIO AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 491 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-09Read full judgment →
- Syed MAZHAR IQBAL vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 834 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-15Read full judgment →
- Syed MASOOD HUSSAIN ZAHIDI vs AZIZ AHMAD1983 SCMR 1059 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-16Read full judgment →
- Syed MAQSOODUL HASSAN vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MIANWALI1983 CLC 2140 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-25Read full judgment →
- Syed MANZOOR HUSSAIN SHAH vs Syed AGHA HUSSAIN NAQVI AND ANOTHER1983SCMR775 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- Syed MAHMUD HUSSAIN vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 858 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-21Read full judgment →
- Syed MAHFOOZ ALI vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND 75 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 705 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1983-03-20Read full judgment →
- Syed KHALID MASOOD alias' KHASHNOOD. ALAM AND ANOTHER vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (INDUSTRIES) LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 495 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-30Read full judgment →
- Syed KHADIM HUSSAIN AND 2 Others vs COMMISSIONER OF KARACHI AND ANOTHER1983 P Cr. L J 838 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-04Read full judgment →
- Syed KAZIM HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD1983 CLC 2475 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-25Read full judgment →
- Syed KABIR HUSSAIN SHAH H AND Other vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INFORMATION PUNJAB, SERYICES,1983 PLC (C. S.) 1231 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed JAVED RAZA vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 453 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
- Syed JAFFAR HUSSAIN vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1983 SCMR 518 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal concerning his retirement from police service as an Assistant Sub-Inspector. The core legal question involved the lawfulness of the retirement order passed under Section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, upon the recommendation of an Advisory Committee, alongside contentions of being condemned unheard. The Supreme Court held that the petition was barred by time by twenty-one days, with no sufficient cause shown for the condonation of delay, and noted that the petitioner had improperly pursued a writ petition in the High Court instead of diligently prosecuting his remedy before the Service Tribunal. The key principle laid down is that petitions filed with unexplained delay and a lack of diligent prosecution before the appropriate forums are liable to be dismissed as time-barred.
Questions settled- Whether a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court can be dismissed when it is barred by time without sufficient explanation for the delay?
- Does an order of retirement passed under Section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 warrant interference when the aggrieved party fails to prosecute the matter diligently before the appropriate service tribunal?
- Syed ISRAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, LAHORE1983 CLC 26 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
- Syed ISRAR ALAM vs S. M. HUSSAIN1983 CLC 468 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed by a landlord seeking the ejectment of a tenant from the upper storey of a house in North Nazimabad, Karachi, on the ground of personal need under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance after the landlord's retirement from police service. During the pendency of the proceedings, the landlord obtained possession of the ground floor of the same building. The primary legal question was whether a landlord's personal need is to be assessed as of the date of filing the application or the date of the final order, and whether the concept of bona fides is implicit in the requirement of 'need' under the Ordinance. The Sindh High Court held that relief must be granted in accordance with the circumstances prevailing on the date of the final order rather than the date of institution, and that the term 'need' inherently encompasses the concept of bona fides and judicial scrutiny to prevent unreasonable demands or a mere desire for luxury. The court concluded that the landlord already possessed sufficient accommodation and that subsection (2) of section 14 further barred relief because the landlord was already in occupation of another building owned by him. The appeal was accordingly dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether the personal need of a landlord for ejectment is to be determined with reference to the date of filing the application or the date of passing the final order?
- Does the term 'need' under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance envelop the concept of bona fides and mala fides?
- Does subsection (2) of section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance bar relief to a landlord who is already in occupation of a building owned by him?
- Syed INTESAR ALI vs AHMED DIN KHAN AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 998 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged three interim orders passed by a Rent Controller in a pending rent case, which had effectively closed the petitioner's side for failing to cross-examine witnesses and produce evidence. The core legal question was whether interlocutory orders passed by a Rent Controller, which are not appealable under the governing statute, can be challenged through the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that such interim orders cannot be challenged via a writ petition. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court reasoned that the legislature intended for such matters to be resolved through the normal remedial process, specifically the right of appeal against the final order. Allowing constitutional challenges to interlocutory orders would defeat the legislative intent and encourage piecemeal litigation. The Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction is reserved for cases where no adequate or efficacious legal remedy exists; since the petitioner retains the right to challenge these interim findings in an appeal against the final order, the petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Can interlocutory orders passed by a Rent Controller be challenged through a constitutional petition?
- Is a writ petition maintainable against an order that does not cause imminent or tangible damage to a party's rights?
