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.
- Sardar MUHAMMAD KHAN ALVI vs BASHIR AHMAD AND 15 Other1983 SCMR 1007 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a displaced person and temporary allottee of land in 1947, challenged the allotment of land to the respondents who claimed as heirs of a previous allottee. Following protracted litigation involving multiple rounds before rehabilitation authorities, the High Court, and the Supreme Court, the Settlement authorities eventually decided the matter in favor of the petitioner, holding that the respondents' predecessor was not a sitting allottee and could not compete with the petitioner. A subsequent writ petition by the respondents before the Lahore High Court reversed this finding. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found substance in the petitioner's contentions that the Settlement authorities were competent to reach their conclusions on evidence and that disputed questions of fact do not form a proper subject for constitutional jurisdiction when a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction has properly appreciated the evidence. The Supreme Court accordingly granted leave to appeal to consider the questions raised.
Questions settled- Whether disputed questions of fact form a proper subject for the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction when a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction has based its findings on evidence?
- Whether settlement authorities are precluded from reaching their own conclusions on issues raised in an order of remand?
- Whether heirs of a deceased claimant can claim the status of sitting allottees when the deceased did not take advantage of temporary allotment in the disputed estate?
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 1015 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
- SARDAR KHAN vs GENERAL MANAGER, G. T. S., PESHAWAR1983 PLC 884 · Labour Court · 1978-07-04Read full judgment →
- Sardar KHAN BAHADUR KHAN vs CHIEF SECRETARY, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR1983 PLD SC (A J & K) 199 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- SARDAR KHAN AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2226 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-27Read full judgment →
- SARDAR KHAN AND 5 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 292 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-04Read full judgment →
- SARDAR HUSSAIN AND 2 Other vs KARACHI ROAD1983 PLC 737 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-08-24Read full judgment →
- Sardar HAFEEZUR REHMAN KHAN vs MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION1983 CLC 2842 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-25Read full judgment →
- SARDAR BIBI AND OTHERS vs SHAKILA BIBI AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1668 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-28Read full judgment →
- SARDAR Alias DARI vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2494 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-18Read full judgment →
- SARDAR ALI vs RAB NAWAZ1983 CLC 83 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-22Read full judgment →
- SARDAR ALI vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 1046 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
- SARDAR ALI AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1992 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-18Read full judgment →
- SARDAR AHMAD BHATTI vs ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, LYALLPUR EAST AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 790 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-02Read full judgment →
- Sardar AAQIL HUSSAIN KHAN vs MUHAMMAD AKBAR KHAN AND others1983 CLC 645 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-05-28Read full judgment →
- SANAULLAH vs CHIEF ENGINEER, WAPDA (E), GUJRANWALA AND ANOTHER1983 PLC 277 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-09-07Read full judgment →
- SANAULLAH AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 699 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-07Read full judgment →
- SANAULLAH AND Another vs The STATE1983 SCMR 365 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioners, Sana Ullah and Nazir, in a criminal case involving allegations of abduction and zina. The petitioners had initially been granted pre-arrest and post-arrest bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, but the High Court subsequently cancelled these orders upon the complainant's application. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners sought to challenge this cancellation. While the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's impugned order at this stage, it acknowledged new developments brought to its attention, specifically the statement of the alleged victim, Mst. Ghafooran, made before a Civil Judge in a separate suit for conjugal rights, and the persistent failure of the victim's father to produce her in court despite habeas corpus proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal but granted the petitioners liberty to file a fresh bail application before the High Court, grounded upon these newly emerged facts.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner file a fresh bail application in the High Court based on new facts after a previous bail cancellation order?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court order cancelling bail when new, relevant facts have emerged?
- Is the failure of a complainant to produce an alleged victim in habeas corpus proceedings a relevant ground for a fresh bail application?
- SANAULLAH AND 3 Others vs The STATE1983 SCMR 15 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition for leave to appeal filed by Sanaullah and three others, challenging the High Court's order dated 3-3-1982, which dismissed their post-arrest bail application in a criminal case involving offences under sections 148, 302, 307, 324, 365, 451, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the retraction of an eye-witness by way of an affidavit constitutes sufficient ground for granting bail when another injured eye-witness, the complainant himself, supports the prosecution case. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit because the injured complainant, who sustained ten injuries, remains an available eye-witness to support the prosecution. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the principle that an affidavit by a single witness cannot override the direct testimony and existence of an injured complainant implicating the accused in a heinous crime.
