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.
- RIND ALI AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2381 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-06Read full judgment →
- RICE EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE1983 PLC 1116 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- RICE EXPORT CORPORATION LABOUR UNION vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1983 PLC 332 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-31Read full judgment →
- RIAZ vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2007 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-04Read full judgment →
- RIAZ SALLEM vs SELECTION COMMITTEE, BOLAN MEDICAL COLLEGE, ACADEMIC1983 CLC 1862 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-08-07Read full judgment →
- RIAZ MASIH vs The STATE1983 SCMR 423 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of his wife and confirming his death sentence. The core legal question involved the appreciation of ocular testimony, corroborative evidence, and recovery in a capital case. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of guilt by the lower courts based on credible daylight eye-witness testimony, prompt reporting, immediate apprehension of the accused at the spot along with blood-stained weapons, and supporting medical evidence warranted no interference. The key principle laid down is that where eye-witnesses are independent, their presence is natural, and their testimony is corroborated by prompt apprehension at the scene and recovery of incriminating articles, the conviction and capital sentence shall be sustained.
Questions settled- Whether delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal can be condoned in a capital punishment case?
- Does the apprehension of the accused at the spot along with incriminating weapons provide sufficient corroboration for an ocular account?
- Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code call for interference when eye-witnesses are independent and credible?
- RIAZ HUSSAIN vs MESSRS SHAHNAWAZ LTD.1983PLC 2 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-01Read full judgment →
- RIAZ HUSSAIN vs KAKAKHEL INDUSTRIES LTD.1983 PLC 677 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-12Read full judgment →
- RIAZ BEGUM vs FAROOQ AHMAD AND OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 43 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-18Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AND 8 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 635 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-07Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AHMED vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1983 CLC 809 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-11Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1559 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-03Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AHMAD vs ESTATE OFFICER, M. D.A. AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 666 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-05-23Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AHMAD BAIG vs SECRETARY, POPULATION DIVISION, ISLAMABAD AND 21983 PLC (C. S.) 536 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-01-09Read full judgment →
- RIASAT ALI vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1996 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
- RIASAT ALI vs Mst. RAJ BAI AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 711 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-12Read full judgment →
- REVENUE OFFICER (E), WAPDA, DASKA DIVISION, SIALKOT vs NAZAR HUSSAIN1983 PLC 846 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
- REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN vs MESSRS HAMID CONSTRUCTION Co.1983 SCMR 720 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the High Court upholding an arbitration award made in favour of the respondent contractor. The petitioner and the respondent entered into a construction agreement containing an arbitration clause for disputes arising out of or relating to the contract. During execution, deviations occurred, leading to claims for extra payment. After an initial award was set aside, a second arbitrator awarded Rs. 1,33,000 to the respondent, which was made a rule of the court by the lower court and upheld by a learned Single Judge. The petitioner sought leave to appeal, contending that extra items outside the contract schedule were not covered by the reference clause and that the arbitrator improperly awarded costs based on special rates rather than scheduled rates. The Supreme Court found that the points argued needed examination and granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether disputes regarding extra items of work not expressly listed in the contract schedule fall within the purview of the arbitration reference clause?
- Whether an arbitrator is justified in awarding costs for additional work based on special rates rather than scheduled rates?
- REHMATULLAH vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA1983 CLC 2348 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-29Read full judgment →
- REHMATULLAH vs ALI MUHAMMAD AND Another1983 SCMR 1064 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment in an urban tenancy dispute where the respondent sought the appellant's eviction. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller, exercising summary jurisdiction, can order eviction when the landlord's title is disputed and the relationship of landlord and tenant is not established beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller must be satisfied regarding the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship. If the claimant fails to establish this relationship or if the title dispute is too complex for summary proceedings, the Controller must dismiss the eviction application and relegate the claimant to a civil court for a declaration of title. The Court found that the appellate authority erred by ordering eviction despite acknowledging the weakness of the respondent's title claim. The judgment establishes that while Rent Controller proceedings are summary, they require a firm finding on the landlord-tenant relationship. Absent such satisfaction, the petition must be dismissed, and the claimant cannot be granted relief while leaving the tenant to seek redress elsewhere.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller order eviction when the relationship of landlord and tenant is not established beyond reasonable doubt?