- Does the availability of a future right of appeal against a final order preclude the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction against interim orders?
- Syed IFTIKHAR HUSSAN vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1983 P LC (C. S.) 200 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
- Syed HAMID MASOOD vs PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPLIES1983 PLC 357 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed HADI MASOOD vs Begum HAMEEDAH SALAM1983 CLC 2048 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-05Read full judgment →
- Syed HABIB HUSSAIN ZAIDI vs POSTMASTER-GENERAL, NORTHERN CIRCLE, RAWALPINDI1983 PLC (C. S.) 546 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-03-02Read full judgment →
- Syed GHULAM JILANI SHAH AND 16 Other vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB IRRIGATION1983 PLC (C. S.) 356 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-11-15Read full judgment →
- Syed EHSAN ALI vs GHULAM HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 3262 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
- Syed DJLSHAD HUSSAIN vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SIALKOT AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Lahore 97 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-25Read full judgment →
- Syed AZAM SHAH AND ANOTHER vs COMMISSIONER, SUKKUR DIVISION AND 41983 PLC (C. S.) 179 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1982-10-24Read full judgment →
- Syed ATTA ABBAS AND ANOTHER vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOHLU1983 PLD Quetta 68 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
- Syed ASGHAR ALI IMAM vs MUHAMMAD ALI1983 SCMR 723 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal filed by a landlord against an order of the Sind High Court, which had set aside an ejectment order previously granted by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the first Appellate Court. The core dispute concerns whether a tenancy agreement, which stipulated a six-month term, ceased to govern the relationship after the initial period expired, thereby rendering the tenancy statutory, and whether a security deposit held by the landlord could be adjusted against unpaid rent to negate a claim of default. The High Court had ruled in favor of the tenant, determining that the agreement had terminated, the tenancy had become statutory, and the security deposit was adjustable, thus precluding a finding of default. The Supreme Court, noting that similar legal questions were pending in other litigation, granted leave to appeal to resolve whether the contractual terms regarding the tenancy duration remained binding after the initial period and whether the security deposit was legally adjustable against future rent arrears.
Questions settled- Does a tenancy agreement cease to govern the relationship after the expiry of the initial term stipulated in the contract?
- Can a security deposit held by a landlord be adjusted towards future rent to prevent a finding of default?
- Syed ARIF ALI AND OTHERS vs ABDUL AZIZ1983 CLC 3155 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-14Read full judgment →
- Syed AMJAD ALI SHAH vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1983 PLC (C. S.) 995 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-07-04Read full judgment →
- Syed AMJAD ALI SHAH vs IQBAL AHMAD FAROOQI1983 PLD Lahore 674 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-08Read full judgment →
- Syed AMIR ALI SHAH vs GENERAL MANAGER CENTRAL TELE-COMMUNICATION1983 PLC (C. S.) 240 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed ALI SULEIMAN JAFRI (THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS) vs THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT AND 3 OTHERSPL D 1983 Karachi 314 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Syed ALI HUSSAIN RIZVI vs Mst. MUZAFFAR JEHAN1983 PLD Karachi 410 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-14Read full judgment →
- Syed ALI AHSAN AND OTHERS vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND OTHERS1983 CLC 410 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-04Read full judgment →
- Syed AKHTAR HUSSAIN JILANI vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1983 PLC 1055 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-01Read full judgment →
- Syed AIJAZ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1741 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-19Read full judgment →
- Syed AHMED SAJJAD HAIDER vs CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND1983 PLC (C. S.) 1262 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1983-07-26Read full judgment →
- Syed AHMED ALI vs MUHAMMAD YAKOOB1983 CLC 1135 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against an order of the Rent Controller holding the appeal to be barred by limitation. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of the appeal and whether the Rent Controller possesses the power under Section 19(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 to set aside an ex parte order of ejectment passed without proper service of notice upon the tenant. The Court held that since an application for setting aside the ex parte order was already pending before the Rent Controller, it was appropriate to allow the Controller to examine the question of service in the first instance, while deferring the consideration of the appeal's admission and granting a stay of execution of the impugned order pending the Controller's decision. The key principle laid down is that the Rent Controller should first determine whether an ex parte order was passed without proper service before appellate remedies regarding limitation are exhausted.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal against an ex parte ejectment order is barred by limitation when the appellant had no prior knowledge of the order due to lack of service?
- Does the Rent Controller have the power under Section 19(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 to set aside an ex parte order of ejectment passed without proper service?