Questions settled- Does the retraction of an eye-witness by affidavit warrant the grant of bail when an injured complainant supports the prosecution case?
- Whether bail should be refused to accused persons facing trial under charges including murder and attempted murder when direct incriminating evidence exists?
- SANAULLAH alias SANATA vs THE STATE1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 192 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-02-27Read full judgment →
- SANAULLAH (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) vs IFTIKHAR BEGUM AND OTHERS1983 CLC 561 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-01Read full judgment →
- SANATTA vs THE STATE1983 PCr. LJ 2161(1) · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-30Read full judgment →
- SANA-UR-REHMAN vs RENT CONTROLLER, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 911 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-11Read full judgment →
- SANA MUHAMMAD vs FAMILY JUDGE, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 3246 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-18Read full judgment →
- SAMUAL MASIH vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2573 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-15Read full judgment →
- SAMIULLAH vs YAR MUHAMMAD1983 CLC 2981 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-28Read full judgment →
- SAMIUDDIN KHAN vs Mst. JAMILA1983 CLC 2730 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-04Read full judgment →
- SAMI-UR-REHMAN vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SINK AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 832 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1983-04-17Read full judgment →
- SAMI AHMAD JAFRI vs THIRD ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KARACHI AND Other1983 SCMR 1082 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by a tenant challenging an order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller under the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, which was upheld through successive appellate and execution proceedings. The petitioner subsequently sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller on the ground that the premises fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the Cantonment Board, an objection raised for the first time after nearly twelve years of litigation. The High Court dismissed the constitutional petition, holding that the question of territorial jurisdiction was a disputed question of fact and that discretionary writ jurisdiction should not be exercised to allow a party to reopen a finally disposed of case on a plea not raised at the appropriate stage. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that a party who participated in proceedings on merits without raising the objection of territorial jurisdiction cannot invoke discretionary constitutional relief at a belated stage. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a party raise the question of territorial jurisdiction for the first time in execution proceedings after participating in the trial and appellate stages without objection?
- Whether the High Court can decline to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction when a party attempts to reopen a finally disposed of case after a prolonged delay?
- Is the question of territorial jurisdiction of a Rent Controller considered a disputed question of fact not fit for investigation in constitutional jurisdiction?
- SAMI AHMAD JAFRI vs THIRD ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KARACHI AND 21983 CLC 3069 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-20Read full judgment →
- SALMAN ASLAM vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1390 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-29Read full judgment →
- SALIM AKHTAR AND 6 Others vs DR. NAEEM RATHORE AND Other1983 SCMR 304 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of a shop, which was auctioned to the respondents, but challenged by the petitioners' predecessor, Hafiz-ud-Din, on the basis of his alleged prior possession. The central legal question was whether Hafiz-ud-Din held "undisputed possession" in his own right, thereby entitling him to the property's transfer under the relevant settlement laws. The High Court had previously determined that the claimant’s possession was derivative, acting merely as an agent or salesman for the original allottee, and that the underlying agreement was collusive. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding that the claimant’s own contradictory statements and the original allottee’s continued assertion of possession negated the claim of independent ownership. The Court affirmed that possession for the purpose of transfer must be held in one's own right, not on behalf of another. Furthermore, it held that collusive arrangements or payments of "pagri" to allottees to transfer possession are invalid, do not confer legal rights, and cannot serve as a basis for claiming the transfer of evacuee property.
Questions settled- Whether possession for the purpose of transfer of evacuee property must be held in one's own right?
- Does a payment of 'pagri' to an allottee for the transfer of possession confer a legal right to the transfer of the property?
- Can the High Court interfere with a finding of fact by a Settlement Authority if that finding is perverse to the material on record?
