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.
- NAZIR AHMAD AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 262 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-11Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD AND 4 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1279 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-22Read full judgment →
- NAZEER AHMAD vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 776 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-02-28Read full judgment →
- NAZEER AHMAD vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MUZAFFARGARH, AND OTHERS1983 CLC 113 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-16Read full judgment →
- NAZEER AHMAD TOOR vs WAPDA1983 PLC 865 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-04Read full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs The STATE1983 SCMR 631 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Nazar Muhammad, was convicted by the Trial Court for murder and sentenced to death, a conviction and sentence subsequently upheld by the High Court. The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. During the proceedings, the complainant party (the deceased's uncle and father) and the petitioner informed the Court that they had reached an amicable settlement, with the petitioner paying Rs. 40,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. Relying on precedents established in Muhammad Bashir v. The State and Asghar Ali v. The State, the parties requested that this compromise be considered a mitigating circumstance regarding the sentence. The Supreme Court, satisfied that a genuine compromise had been reached and compensation paid, converted the petition into an appeal. The Court held that the compromise served as a mitigating factor, warranting a reduction in the sentence. Consequently, the Court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, set aside the fine, and granted the petitioner the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Can a compromise between the parties in a murder case be treated as a mitigating circumstance for the reduction of a death sentence?
- Does the payment of compensation to the heirs of a deceased victim justify setting aside a fine imposed on the convict?
- Is a convict entitled to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 1008 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
- NAZAR HUSSAIN vs SHAH SAWAR (THROUGH HIS L. Rs.)1983 SCMR 937 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Nazar Hussain appellant filed an application seeking an interim injunction to restrain the respondents from raising construction over the suit land pending disposal of Appeal No. 133 of 1982. The underlying dispute arose from a gift deed executed on 31-12-1958, which was challenged by the appellant through a suit for joint possession under customary law. The suit was decreed in favor of the appellant, and successive appeals by the respondents were dismissed by the Additional District Judge and the Lahore High Court, culminating in leave to appeal granted by the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerned the protection of the subject matter of the dispute from alteration during the pendency of the appeal to prevent irreparable loss. The Supreme Court held that in the interest of justice, status quo ought to be maintained. The Court accordingly directed that no construction shall be raised on the disputed land until the final decision of the appeal, thereby establishing the principle that interim injunctive relief may be granted to preserve the property status quo during appellate proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether an interim injunction can be granted to restrain construction on suit land pending the disposal of an appeal?
- Does the maintenance of status quo apply to disputed land during appellate proceedings to prevent irreparable loss?
- NAZAR DIN AND Others vs The SECRETARY, RURAL WITH POWERS OF THE S. C1983 SCMR 1188 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court. The primary legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners had provided a sufficient and credible explanation to justify the condonation of a one-day delay in filing the petition. The petitioners contended that the delay was caused by the illness of the first petitioner, supporting this claim with an undated medical certificate issued by a Women Medical Officer. Upon examination, the Court found the medical certificate unreliable and noted inconsistencies in the timeline provided by the petitioners regarding the petitioner's ability to travel and file the petition in Lahore immediately following the alleged period of bed rest. Consequently, the Court held that the delay was not satisfactorily explained. The Court affirmed the principle that where a valuable right has accrued to the opposing party, a delay in filing legal proceedings cannot be condoned without a robust and credible justification. Finding no such justification, the petition was dismissed as time-barred.
Questions settled- Can a delay in filing a petition be condoned based on an undated and unverified medical certificate?
- Does the accrual of a valuable right in favor of the respondent influence the court's discretion to condone a delay in filing?
- Is a one-day delay in filing a petition automatically excusable without a satisfactory explanation?