- Can execution of an ex parte ejectment order be stayed pending the decision of an application before the Rent Controller to set aside the said order?
- Syed AGHA HUSSAIN NAQVI vs Syed MANZOOR HUSSAIN SHAH SABZ WARI1983 P Cr. L J 2235 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-10Read full judgment →
- Syed AFAQ ALI vs THE STATE AND 3 OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 897 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-28Read full judgment →
- Syed ABID HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 882 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident where the appellant killed the deceased at the latter's request, as the deceased was reportedly fed up with life. The core legal question was whether the act constituted murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, given the deceased's consent. The Court held that while the judicial confession was unreliable due to the delay in recording and allegations of duress, the prosecution's case was sufficiently proven by credible extra-judicial confessions and the recovery of the weapon and body at the appellant's instance. Applying Exception 5 to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which mitigates liability when a death is caused with the consent of the deceased, the Court altered the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304(1), Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The principle established is that a homicide committed at the express request of the deceased, where the deceased consents to suffer death, falls under the exception to murder and warrants a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Questions settled- Does a killing committed at the express request of the deceased fall under the exceptions to murder in the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of extra-judicial confession and recovery evidence if the judicial confession is discarded?
- Is a conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 appropriate when the deceased consented to the act?
- Syed ABDUL REHMAN, vs MESSRS KHAWAJA AUTOCARS LTD1983 PLC 699 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-10Read full judgment →
- SWAP AN YASH vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1983 PTD 298 · Delhi High Court · 1981-04-06Read full judgment →
- SURRAYA BIBI vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1554 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-18Read full judgment →
- SURAJ GHEE INDUSTRIES vs MUBASHIR AFTAB1983 PLC 575 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-25Read full judgment →
- SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PUNJAB vs RASHID PARVAIZ1983 PLC 599 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-12-21Read full judgment →
- SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE, SUKKUR AND 2 Other vs NIAZ1983 PLC 563 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
- SULTAN WASI JAN vs SULTAN SAEED JAN AND Other1983 SCMR 1265 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a suit for declaration challenging the validity of a gift of land made by the petitioner's late father in favour of his children from a second marriage. The donor had executed a power-of-attorney, leading to a mutation of gift in 1928. The core legal question was whether the gift was validly executed, particularly regarding the delivery of possession and the binding nature of an admission made by the donor during court proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which dismissed the suit. The Court held that the gift was valid because, where the donees are minor children of the donor, actual delivery of possession is not required, and mutation recitals suffice. Furthermore, the Court established that an admission of fact made by a party under Order X, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is on the same footing as pleadings and is conclusive for the purpose of the suit, distinguishing it from evidentiary admissions made outside of court proceedings.
Questions settled- Is actual delivery of possession necessary for a valid gift when the donees are minor children of the donor?
- Are admissions of fact made by a party under Order X, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 conclusive for the purpose of the suit?
- Can a court pronounce judgment based on admissions made under Order X, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- SULTAN vs THE STATE1983 PCr.LJ 2214 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-22Read full judgment →
- SULTAN vs KARACHI PORT TRUST1983 PLC 52 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-18Read full judgment →
- SULTAN MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2396 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-13Read full judgment →
- SULTAN MUHAMMAD KHAN AND Another vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND 4 Other1983 SCMR 797 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from proceedings under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (Martial Law Regulation No. 115). The petitioner challenged the rejection of his claim to exempt 55 acres of agricultural land, which he alleged was transferred to his wife as dower, from his total land holding. The Land Commissioner had previously rejected this claim, noting the absence of formal alienation, mutation, or revenue record entries demonstrating the wife's ownership. The core legal question was whether the alleged transfer of land as dower constituted a bona fide transaction under the Regulation. The Supreme Court upheld the rejection, finding that the petitioner failed to satisfy the criteria set out in Explanation (XII) of paragraph 7 of the Regulation. Specifically, the petitioner could not demonstrate that the wife exercised management over the land, paid land revenue, or received rent or batai shares. The Court affirmed that in determining the bona fide nature of such transfers, the Commission must consider factors like management, payment of revenue, and receipt of income, which were absent in this case.
Questions settled- What factors must be considered by the Land Commission to determine if a land transfer is bona fide under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
- Does a mere mention of land transfer as dower in a Nikah Nama suffice to prove alienation of land under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
- Can a party raise a new legal point before the Supreme Court that was neither raised in the writ petition nor argued before the High Court?