- SALEH SHAH vs Sayed ZAFAR ALI SHAH AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 637 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
- SALEH MUHAMMAD vs The STATE1983 SCMR 325 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a murder case where the appellant, Saleh Muhammad, was convicted under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death for firing the fatal shot, while his four co-accused were previously acquitted by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the testimony of eye-witnesses, partially disbelieved regarding the acquitted co-accused, could be relied upon to sustain the appellant's conviction, and whether abscondence served as sufficient corroboration. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the testimony of the injured complainant specifically attributing the fatal shot to the appellant, coupled with strong motive and prolonged abscondence, sufficiently distinguished his case from the co-accused and warranted his conviction. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of an injured eye-witness, when corroborated by a direct specific role and subsequent abscondence, can sustain a conviction even if co-accused have been acquitted on general or weaker evidence.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of an eye-witness be relied upon against a non-acquitted appellant when it was disbelieved regarding his co-accused?
- Whether abscondence can be used as corroborative evidence of ocular testimony in a murder trial?
- Is the testimony of an injured complainant alone sufficient to sustain a murder conviction without independent corroborative ocular evidence?
- SALEH MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE AND Another1983 SCMR 341 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-09-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges an order of the High Court granting post-arrest bail to the respondent, who was facing trial for murder, on the ground of delay in concluding the trial. Leave was granted to consider whether bail could be granted on the ground of delay before the expiry of the statutory two-year period specified in the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether expected or apprehended future delay could be factored into the decision. The Supreme Court held that the High Court acted without jurisdiction by granting bail before the expiration of the mandatory two-year detention period, as future apprehended delay does not satisfy the statutory requirement. The Court ruled that the amendment introducing specific time periods made the grant of bail upon such delay a matter of strict right rather than general judicial discretion, thereby superseding previous discretionary practices. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and cancelled the bail granted to the respondent.
Questions settled- Can bail be granted to an accused charged with an offence punishable with death on the ground of delay when the statutory period of two years has not yet expired?
- Is it open to a court to grant bail on the ground of delay by taking into account future apprehended delay?
- Does the third proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 make the grant of bail upon the expiry of the specified period a matter of right rather than discretion?
- Can a court entertain a repeated bail application on merits when a previous application has already been dismissed and no fresh grounds exist?
- SALEEM-UR-REHMAN ETC. vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB ETC.1983 PLC (C. S.) 642 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
- SALEEM AHMAD KHAN AND Other vs PUNJAB ROAD1983 PLC 864 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-28Read full judgment →
- SALAMUDDIN vs EJAZ AHMAD AND Another1983 SCMR 1251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the question of whether the petitioner could be deemed to be in occupation of a house so as to be eligible for its transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VII. The High Court had ruled against the petitioner based on previous judicial precedents regarding occupation. Upon hearing the petitioner's counsel, who argued that those precedents were not apposite and that the case was similar to another cited precedent, the Supreme Court found prima facie force in the submission. The Court consequently granted interim protection against dispossession, ordered security, and directed that the appeal be made ready on the present record. The key principle revolves around evaluating the factual nature of occupation and eligibility for property transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VII based on applicable precedents.
Questions settled- Whether a petitioner can be deemed in occupation of a house to be eligible for its transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VII?
- Do prior decisions on property occupation apply universally or depend on the specific factual matrix of each case?
- SALAMAT AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2167 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-18Read full judgment →
- SALAHUDDIN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2354 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-01Read full judgment →
- SALAHUDDIN KHAN vs FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 26 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-07-24Read full judgment →
- SALAHUD DIN IQBAL vs Mst. ZOHRA KHATOON AND 14 OTHERS1983 CLC 689 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
- SALABAT ETC. KHALID MAHMOOD vs THE STATE Salabatetc.S1983 SCMR 9 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →
- SAKHAWAT ALI SIDDIQUI vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1972 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-02Read full judgment →
- SAJJAD-UL-HASAN vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION1983 PLC (C. S.) 470 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-11-30Read full judgment →
- SAJJAD ALI vs JAN.MUHAMMAD AND Other1983 SCMR 744 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which accepted a writ petition filed by the respondents and set aside an order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner confirming land in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was a temporary allottee whose claim for evacuee agricultural land was initially verified for a lesser area, but upon re-verification, he was found entitled to additional land abandoned by his uncles as their sole heir. After remand by the High Court in earlier litigation, the Additional Settlement Commissioner confirmed land equivalent to 53 Produce Index Units in the petitioner's favour, reducing the area confirmed to the respondents. The High Court, however, held that re-verification alone did not justify disturbing the respondents' allotment. The core legal question concerns the protection and reservation of land under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme for claimants whose claims are pending re-verification. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the provisions of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme require further consideration, and accordingly granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does the re-verification of a refugee's claim constitute a legitimate ground for disturbing an existing land allotment made to another party?