- Does the bar of res judicata apply to findings of a Rent Controller regarding title?
- Can a Rent Controller relegate a party to a civil court for determination of title in an eviction proceeding?
- Does Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to orders passed by a Rent Controller?
- REHMATULLAH AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1701 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-30Read full judgment →
- REHMAT vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1561 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-03Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ULLAH vs NAZIR AHMAD1983 PLD Lahore 401 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-16Read full judgment →
- REHMAT MASIH vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND 3 Others1983 PLC (C. S.) 99 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-10-10Read full judgment →
- REHMAT KHAN vs Mst. SARDAR BIBI AND Other1983SCM R7 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a review petition seeking reconsideration of an earlier order dated 24-2-1981, which had dismissed a civil petition for leave to appeal concerning the transfer of property. The core legal question addressed is whether a petitioner possesses the locus standi to challenge the transfer of portions of a property that were not in his occupation, and whether grounds for review are made out when points raised have already been considered at the initial hearing. The Court held that the property in question had been validly divided into nine units and transferred to respective occupants, and that the petitioner lacked locus standi to question the transfer of units he did not occupy. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot maintain a challenge regarding property units outside their occupation, and a review petition cannot be used to re-argue points already addressed and adjudicated upon by the Court.
Questions settled- Does a petitioner have the locus standi to question the transfer of property units that were not in his occupation?
- Can a review petition be entertained to re-argue points that were already advanced and attended to at the hearing of the civil petition?
- Under what circumstances can portions of a property be transferred to respondents under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
- REHMAT BIBI AND ANOTHER vs Hafiz SHAMASUDDIN AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2563 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-27Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ALI vs THS STATE1983 SCMR 796 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment upholding the petitioner's conviction under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code, for the murder of the deceased. The incident arose from a dispute over irrigation water turns, during which the petitioner struck the deceased multiple times with a kassi, resulting in fatal head injuries. The petitioner contended that the act was committed in the exercise of the right of private defence of person and property, arguing that the deceased had forcibly interfered with the petitioner's water turn. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and affirmed the findings of the lower courts, holding that the petitioner had clearly exceeded the right of private defence. The Court emphasized that there was no reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt to the petitioner, and the use of excessive force—specifically multiple blows with a kassi—was unjustified. The Court further rejected the argument that the deceased's alleged interference with water rights justified the lethal response, ultimately dismissing the petition as meritless.
Questions settled- Does the right of private defence justify the use of lethal force when there is no reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt?
- Can an accused claim the right of private defence if they have exceeded the limits prescribed by law?
- Does the alleged commission of an offence by the deceased regarding water rights justify a lethal response by the accused?
- REHMAT ALI vs The STATE1983 SCMR 922 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant was convicted by the trial court for the murder of Mst. Inayat Bibi and sentenced to death, a decision upheld by the Lahore High Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal specifically to consider the appropriateness of the sentence. The prosecution relied on ocular testimony to establish that the appellant attacked the deceased with a knife, inflicting multiple fatal injuries. While the defense attempted to argue grave and sudden provocation, this was rejected by the Court. However, the Court found that the prosecution failed to substantiate the alleged motive regarding a dispute over a drain. Given the lack of proven motive and evidence suggesting the attack occurred during a heated exchange of words—indicating the appellant acted in the heat of the moment—the Court held that the death sentence was excessive. Consequently, the conviction was maintained, but the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, with the fine maintained as compensation to the deceased's brother.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to establish the alleged motive for a crime necessitate a reduction in the sentence?
- Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment when the evidence suggests the crime was committed in the heat of the moment?