- SULTAN MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs Sh. SAEED AHMAD AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 27 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-21Read full judgment →
- SULTAN MAHMOOD vs ANWAR AHMAD1983 CLC 2109 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-26Read full judgment →
- SULTAN KHAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1513 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-19Read full judgment →
- SULTAN KHAN vs SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, RAWALPINDI AND 21983 PLC (C. S.) 1090 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-08-04Read full judgment →
- SULTAN KHAN vs FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION1983 CLC 2803 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a constitutional petition filed under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order of 1981 challenging the cancellation of the petitioner's candidature for the Special Competitive Examination 1982 by the Federal Public Service Commission. The core legal question involved whether the petitioner, a government servant domiciled in Punjab, could claim a domicile of origin in Sind (Urban) through his father for the purpose of appearing in an examination restricted to specific provinces and areas. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's father had acquired a domicile of choice, not a domicile of origin, in Sind, and that the creation of the Province of Sind in 1970 did not convert a domicile of choice into a domicile of origin. The court laid down that a government servant who entered service based on a Punjab domicile cannot claim eligibility for reserved provincial quotas in another province through a domicile of choice acquired by his father, thereby upholding the cancellation of his candidature and dismissing the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a domicile of choice is converted into a domicile of origin upon the creation or reorganization of a new province?
- Can a government servant who entered service on the basis of a domicile in one province claim eligibility for provincial quotas in another province based on his father's domicile of choice?
- Does the Federal Public Service Commission have the authority to cancel the candidature of an ineligible candidate after allowing him to take the written examination?
- SULTAN AND OTHERS vs ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SARGODHA AND OTHERS1983 P Cr. LJ 2182 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-14Read full judgment →
- SULTAN AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1540 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-25Read full judgment →
- SULTAN Alias SULLA SALEH MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE MUHAMMAD HUSAIN1983 SCMR 1155 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- SULTAN Alias QAMRA AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1165 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-18Read full judgment →
- SULTAN ALI vs KHUSHI MUHAMMAD1983 PLD Supreme Court 243 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the maintainability of a second suit for redemption of a mortgage. The appellant, a mortgagor, previously failed to comply with a decree requiring payment of the mortgage debt by a specific date, leading to an order in 1945 that purported to debar him from redeeming the property. The core legal question was whether this 1945 order, passed in the absence of a preliminary decree strictly conforming to Order XXXIV of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, extinguished the right of redemption and barred the subsequent suit on the principle of res judicata. The Supreme Court held that the 1945 order was a nullity and without jurisdiction. The Court established that the right of redemption, conferred by Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, is a substantive right that can only be extinguished by a decree passed in strict compliance with the prescribed procedural forms. As the previous decree did not adhere to these requirements, the right of redemption subsisted, and the subsequent suit was not barred by res judicata.
Questions settled- Does a decree that fails to comply with the procedural requirements of Order XXXIV, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, effectively extinguish the mortgagor's right of redemption?
- Can a court pass an order debarring a mortgagor from redemption if the previous decree was not a preliminary decree in the form prescribed by law?
- Does the principle of res judicata bar a second suit for redemption if the previous order debarring redemption was passed without jurisdiction?
- Is a court considered functus officio after passing a final decree that does not contemplate further proceedings?
- SULTAN AHMED vs MESSRS SERVICE INDUSTRIES LTD.1983 PLC 431 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →
- SULTAN AHMAD vs PUNJAB ROAD1983 PLC 271 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-27Read full judgment →
- SULTAN AHMAD BARI vs COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS, KARACHI AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1538 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-01Read full judgment →
- SULEMAN vs ASMA BIBI1983 CLC 2400 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-18Read full judgment →
- SULEMAN SADIQ KHAN vs NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION1983 CLC 1702 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-03Read full judgment →
- SULEMAN KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs NAZAR KHAN AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 1502 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal challenges the dismissal of the appellants' first appeal by the Additional District Judge due to their failure to make up a deficiency in the court-fee on the memorandum of appeal within the granted opportunity and after the period of limitation had expired. The core legal questions concern the proper construction of `net profits` under the Court Fees Act versus `net assets` under the Land Revenue Act, whether the court is legally bound to conduct an investigation under section 9 of the Court Fees Act before demanding deficient court-fees, and the application of Order VII Rule 11 and sections 148, 149, and 28 of the Code of Civil Procedure to appeals involving barred limitation periods. The Lahore High Court held that `net assets` and `net profits` are distinct concepts, that courts are not strictly bound to order a commission under section 9 in every case, and that a negligent appellant who fails to pay deficient court-fees within limitation cannot claim indulgence when a valuable right has accrued to the respondent. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether the term `net profits` under the Court Fees Act is synonymous with `net assets` defined in Section 4(16) of the Land Revenue Act 1967?