- How are the interests of refugees to be safeguarded under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme when their claims and objections are pending re-verification?
- SAJID HUSSAIN vs PUNJAB ROAD1983 PLC 523 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
- SAJAWAL KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Azad J & K 9 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-09-11Read full judgment →
- SAJAN vs Mirza SAEED AHMED1983 CLC 3115 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
- SAIN KHAN vs NIAZ MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 139 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-07-16Read full judgment →
- SAIFUR REHMAN vs SIRAJ KHAN AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLD Peshawar 232 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-06Read full judgment →
- SAIFUR RAHMAN vs The STATE1983 SCMR 360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns criminal petitions for leave to appeal filed by Saifur Rahman, Muhammad Afzal, and Muhammad Ashraf against their convictions and sentences for murder and attempted murder. The petitioners were convicted under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Munawwar Ahmad and causing injuries to Javed Ahmad. The trial court sentenced Saifur Rahman to death and the other petitioners to life imprisonment. The High Court confirmed these convictions. Before the Supreme Court, the primary legal question concerned the proportionality of the death sentence imposed on Saifur Rahman compared to his co-accused, given the nature of the joint liability and the contention that the assault was a sudden encounter rather than a premeditated act. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petitions of Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Ashraf and rejected them. However, the Court granted leave to appeal to Saifur Rahman specifically to consider the question of the appropriateness of his sentence in light of the arguments regarding joint liability and the circumstances of the incident.
Questions settled- Whether the death sentence of an accused can be reconsidered when co-accused involved in the same joint liability incident received lesser sentences?
- Does a sudden encounter between rival groups negate the existence of a premeditated and preplanned assault?
- Is the principle of joint liability applicable to determine the proportionality of sentences among co-accused?
- SAIFULLAH AND OTHERS vs DISTRICT JUDGE, RAHIMYAR KHAN AND OTHERS1983 CLC 3079 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
- SAIFUL REHMAN AND ANOTHER vs HYDERABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1983 PLC 343 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-23Read full judgment →
- SAIF ALI vs GALAS DIN AND Other1983 SCMR 62 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition concerning the disputed allotment of land under Settlement and Rehabilitation laws. The petitioner, claiming to be a displaced person from Jammu and Kashmir, asserted that he was allotted the land in question prior to the respondents. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's earlier allotment was valid and whether the subsequent allotment to the respondents constituted an illegal double allotment. The Settlement Commissioner, in a revisional order, had previously determined that the petitioner's claim was factually unsubstantiated. The High Court, upon review, affirmed this, further noting that the petitioner failed to satisfy necessary conditions regarding the drawing of rations required for such an allotment. The Supreme Court held that the findings regarding the disputed allotment were findings of fact that had been thoroughly examined by the lower authorities. Finding no justification to re-open these settled factual determinations, the Court dismissed the petition, reinforcing the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the absence of legal error.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding land allotment made by settlement authorities?
- Does an allotment made without satisfying mandatory conditions, such as the drawing of rations, confer a valid legal right?
- SAID WALL vs YAQOOT KHAN AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Supreme Court 440 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from civil petitions challenging the findings of fact in pre-emption suits where the lower courts concluded that the transactions in question were in reality exchanges and not sales, and the High Court refused to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction. The core legal question concerns the standard of proof required to establish that a transaction termed an exchange is actually a sale, specifically whether probabilities and matters outside strict direct evidence suffice under the definition of "proved". The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the lower courts had duly considered the entire material and matters placed before them, and that the inferences drawn by the courts below regarding the transactions being exchanges were such as a prudent man would draw based on probabilities. The key principle laid down is that while matters falling under the definition of "proved" can be considered even if they do not strictly fall under narrow definitions of direct evidence, findings of fact regarding the true nature of a transaction based on an appreciation of probabilities by a prudent man will not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction unless tainted by illegality.