- Is a husband who has abandoned his wife entitled to receive compensation awarded under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- REHMAT ALI vs COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION, SARGODHA AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 285 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-09-07Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ALI AND ANOTHER vs MEMBER (REVENUE) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 1052 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-24Read full judgment →
- REHMAN vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC 210 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a 'Mali', challenged the termination of his services, alleging it was mala fide and in violation of law. Upon termination, the respondent-employer provided cheques covering all legal dues, including notice pay and provident fund, which the petitioner encashed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a grievance application under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, without disclosing the receipt or encashment of these payments. The Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding that the petitioner’s acceptance of the full and final settlement extinguished his grievance. The High Court affirmed this decision, holding that the petitioner’s conduct in accepting the payments without protest or disclosure demonstrated satisfaction with the settlement. The Court distinguished this matter from precedents involving partial payments or disputes over unpaid wages, ruling that where a workman accepts full payment of dues, they cannot subsequently invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to challenge the termination. The petition was dismissed, as the petitioner’s actions precluded him from maintaining a claim for reinstatement.
Questions settled- Does the acceptance of full and final settlement dues by a workman preclude them from challenging the termination of their services?
- Can a workman maintain a grievance application under the Industrial Relations Ordinance after accepting and encashing cheques for all legal dues?
- Is a workman required to disclose the receipt of full and final settlement payments when filing a grievance application under the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
- REHMA r GILL AND ANOTHER vs QUETTA CANTONMENT BOARD1983 PLD Supreme Court 133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the applicability of the Industrial Relations Ordinance to employees of the Quetta Cantonment Board. The appellants, a sweeper and a chowkidar, challenged their dismissal by filing applications under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The core legal question was whether Cantonment Boards perform functions connected with the Armed Forces, thereby invoking the exclusionary clause of Section 1(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that the primary purpose of a cantonment is the quartering of troops and the management of their requirements. Consequently, the administration and upkeep of cantonments constitute services directly connected with the Armed Forces, notwithstanding the presence of a civilian population or the performance of municipal duties. The Court affirmed that Cantonment Board employees are excluded from the operation of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The principle laid down is that the nature of a Cantonment Board's statutory duties, which are inherently linked to the quartering of regular forces, renders its employees ineligible for the protections afforded by the Industrial Relations Ordinance under the exemption provided for services connected with the Armed Forces.
Questions settled- Are employees of a Cantonment Board excluded from the operation of the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
- Does the performance of municipal duties by a Cantonment Board negate its connection to the Armed Forces for the purpose of statutory exemptions?
- Does the registration of a trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance conclusively determine the applicability of the Ordinance to the employees of a Cantonment Board?
- REEJHOOMAL vs PAHLOOMAL MOTIRAM COTTON GINNING & PRESSING1983 PLC 134 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-02Read full judgment →
- RAZIUDDIN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2023 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-20Read full judgment →
- RAZA HUSSAIN AND 3 Others vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 1005 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-06Read full judgment →
- RAZA ALI vs AHMAD SAEED KHAN1983 CLC 1230 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-27Read full judgment →
- RASULAN BIBI vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 208 (2) · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- RASOOL BUX AND 9 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 144 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
- RASOOL AND OTHERS vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1983 CLC 3171 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
- RASIKLAL JIVANLAL SHAH AND OTHERS vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS1983 PTD 152 · Calcutta High Court · 1984-05-04Read full judgment →
- RASHIDUDDIN vs Syed SAJID HUSSAIN1983 CLC 1261 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-03Read full judgment →
- RASHIDUDDIN AND 2 OTHERS vs NIZAMUDDIN AND 6 OTHERS1983 CLC 2950 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-01Read full judgment →
- Rashid, Member WAHEED ULLAH KHAN vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, GEOLOGICAL1983 PLC (C. S.) 1071 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Rashid, Member SULTAN KHAN vs CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN ORDNANCE1983 PLC (C. S.) 1070 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-07-20Read full judgment →
- Rashid, Member MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE SHAD vs THE POSTMASTER (DELIVERY), G. P. O., LAHORE AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 922 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-07-02Read full judgment →
- Rashid, Member INAYATULLAH BAJWA vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, REGISTRATION1983 PLC (C. S.) 254 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-01-05Read full judgment →
- Rashid, Member Ch. MUNAWWAR HUSSAIN BHATTI vs PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT1983 PLC (C. S.) 266 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-01-26Read full judgment →
- RASHID vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2008 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-05Read full judgment →
- RASHID AND Another vs The STATE1983 SCMR 295 · Federal Shariat Court · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
- RASHID AHMAD vs THE STATE- Respondent1983P Cr. L J 1461 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-08Read full judgment →
- RASHID AHMAD GARDEE vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2222 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-04Read full judgment →
- RASHEED vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2420 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
- RASAB AND Another vs THE STATE AND Another1983 SCMR 1018 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence of the petitioners, who were initially convicted of murder by the trial court but had their convictions altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder by the High Court. The petitioners sought leave to appeal their conviction and sentence under section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court noted that the petition was filed with a significant delay of 351 days; however, in light of the circumstances and the proposed order, the Court condoned the delay. Crucially, the Court observed that a separate petition filed by the complainant against the acquittal of the petitioners on the murder charge had already been granted leave by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court held that since the entire evidence would necessarily be reappraised in the context of the complainant's pending appeal against the acquittal, it was appropriate to grant leave to the petitioners as well to ensure a comprehensive review of the case.