- Is it incumbent upon the Court in every case to order an investigation under Section 9 of the Court Fees Act to ascertain net profits before requiring a party to make good a deficiency in the court-fee?
- Does Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply directly to appeals regarding the payment of deficient court-fees?
- Can an appellant who is negligent and fails to make good a deficient court-fee within the period of limitation claim an extension of time when a valuable right has accrued to the respondent?
- SULEMAN HAJI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Quetta 84 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
- SULEMAN GHAZI vs GHULAM HAIDER AND Another1983 SCMR 1058 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court dismissing the petitioner's appeal against an order of ejectment. The respondents originally sought the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the disputed bungalow under section 13 of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (West Pakistan Ordinance VI) of 1959 for non-payment of rent, and subsequently filed another petition under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment, holding that the premises were required in good faith, and the High Court dismissed the tenant's appeal. The core legal question was whether a landlord can maintain a subsequent rent application on the ground of personal requirement during the pendency of an earlier rent case. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly evaluated the evidence demonstrating the landlords' bona fide personal requirement, finding the respondents lived in their father's house and lacked suitable alternative accommodation. The petition was dismissed with a four-month extension for execution subject to regular rent payment.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord can file a second rent case on the ground of personal requirement during the pendency of an earlier ejectment petition?
- Does a landlord residing in their father's house satisfy the requirement of not being in possession of a suitable building in the same urban area?
- SULEMAN AND Others vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DERA MURAD JAMALI AND Other1983 SCMR 151 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing their constitutional petition, which challenged ejectment notices issued against them following the resumption of disputed land under Martial Law Regulation No. 117. The petitioners claimed rights based on an agreement of sale and alleged cultivating possession. The core legal question was whether the petitioners had a legal right to retain possession or challenge the ejectment notices despite failing to apply as owners under the regulation and failing to establish cultivating possession. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly concluded the petitioners had no legal right or locus standi to remain in possession, as their ownership claim stood foreclosed for failing to apply under paragraph 7 and their tenancy claim was rejected in favor of the contesting respondents. The Court laid down that the power to eject unauthorized occupants is necessarily implied in the regulation to enable grantees to fulfill the terms of their grant, applying the principle of necessary intendment.
Questions settled- Whether a person who fails to apply for land under paragraph 7 of Martial Law Regulation No. 117 can claim legal rights based on an agreement of sale?
- Does an authority under Martial Law Regulation No. 117 have the implied power to eject unauthorized occupants of resumed land?
- Whether a constitutional petition against ejectment proceedings is premature if alternative remedies within the revenue hierarchy were not availed?
- SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD. vs PRESIDING OFFICER,1983 PLC 1244 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-30Read full judgment →
- SUI GAS TRANSMISSION Co. LTD. vs M. v. "GOOD HERALD" AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 886 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiffs filed a suit under the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court for delivery of goods and liquidated damages, alongside an application for the arrest of the vessel 'GOOD HERALD'. The core legal question was whether a suit for non-delivery or refusal to give delivery of goods, brought by endorsees of a freight pre-paid bill of lading, is maintainable under the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court pursuant to the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980. The court held that claims for non-delivery, short delivery, delayed delivery, or refusal to give delivery fall squarely within the ambit of Section 3(2)(h) of the Ordinance, provided they arise out of an agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship. Furthermore, endorsees of a bill of lading acquire the right to sue by virtue of the Bills of Lading Act, 1855. The key principles laid down are that the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980 is a remedial statute to be construed liberally, and that section 3(2)(h) covers all claims in contract or tort arising out of an agreement relating to the carriage of goods.
Questions settled- Does a claim for refusal to give delivery or non-delivery of cargo fall within the Admiralty jurisdiction under section 3(2)(h) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980?
- Can endorsees or assignees of a bill of lading file a suit for claims arising from the carriage of goods under the Bills of Lading Act, 1855?
- Are claims in tort as well as contract covered under section 3(2)(h) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980, provided they arise out of an agreement relating to the carriage of goods?