Questions settled- Whether direct evidence of the payment of money is strictly required to prove that a transaction is a sale in pre-emption cases?
- Can matters outside strict direct evidence be considered in proving a fact under the definition of "proved"?
- Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to interfere in revisional jurisdiction with concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of a transaction?
- SAID UL HAQ AND Another vs MUHAMMAD SULEMAN AND Other1983 SCMR 418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners instituted suits for pre-emption in which the trial court directed the deposit of zar-e-panjam in cash. Subsequently, the petitioners filed applications seeking to replace the cash deposit order with an order for furnishing security. The trial court dismissed these applications, and the Lahore High Court dismissed the subsequent revision petitions, holding that the trial court's order was passed in the exercise of its discretionary powers and could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. The petitioners sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that the trial court acted illegally by dismissing the applications without a hearing and without a speaking order. The Supreme Court held that disputed questions of fact regarding the non-appearance of counsel or parties cannot be resolved in these proceedings, and that no elaborate order is required when deciding a miscellaneous application of this nature. The petitions for leave to appeal were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an order of the trial court refusing to replace a cash deposit of zar-e-panjam with security can be interfered with by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction?
- Does the dismissal of an application for modification of an order regarding zar-e-panjam require an elaborate speaking order?
- Can disputed questions of fact regarding the appearance of counsel or parties be resolved in petition proceedings before the Supreme Court?
- SAID AKBAR ABBASI vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1177 · Lahore High Court · 1972-05-09Read full judgment →
- SAHIB DIN KHAN vs Master NASIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Peshawar 137 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
- SAFDAR HUSSAIN QURESHI vs Chaudhry GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 7 OTHERS1983 CLC 2857 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-24Read full judgment →
- SAFDAR ALI KHAN AND Others vs Mst. RASHID QAMAR SULTANA AND OTHES1983 SCMR 688 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from conflicting decisions regarding inheritance and property allotments of displaced persons. The core legal questions examined whether a valid marriage existed under Muslim Law between a Sikh male and a Muslim female, whether children of such a union inherit from their parents, and whether the High Court correctly resolved a conflict of decisions between the Claims Organization and Settlement Organization rather than remanding the matter. The Supreme Court held that no valid marriage was established between the parties under statutory, customary, or Islamic law, as a marriage between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim is barred and could not be validated by the Anand Marriage Act or customary practices without clear proof. Consequently, the offspring of such illicit cohabitation lacked established nasab (descent) and could not inherit as legitimate heirs or brothers. The Court laid down that an illegitimate child has no established paternity for inheritance purposes and cannot inherit from or through the father or as a uterine/full sibling to legitimate children, upholding the High Court's dismissal of the claim.
Questions settled- Whether a marriage between a Muslim female and a Sikh male is valid under Muslim Law?
- Whether children born from an unacknowledged union between a non-Muslim male and a Muslim female can inherit from their parents or each other?
- Can the High Court exercise its writ jurisdiction to resolve conflicting decisions of the Claims Organization and Settlement Organization instead of remanding the matter?
- Does an illegitimate child acquire the status of a uterine brother to a legitimate child of the same mother for the purposes of inheritance under Islamic law?
- SAEED MIAN ANSARI AND Another vs AQEEL AHMAD SIDDIQUI1983 SCMR 1087 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court, which upheld an order for the ejectment of the petitioner from a residential property in Karachi. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their findings regarding the landlord's grounds for eviction, specifically default in rent payment, unauthorized subletting, and the landlord's personal requirement for the premises. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the findings of the Rent Controller and the High Court were supported by evidence. The Rent Controller had determined that the landlord’s personal requirement was bona fide, noting that the landlord was currently residing in his mother's house with a large number of family members. The Court found that the petitioner's counsel failed to demonstrate any evidence or legal error that would warrant interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the ejectment order based on the established bona fide personal need of the landlord.
Questions settled- Can a tenant challenge an ejectment order based on personal requirement if the landlord's need is found to be bona fide by the Rent Controller?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in rent matters where no evidence of error is shown?