Questions settled- Can a petition for leave to appeal be entertained despite a significant delay in filing?
- Is it appropriate to grant leave to appeal when a related petition concerning the same evidence and acquittal is already pending before the Court?
- Rao MUHAMMAD YASIN vs PRESIDING OFFICER, NOCONFIDENCE MOTION1983 CLC 2449 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-31Read full judgment →
- ROSHAN DIN BHA TTI vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 1945 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-29Read full judgment →
- Rao FAZAL KHAN AKHTAR vs THE SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 1251 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-08-27Read full judgment →
- Rao ABDUL JALIL KHAN vs ADDITIONAL L.G. OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 1042 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-06-28Read full judgment →
- Rana MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, SARGODHA AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 1143 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Rana MUHAMMAD HAFIZ KHAN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND OTHERSs1983 CLC 3145 · Lahore High Court · 1973-12-11Read full judgment →
- Rana MAQBOOL AHMED vs THE REGIONAL MANAGER, PAD & SC, MULTAN1983 PLC 531 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-08-24Read full judgment →
- Rana KHALILURREHMAN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE AND 21983 PLD Lahore 331 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the appellate judgment of the Additional District Judge, Lahore, which reversed the Rent Controller's order and ordered the petitioner's eviction from the disputed premises on the grounds of personal bona fide requirement and material impairment of the property's utility through unauthorized additions and alterations. The core legal questions involved whether a residential building converted to non-residential use remains residential in character, whether structural changes impairing utility justify eviction under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and the scope of High Court's constitutional jurisdiction over concurrent findings of fact by appellate tribunals. The Lahore High Court held that a composite or residential building retains its residential character despite unauthorized conversion, that impairing either the value or the utility of the property independently warrants eviction, and that the appellate court's findings based on proper evidence and law are unexceptionable in constitutional jurisdiction. The key principles laid down are that the terms 'value' and 'utility' in section 13(2)(iii) of the 1959 Ordinance are independent alternatives, and that unauthorized conversion of residential premises to commercial use violates section 11 of the Ordinance and public policy.
Questions settled- Does a residential building retain its residential character even if it is put to non-residential use with or without the landlord's consent?
- Are the terms 'value' and 'utility' under section 13(2)(iii) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, to be read as independent alternatives?
- Can the High Court interfere with findings of fact by an appellate court under its constitutional jurisdiction when such findings are in accordance with the law and supported by evidence?
- Does the unauthorized conversion of a residential premises into a non-residential one constitute an impairment of its utility for residential purposes?
- Rana ABU BAKAR vs Mst. SADAQAT BEGUM AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 320 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-22Read full judgment →
- RAMZAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 688 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
- RAMZAN MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISMENT DIVISTON1983 PLC (C. S.) 835 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-05-11Read full judgment →
- RAMZAN ALI vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SARGODHA AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 610 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-11Read full judgment →
- Raja WALAYAT KHAN vs Ch. MUHAMMAD SADIQ1983 CLC 48 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-07-17Read full judgment →
- Raja MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1438 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
- Raja MUHAMMAD AMIR AND 14 others vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND 21983 PLD Lahore 355 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order 1981 challenged land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for the Dandot Cement Project of the State Cement Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. The petitioners contended that the respondent Corporation was a company under Section 3(e) of the Act requiring compliance with Part VII procedure, that quarrying clay did not constitute a public purpose or 'work' under Section 40, and that the acquisition was mala fide due to the availability of alternative uncultivable land. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that acquisition for an industry established and financed by the government using public funds serves a public purpose, making compliance with Part VII unnecessary. It further ruled that 'work' under Section 40(1)(aa) broadly encompasses all operations essential to running a factory, including raw material excavation. Finally, the Court affirmed that the selection and suitability of a site fall within the exclusive domain of acquiring authorities and are not subject to judicial review in constitutional jurisdiction absent specific proof of mala fides.