- SUHRAB vs THE PROVINCE OF SIND AND 2 OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 360 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
- Sufi SIDDIQ AKBAR vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF' THE PUNJAB, FORESTRY,1983 PLC (C. S.) 1049 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-03-14Read full judgment →
- SUBMAJ. FEROZE KHAN AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN AND OTHERS1983 PLD Azad J & K 20 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-04-26Read full judgment →
- SUBHANUDDIN vs The STATE1983 SCMR 635 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenged the conviction of the appellant under sections 302 and 404 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of the deceased and sentence of death and rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question involved the appreciation of circumstantial evidence, including the last-seen theory, pointing out of the dead body, extra-judicial/judicial confessions, and incriminating recoveries of blood-stained weapons and currency notes. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prosecution successfully established a watertight chain of circumstantial evidence proving the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, as the testimony of the prosecution witnesses remained unshaken, the recoveries were duly corroborated by medical and chemical evidence, and the appellant failed to offer any plausible explanation for the disappearance of the deceased. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the judgment of the High Court.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence including the last-seen theory and pointing out of the dead body?
- Does the failure of an accused to provide an explanation for the disappearance of a person last seen in their company form a strong circumstance against them?
- Whether minor discrepancies or the use of a single attesting witness for multiple recoveries vitiates recovery memos under criminal law?
- SUBHANALLAH HOTEL vs RIAZ HUSSAIN AND 7 omitsOpponents1983 PLD Karachi 586 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-13Read full judgment →
- SUBEDAR MAJOR ALIF DIN AND OTHERS vs AZAD GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 649 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-05-19Read full judgment →
- SUBEDAR ABDUL RAZZAK vs SHAMSUDDIN1983 CLC 2028 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-12Read full judgment →
- STATE. vs SAKHI MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1983 PLD Azad J& K Shariat Court 6 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-03-15Read full judgment →
- STATE vs SALIM ALI, CHAIRMAN, ALLY Brother & Co., LAHORE1983 SCMR 1302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns criminal appeals against a Lahore High Court judgment that quashed proceedings pending before a Special Judge, Customs, against respondents accused of smuggling ammunition. The core legal question was whether the imported ammunition constituted "joblot/stocklot" quality, which is prohibited under the Import Policy Order, 1974, thereby justifying charges under the Customs Act, 1969. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the allegation that the imported goods were of the prohibited "joblot/stocklot" quality. Conversely, evidence indicated the ammunition was new and consistent with import documentation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, holding that without proof that the goods fell within the prohibited category, the charge of smuggling could not be sustained. The Court affirmed that the prosecution bears the burden of establishing the factual basis of the alleged violation, and failing this, proceedings cannot continue. This ruling emphasizes that criminal liability for smuggling cannot be established on mere allegations unsupported by evidence regarding the nature of the imported goods.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove that imported goods fall within the prohibited category of 'joblot/stocklot' quality invalidate a charge of smuggling?
- Can proceedings under the Customs Act, 1969 be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish that the imported goods were in contravention of the Import Policy Order, 1974?
- Is the definition of 'joblot' and 'stocklot' quality established in law absent a specific notification defining these terms?
- STATE vs OBAIDULLAH1983 P Cr. L J 1171 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-03Read full judgment →
- STATE vs MUHAMMAD SHABBIR1983 P Cr. L J 2405 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-19Read full judgment →
- STATE vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Quetta 122 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-07-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges an order of acquittal passed by the Senior Special Judge, Baluchistan at Mastung in favor of the respondents, who were charged along with others under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1947. The core legal questions involved the legality of acquitting an accused at an initial stage under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without framing a charge or recording evidence, and whether the prosecution established a prima facie case. The Balochistan High Court held that a trial court possesses statutory powers under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to acquit an accused at any stage if the charge is groundless, irrespective of whether a charge has been framed or witnesses examined. The Court laid down that appellate courts will not interfere with an acquittal unless the State conclusively shows clear error and irresistible inference of guilt, and reaffirmed that courts must prevent the abuse of process and harassment of citizens through groundless prosecutions.
Questions settled- Can a trial court acquit an accused under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before framing a charge or recording any evidence?
- What are the established principles for a superior court to follow when considering an appeal against an order of acquittal?
- Does section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 give statutory recognition to powers previously exercised under section 561-A?
- When is it appropriate for a criminal court to interfere at the initial stage of a trial to prevent an illegal prosecution?
- STATE vs MUHAMMAD NAZIR KHAN AND ANOTHER1983 PLD SC (A J & K) 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-06-26Read full judgment →