- SAEED ASGHAR vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 1222 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-06-16Read full judgment →
- SAEED AHMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2476(2) · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-06Read full judgment →
- SAEED AHMAD vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND Another1983 SCMR 1185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a service and cooperative matter concerning the removal of the petitioner from the membership of a Co-operative Farming Society and the subsequent allotment of land to the respondent. The core legal question involved whether the removal of the petitioner from society membership and the consequent land allotment, initially ordered upon the report of the Assistant Registrar and subsequently endorsed by the Managing Committee's resolution, violated the society's bye-laws. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no illegality in reviewing its earlier judgment and recalling the writ, as bye-law 10 permitted the removal of a member at the instance of the Registrar, and disturbing a long-standing possession of nineteen years would be inequitable. The key principle laid down is that action taken at the instance of the Registrar in accordance with cooperative bye-laws is valid, and equitable considerations regarding long-standing possession warrant declining discretionary constitutional remedies.
Questions settled- Whether the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Farming Societies has the authority to initiate the removal of a member who is not a self-cultivator?
- Can a writ petition succeed when a valid resolution endorsing the removal exists but was not initially produced?
- Is it fair to dislodge a party from land possession after a long lapse of nineteen years?
- SAEED AHMAD SIDDIQUI vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1619 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-17Read full judgment →
- SAEED AHMAD QURESHI vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PROVINCIAL BUILDINGS1983 PLC (C. S.) 1032 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- SADIQ MUMAMMAD AND Others vs THE STATE1983 PCr. LJ2159(1) · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
- SADIQ HUSSAR vs WAPDA1983 PLC 849 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
- SADA vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 193 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-22Read full judgment →
- SABIR SHAHZAD vs Mst. ZEENAT ARA AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 383 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-16Read full judgment →
- SABIR HASAN vs MUNIR MALIK1983 PLD Karachi 414 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second rent appeal concerns an eviction order granted against a tenant of a shop located in the landlord's residential house. The landlord sought eviction on the ground of personal requirement, intending to convert the shop into a garage for his car. The Rent Controller and the First Appellate Authority had concurrently ordered the tenant's ejectment. The core legal question was whether a landlord can seek the eviction of a tenant from a shop—which is part of a residential building but used for commercial purposes—on the ground of personal requirement for residential use (parking). The Court held that the ejectment application was incompetent. It reasoned that because the premises were rented out as a shop and used for business, the shop constituted a 'non-residential building' under the relevant rent law. Consequently, the landlord could only seek eviction if he required the premises for non-residential purposes, not residential ones. The Court distinguished this case from precedents involving clinics or composite residential buildings, establishing that a shop located in a commercialized area, once let out as a shop, retains its character as a non-residential building.
Questions settled- Can a landlord seek the eviction of a tenant from a shop on the ground of personal residential requirement if the shop is located in a commercial area?
- Does a portion of a residential building rented out as a shop constitute a 'non-residential building' under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Is an application for ejectment maintainable if a landlord seeks to convert a rented shop into a garage for personal residential use?
- SABIR ALI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SANGHAR AND 2 mots1983 CLC 255 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-21Read full judgment →
- SAADULLAH KHAN AND 4 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2175 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-27Read full judgment →
- SAADIA PERVEEN AKHTAR vs HUMAYUN IQBAL1983 CLC 2489 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-14Read full judgment →
- SAADAT COTTON LTD. vs GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS LTD. AND 4 OTHERS1983 CLC 2677 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-17Read full judgment →
- S. Y. MOHAJIR vs Mst. AISHA JAMAL1983 PLD Karachi 489 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an order passed by the Rent Controller striking off the appellant-tenant's defense for failing to comply with a tentative rent order under Section 16(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the landlord's delay of approximately two years in filing an application to strike off the defense, coupled with the acceptance of rent deposits, constituted a waiver of the right to seek such relief. Upon reviewing the Nazir’s report, the Court acknowledged that a technical default occurred regarding the rent for November 1979. However, the Court held that the respondent’s prolonged inaction and the withdrawal of deposited rent amounts amounted to a waiver of the right to strike off the defense. The Court emphasized that where a landlord fails to promptly enforce a tentative rent order and accepts subsequent payments, the default is not considered willful, and the drastic remedy of striking off the defense should be condoned. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the Rent Controller's order was set aside, and the case was remanded for expeditious disposal of the remaining issues.