Questions settled- Does land acquisition for a state-owned enterprise financed by public funds constitute acquisition for a public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Does the term 'work' in Section 40(1)(aa) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 include the excavation of raw materials required for running an industrial factory?
- Is the determination of the suitability or choice of site by an acquiring authority open to judicial review in constitutional jurisdiction?
- What standard of pleading and proof is required to establish mala fides in land acquisition proceedings?
- Raja JAVAID AHMAD AND 8 Other vs SUPMUNTENDENNT OF POLICE, GUJRANWALA AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 1226 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Raja BASHIR AHMAD AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND OTHERS1983 CLC 579 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-19Read full judgment →
- Raja AZIZ-UR-REHMAN vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 352 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-11-04Read full judgment →
- Rais RAHIM BAKHSH vs GHAUSIA CORPORATION AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 312 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-01Read full judgment →
- RAIS AHMED vs DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, APPRAISEMENT-1,1983PLC(C.S.) 813 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-04-18Read full judgment →
- RAHMAT BIBI AND 4 OTHERS vs GHAZANFAR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1983 PLD SC (A J & K) 25 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-10-25Read full judgment →
- RAHIM BAKHSH vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND Anoterss1983 SCMR 1137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld an appellate court's decision to remand a suit for specific performance of a land sale agreement. The core legal questions were whether the appellate court erred in framing an additional issue regarding the bona fide purchase of the suit land by a subsequent vendee, and whether certain judicial records (Exhibits P. 5 to P. 7) were admissible as evidence without establishing the identity of the deponents. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the framing of the additional issue was appropriate as it would narrow the controversy and resolve the case effectively without causing prejudice to the petitioner. Regarding the evidence, the Court affirmed that while judicial records are admissible under the Evidence Act, 1872, the identity of the persons who made the statements must be established for them to be relied upon. The Court established that a court may frame additional issues to clarify controversies, and that the admissibility of judicial records requires verification of the deponents' identities.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court frame an additional issue to narrow the scope of a controversy in a suit for specific performance?
- Is the identity of a deponent required to be established before their statement from previous judicial proceedings can be admitted as evidence?
- Does the framing of an additional issue regarding a subsequent purchaser's notice of a prior agreement constitute a valid ground for remand?
- RAHIM BAKHSH AND OTHERS vs PIR BAKHSH1983 CLC 3313 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-18Read full judgment →
- RAHIM BAKHSH AND ANOTHER vs Tile STATE1983 PLD Lahore 397 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-18Read full judgment →
- RAFIQUE KHAN AND 7 Other vs MESSRS BA NANI SUGAR MILLS LTD.1983 PLC 133 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-02Read full judgment →
- RAFIQUE -AHMAD vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENTPAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI1983 PLC 597 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- RAFIQ KHAN AND Others vs RAHMAT KHAN AND Other1983 SCMR 147 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over a consolidation scheme confirmed by the Collector (Consolidation), Depalpur, in 1973. The petitioners challenged the scheme, asserting entitlement to a specific Killa (Killa No. 3/2 of Square No. 63), which they claimed was a garden, or alternatively, seeking compensation for it. Following the dismissal of their revision petition by the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, the petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed their petition in limine. The High Court reasoned that the garden did not exist at the time of the consolidation operations. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners attempted to rely on Khasra Girdawaris from 1976 and 1977 to prove the existence of the garden. The Supreme Court upheld the lower findings, noting that the petitioners failed to provide evidence that the garden existed in 1973, the relevant time for consolidation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that the consolidation was conducted appropriately and the petitioners' holdings were consolidated without prejudice.