Questions settled- Does a delay of two years in filing an application to strike off a tenant's defense constitute a waiver of the landlord's right to seek such relief?
- Can a landlord's acceptance of rent deposited in court be construed as a waiver of the right to strike off the tenant's defense for a previous default?
- Is the remedy of striking off a tenant's defense for non-compliance with a tentative rent order available when the default is not considered willful?
- S. WALIUR REHMAN vs MESSRS NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CO. (PAK.) LTD.1983 PLC 1027 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-09Read full judgment →
- S. MUHAMMAD DIN & SONS vs KHURSHID BEGUM1983 PLC 1083 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-08Read full judgment →
- S. MUHAMMAD ALI AND Others vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND Other1983 SCMR 299 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest filed a Regular Second Appeal (R.S.A.) in the High Court without the mandatory certified copy of the trial court's judgment. The appellant had sought dispensation for filing the copy under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, claiming it was not yet available. The High Court granted temporary relief, allowing the appeal to proceed pending the production of the copy. However, despite receiving the certified copy on January 6, 1965, the appellant failed to file it with the court for over ten years. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as time-barred, ruling that the appeal was not properly constituted. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding that the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal because the appellant failed to comply with the condition of filing the certified copy within the extended time granted. The Supreme Court affirmed that an appeal filed without the required documentation, which remains unrectified for an unreasonable period, is properly dismissed as time-barred.
Questions settled- Is an appeal filed without the mandatory certified copy of the trial court's judgment properly constituted?
- Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal as time-barred if the appellant fails to file the required certified copy within the extended time granted?
- Does the failure to file a certified copy of the trial court's judgment for an extended period render an appeal liable to dismissal?
- S. MANSUR ALAM AQUIL vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD1983 PLC (C. S.) 102 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-10-23Read full judgment →
- S. M. SHARIF NAQVI vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (DPD) AND OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 863 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-04-22Read full judgment →
- S. M. NASEEB SHAH vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS AND OTHERS1983 PLC 915 · Labour Court · 1981-05-29Read full judgment →
- S. M. NASEEB SHAH vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC 729 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-08-23Read full judgment →
- S. M. KHALIQ SHAH AND Another vs HAJ FEROZ KHAN AND Other1983 SCMR 223 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld the concurrent findings of lower courts in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the respondents, as rival pre-emptors, possessed a superior right of pre-emption based on the contiguity of their land to the suit property, despite arguments regarding the division of Khasra numbers and the existence of an intervening water channel. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the lower courts' decisions. The Court held that the respondents successfully established their superior right of pre-emption. The key principle laid down is that for the purpose of pre-emption, a parcel of land comprised of multiple Khasra numbers constitutes a single property. Consequently, a pre-emptor does not need to establish contiguity to every individual Khasra number within the block; establishing contiguity to any part of the parcel is sufficient to maintain a claim over the entire land sold, as the sale of such a parcel is treated as a single transaction.
Questions settled- Is it necessary for a pre-emptor to own land contiguous to every individual Khasra number in a block of land to exercise a right of pre-emption?
- Does a parcel of land comprised of multiple Khasra numbers constitute a single property for the purposes of pre-emption?
- Does the existence of an intervening water channel, not recorded in official revenue records, defeat a claim of contiguity in a pre-emption suit?
- S. M. ARFIN vs AUDITOR GENERAL OF PAKISTAN1983 SCMR 161 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the dismissal of a service appeal by the Service Tribunal regarding the seniority and grade of a former Pakistan Eastern Railway employee appointed to the Federal Government in 1974. The appellant contended that his previous service should be linked to his new appointment, relying on the interpretation of Article 9 of the Transfer of Railways Order (P.O. No. 33) of 1962. The core legal question concerned whether the appellant was entitled to claim seniority and grade benefits based on his past service despite the terms of his new appointment. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was not a fit case for the exercise of its jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the appellant had voluntarily accepted the offer of appointment in 1974, which explicitly included a condition estopping him from laying claim to seniority or promotion based on his past services with the Pakistan Eastern Railway. Having accepted these terms in writing, the appellant was bound by them. The Court established that a government servant is estopped from challenging service conditions or claiming past seniority when they have explicitly accepted an appointment subject to contrary terms.
Questions settled- Can a government servant claim seniority based on past service after explicitly accepting an appointment offer that waives such claims?
- Does the acceptance of specific terms and conditions of service estop a government employee from challenging those conditions later?
- Is a court required to interpret constitutional or statutory provisions regarding service status when the petitioner has already contractually waived the underlying claim?
- S. INAMUL HAQ vs THE SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1983 CLC 1954 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- S. AMIR SHAH KAZMI vs GOVERNMENT OF N.-W. F. P. AND 4 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 576 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1980-12-06Read full judgment →
- S. ALI HASSAN AND OTHERS vs VICECHANCELLOR PUNJAB UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 2288 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-19Read full judgment →
- S. Abdur Rash Id, Member KAMAL RAZA vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMEMT OF PAKISTAN,1983 PLC (C. S.) 648 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-04-06Read full judgment →
- RUSTAM KHAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1478 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-02-02Read full judgment →
- RUQQAIYA SULTANA vs MUHAMMAD YOUNUS1983 CLC 2554 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-11Read full judgment →
- ROYAL CALCUTTA TURF CLUB vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST1983 PTD 418 · Calcutta High Court · 1982-06-01Read full judgment →
- SALHOON vs Mst. JAWAI AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 1436 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-18Read full judgment →
- ROHRI CEMENT WORKS vs KARIM BUX1983 PLC 155 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-06Read full judgment →
- ROHRI CEMENT WORKS vs ALI GOHAR1983 PLC 1037 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
- RODOLF JOSEF vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1983 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-29Read full judgment →
- ROCHIRAM AND Another vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSIONER II AND 3 Other1983 SCMR 931 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing their constitutional petition, which challenged orders of the land revenue authorities under Martial Law Regulation No. 115. The core legal question concerned the validity of oral alienations and private partition of agricultural land made by a Hindu female owner in favour of her heirs prior to the crucial date, and whether such transactions were void ab initio under the relevant regulations in the presence of a subsequent will and lack of mutation in the record of rights. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the land commission authorities and the High Court—establishing that the alleged alienations and private partition were not legally substantiated and were overridden by an executed will—were unexceptionable and within their exclusive jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that private partitions and unverified oral transfers without legal sanctity or official approval cannot bypass statutory provisions under land reforms. Consequently, the petition for special leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether oral alienations and private partitions of agricultural land are valid without mutation in the record of rights and approval by land reform authorities under Martial Law Regulation No. 115?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by land commission authorities regarding the bona fides of alienations be interfered with by the superior courts?
- Does the execution of a subsequent will affect prior claims of oral alienation and private partition of joint family property?
- RIYAZ KHAN vs SODAGAR KHAN1983 CLC 1343 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-21Read full judgment →
- RISALDAR QURBAN ALI vs ALLAH RAKHA AND 2 Other1983 SCMR 1246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the restoration of land allotments to the respondents. The dispute concerns land originally allotted to the respondents in 1957 as Jammu and Kashmir refugees, which was subsequently cancelled in 1972 without a hearing. Following a successful constitutional challenge by the respondents, the matter was remanded to settlement authorities, who ultimately allowed the respondents to retain the land in 1976. The petitioner, a subsequent allottee, challenged this restoration, arguing that the initial 1959 allotment was illegal and that the respondents failed to cultivate the land. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that it was too late to challenge the validity of the 1959 allotments. The Court found that the respondents' status as Jammu and Kashmir refugees was established, entitling them to the land. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, determining that the High Court correctly declined to interfere with the settlement authorities' decision to restore the allotment.
Questions settled- Can the validity of a land allotment made in 1959 be challenged decades later in constitutional proceedings?
- Does the status of being a Jammu and Kashmir refugee entitle an allottee to retain land allotments despite allegations of non-cultivation?
- Is the High Court empowered to disturb a factual determination made by settlement authorities regarding the restoration of land allotments?