Questions settled- Is a consolidation scheme subject to challenge based on the existence of land features that were not present at the time of the consolidation operations?
- Does the failure to provide evidence of land status at the relevant time of consolidation preclude a claim for specific allotment or compensation?
- Can a writ petition be dismissed in limine when the petitioner fails to establish the factual basis for their claim at the relevant time of the administrative action?
- RAFIQ AHMAD vs GHULAM RASOOL AND Other1983 SCMR 17 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the dismissal of the petitioner's civil appeal by the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, on the ground of being time-barred, which decision was subsequently upheld by the High Court in civil revision and review proceedings. The core legal question is whether the petitioner's appeal before the District Court was barred by limitation and whether sufficient cause existed for the condonation of delay. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts rightly found the appeal time-barred as the petitioner failed to account for the delay of each and every day after obtaining the certified copy, having offered no plausible explanation for the subsequent 11-day delay in filing the appeal. The key principle laid down is that when an appeal is barred by limitation, the appellant must satisfactorily account for the delay of each and every day, and the failure to establish sufficient cause precludes the condonation of delay.
Questions settled- Whether an appellant must account for the delay of each and every day when filing a time-barred appeal?
- Does failure to provide a plausible explanation for a delayed filing preclude the condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the lack of sufficient cause for delay?
- RAFIQ AHMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER vs MAHBOOB AHMAD AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1529 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-14Read full judgment →
- RAFIQ AHMAD ANSARI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, EAST KARACHI AND ANOTHER s1983 CLC 1766 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-30Read full judgment →
- RAFIQ ABBAS ZAIDI vs Mst. SHAHIDA BEGUM AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2036 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-12Read full judgment →
- RABNAWAZ AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2495 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-01Read full judgment →
- RAB NAWAZ vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1507 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-06Read full judgment →
- RAB NAWAZ KHAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2312 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-07-19Read full judgment →
- RAB NAWAZ AND 2 OTHERS vs SAKHIUR REHMAN AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 1720 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-07Read full judgment →
- R. G. SEHWANI COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. vs HAJI AHMAD AND 31983 PLD Karachi 11 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involved three consolidated suits filed by a Cooperative Housing Society and neighboring residents against plot purchasers, seeking to restrain the construction of a multi-storeyed commercial building. The core legal questions concerned whether restrictive covenants in a lease deed—limiting construction to residential use, two storeys, and one-third plot coverage—were enforceable by the Society against third-party purchasers, and whether such construction violated neighbors' easement rights. The Court held that the restrictive covenants were not enforceable by the Society because the lessor, the Karachi Municipal Corporation, had effectively waived these conditions by approving the building plans and accepting commercialization fees. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence of actionable infringement of easement rights regarding light, air, or privacy. The principle laid down is that restrictive covenants in a lease are not absolute and can be waived by the lessor; once waived by the competent authority, third parties such as a housing society or neighbors cannot enforce them to block development. Additionally, the Court noted that the suit was not validly instituted due to a lack of authorization for the signatory.
Questions settled- Can a cooperative housing society enforce restrictive lease covenants against third-party purchasers when the lessor has waived those conditions?
- Does the approval of a building plan by the Karachi Development Authority constitute a waiver of restrictive covenants contained in a lease deed?
- Is a suit challenging a building plan approved by a competent authority barred by Section 20 of the Sind Building Control Ordinance, 1979?
- Does the construction of a multi-storeyed building in a residential area inherently violate the customary right of privacy of neighboring residents?
- R. B. INDUSTRIES LTD. vs EMPLOYEES' WELFARE UNION AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Supreme Court 15 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the interpretation of a settlement reached between R. B. Industries Ltd. and its employees' welfare union regarding wage increases, and its applicability to section 8 of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1974. The core legal question was whether an extraordinary wage increase granted under a bilateral settlement was intended to provide relief due to a rise in the cost of living, thereby making it adjustable against the statutory additional cost of living allowance introduced by the Amending Act of 1974, and whether such an intention must be expressly stated in the settlement or can be gathered from surrounding circumstances. The Supreme Court held that the explanation to section 8 is inapplicable to extraordinary wage increases, and that courts may examine the charter of demands, previous settlements, and surrounding circumstances to determine whether a wage raise was intended to offset the cost of living. The Court laid down that the intention behind a wage adjustment can be implied and established through evidence and contextual factors without requiring an explicit declaration in the settlement text.
Questions settled- Whether an extraordinary wage increase granted under a settlement is intended to provide relief due to a rise in the cost of living under section 8 of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1974?
- Can surrounding circumstances, previous settlements, and charters of demands be examined to determine the intention behind a wage increase agreed upon by employers and employees?
- Does the explanation to section 8 of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1974 apply to extraordinary wage increases or only to annual increments, promotions, and specific allowances?
- Must a settlement explicitly declare that a financial benefit is given by way of relief due to a rise in the cost of living for the employer to claim adjustment under the proviso to section 8?
- QUTUB ALI SHAH vs Mst. ZAINAB KHATOON SHAH AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 1421 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-11Read full judgment →
- QUTAB UD DIN vs SANA ULLAH AND Other1983 SCMR 1287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a landlord against the dismissal of his ejectment application concerning a shop situated in Pakpattan Sharif. The lower courts rejected the ejectment petition primarily on the ground that the landlord had previously obtained the vacation of the same shop on the plea of personal need, subsequently rented it out, and was repeating the same tactic, thereby demonstrating a lack of good faith. The core legal question concerns whether the lower courts misread the evidence and misconstrued the grounds upon which the premises was previously vacated, specifically whether it was for personal need or reconstruction. The Supreme Court found force in the petitioner's contentions that the previous eviction was actually sought for reconstruction rather than personal need and that the High Court misread the testimony of witnesses. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the matter further. The key principle laid down is that findings of lower courts based on a misreading of the record and evidence regarding material facts, such as the grounds of a prior ejectment, warrant the granting of leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an ejectment petition can be dismissed on the ground of lack of good faith when prior eviction proceedings were allegedly based on personal need?
- Does a finding based on a misreading of witness testimony regarding prior ejectment proceedings warrant the grant of leave to appeal?
- Can a landlord seek the ejectment of a tenant for personal need after previously renting out the premises?
- QURBAN HUSSAIN vs THE STATE AND Other1983 SCMR 314 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the acquittal of four respondents charged with offences under sections 307, 326, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, the complainant, alleged that the respondents assaulted him and his nephew. The trial court acquitted the respondents, finding that the complainant party was the aggressor, had failed to explain injuries sustained by the respondents, and that the defence version of self-defence was more plausible. The High Court upheld this acquittal in revision. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the lower courts misappreciated the evidence regarding self-defence. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to raise any question of law or demonstrate that the lower courts omitted or misread material evidence. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to provide copies of witness statements, preventing the Court from reviewing the evidence. Consequently, the Court found the lower courts' judgments based on cogent reasons and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that mere disagreement with factual conclusions does not warrant interference.
Questions settled- Does a mere disagreement with the factual conclusions of lower courts regarding the appreciation of evidence constitute a valid ground for granting leave to appeal?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when the petitioner fails to provide the necessary record, such as witness statements, to support the contention of misreading evidence?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal where the lower courts have provided cogent reasons for their findings?
- QURBAN HUSSAIN vs Haji Choudhry MANZOORULHASAN1983 CLC 201 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-19Read full judgment →
- QURBAN ALI vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1948 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-04Read full judgment →
- QURBAN ALI vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSIONER AND Other1983 SCMR 951 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which held that the petitioner lacked locus standi. The petitioner, acting as an informant, had alleged that the third respondent held land in excess of the limits prescribed under Martial Law Regulation No. 115. After various administrative proceedings, the Federal Land Commissioner set aside an order directing the respondent's prosecution. The core legal question was whether an informant, having provided information regarding excess land, possesses the legal standing to challenge the final administrative disposal of such information via a writ petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that an informant does not acquire a vested right in the property or the outcome of the proceedings. The Court affirmed that the distribution of resumed land remains within the discretion of the authorities, and the informant merely sets the law in motion without gaining a right to challenge the final decision. The principle established is that an informant lacks locus standi to invoke writ jurisdiction against administrative orders disposing of their information.
Questions settled- Does an informant who provides information regarding excess land under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 have the locus standi to challenge the final administrative disposal of that information?
- Does the provision of information regarding excess land confer a vested right in the property upon the informant?
- Are authorities bound to transfer resumed land to an informant who initiated the proceedings?
- QURBAN ALI CHANNA vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1983 PLC 704 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-06Read full judgment →
- QUETTA CLUB LTD., QUETTA CANTT. THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR vs MUSLIM1983 PLD Quetta 46 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1934, and the Labour Court, which ruled against the petitioner, Quetta Club, regarding a wage claim. The petitioner contended that the ex parte proceedings were unjustified and that the appellate court erred in dismissing its appeal for failing to provide a deposit certificate. The Court held that the ex parte order was valid, as the petitioner failed to appear despite multiple opportunities, and the authority’s refusal to recall the order was not an error of jurisdiction. Regarding the appeal, the Court affirmed that the proviso to Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1934, is mandatory; thus, an appeal filed without the required deposit certificate is incompetent. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Labour Courts lack inherent review powers unless explicitly conferred by statute, and that disputed questions of fact, such as entitlement to gratuity, cannot be raised for the first time in writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed, emphasizing that constitutional jurisdiction is not an appellate forum to re-examine factual findings.
Questions settled- Is the proviso to Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1934, requiring a deposit certificate for an appeal, mandatory or directory?
- Do Labour Courts possess inherent powers of review in the absence of specific statutory authorization?
- Can disputed questions of fact, not raised before the lower authority, be adjudicated for the first time in constitutional writ jurisdiction?
- Does the failure to appear before an authority after being granted multiple opportunities justify proceeding ex parte?
- Qazi ABDUL QAYYUM AND Others vs THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND Other1983 SCMR 1037 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a service dispute regarding the seniority of a civil servant, Muhammad Nawaz Maqhdoom, who was initially overlooked for promotion to the post of Extra Assistant Commissioner (E.A.C.) in 1974 while his juniors were promoted. Although the respondent was eventually promoted in 1980 and granted pro forma promotion effective from 1978, he sought seniority over those junior officers promoted in 1974. The Punjab Service Tribunal ruled in his favor, directing his placement at Serial No. 60 in the seniority list, reasoning that he had not been properly considered or superseded in 1974. The petitioners, who were among those junior officers promoted in 1974, challenged this decision before the Supreme Court. They argued that the respondent had failed a qualifying test held under the relevant rules in 1974 and had not timely challenged the earlier promotion of his juniors. The Supreme Court found that these contentions raised substantial legal questions requiring examination and granted leave to appeal to determine the validity of the Tribunal's order regarding the respondent's seniority claim.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant claim seniority over officers promoted earlier if they failed to qualify for promotion at the relevant time?
- Does the failure to challenge an earlier promotion preclude a later claim for seniority based on that promotion?
- Is a service tribunal's direction regarding seniority placement legally sustainable if the underlying promotion criteria were not met by the claimant?
- Qazi ABDUL ALI vs ABDUL MAJID AND Another1983 SCMR 320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from two petitions for leave to appeal directed against a single order of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed the concurrent and rival judgments of the lower appellate court regarding suits for possession through pre-emption. The core legal question was whether the suit properties were shops—thereby barring the right of pre-emption under the relevant statute—or whether they were residential stores and bakery ovens respectively, subject to pre-emption based on contiguity. The Supreme Court held that each case depends upon its peculiar circumstances and the primary object for which a building is used must be ascertained. Finding that the lower courts and the High Court had correctly evaluated the evidence regarding the nature of the properties, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions. The key principle laid down is that the determination of whether a property is a shop for pre-emption purposes depends on the primary object and use of the building, and findings of fact concurrently arrived at by the lower courts will not be interfered with lightly.
Questions settled- Whether a property described as a shop in a sale-deed is exempt from pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
- How is the primary character of a building to be ascertained when determining if it qualifies as a shop in pre-emption suits?
- Does a property used as a store and for residential purposes or as a bakery oven constitute a shop under the pre-emption law?