- NAZAR AHMED vs MESSRS HAMDARD DAWAKHANA (WAQF) PAKISTAN1983 PLC 639 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-09-21Read full judgment →
- NAZAKAT ALI AND 5 OTHERS vs ABDUL AZIL AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 1546 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-26Read full judgment →
- NAYYAZ ZAMAN AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr: L J 2476(1) · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-10Read full judgment →
- NAYAMATULLAH KHAN vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENTPAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI1983 PLC 903 · Labour Court · 1980-08-23Read full judgment →
- NAWAZ KHAN NIAZI vs PUNJAB GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS1983 CLC 3168 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-10Read full judgment →
- NAWAZ ALI vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 592 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-02Read full judgment →
- Nawabzada MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN AND OTHERS vs SETTLEMENT1983 CLC 2991 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-19Read full judgment →
- NAWAB vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2201 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-06Read full judgment →
- NAWAB DIN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1939 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-20Read full judgment →
- NAWAB BEGUM vs MUHAMMAD HALEEM ALVI AND others1983 CLC 85 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-01Read full judgment →
- NAWAB AHD 2 Others vs The STATE1983 SCMR 113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court arising from a criminal trial involving charges of murder, attempt to murder, and hurt following a sudden fight over cattle trespass. The core legal question concerned whether the courts below adequately considered the plea of self-defence raised by the appellants, particularly in light of serious head injuries sustained by one of them during the incident. The Supreme Court did not interfere with the convictions recorded by the High Court, but noted that the appellants had already undergone a substantial period of imprisonment and were entitled to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal regarding the convictions but accepted it to the extent of reducing the sentences of the appellants to the period already undergone by them, applying the principle of proportional sentencing and statutory credit for pre-trial and post-conviction detention.
Questions settled- Whether the plea of self-defence was duly considered by the courts below when an accused sustained serious head injuries during a sudden fight?
- Can the appellate court reduce the sentence of convicted persons to the period already undergone in view of prolonged detention and the application of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- NAURASAB KHAN vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C.S.) 924 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-06-25Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL PRESS TRUST AND ANOTHER vs IQBAL HUSSAIN BUKHARI1983 PLC 655 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-09-14Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION vs NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION1983 CLC 888 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL FLOUR OIL INDUSTRIES vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC 931 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-13Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL DISINFECTANT COMPANY vs NATIONAL DETERGENTS LTD.1983 CLC 1762 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-08Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (PAKISTAN) LTD, vs Syed WAZARAT1983 PLC 373 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-31Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTANKARACHI vs IDRIS AHMED RAJA1983 PLC 468 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-17Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTANDecreeHolder vs BAWANY INDUSTRIES1983 PLD Karachi 300 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application under Order XXI Rule 26 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Section 6(4) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979, seeking the recall of an execution order and the return of an execution application for presentation to the proper court. The core legal question was whether an execution application for a decree passed by the High Court in a banking suit after the promulgation of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 should be entertained by the High Court or the Special Court. The High Court held that under Section 6(4) of the 1979 Ordinance, execution proceedings for decrees falling within the purview of the Ordinance must be brought before the Special Court, unless an execution application was already pending at the commencement of the Ordinance. The key principle laid down is that the exclusive jurisdiction for executing decrees in such banking matters vests in the Special Court, overriding the general provisions of Sections 37 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Which court has jurisdiction to entertain an execution application for a decree passed in a banking suit after the promulgation of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
- Does Section 6(4) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 transfer execution proceedings initiated after the Ordinance to the Special Court?
- How do sections 37 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply in the face of exclusive jurisdiction provisions under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs UNITED CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 2629 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs Mst. ASHRAF JEHAN BEGUM1983 CLC 266 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-09Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs MESSRS TRADEWELL (PAKISTAN)1983 CLC 2631 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-28Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs GHULAM MUSTAPA1983PLC 130 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-20Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs FAROOQ ARMED MEMON1983 PLC 437 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-20Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN EMPLOYEES' UNION vs THE CHAIRMAN. PUNJAB1983 PLC 1256 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-26Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND 51983 PLC 741 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS vs SHAH RUKH1983 SCMR 21 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court's Appeal Bench which dismissed their Intra-Court Appeal as incompetent. The respondents, employees of the petitioner-Bank, had their promotions cancelled without being afforded an opportunity of being heard. They challenged the cancellation through a constitutional petition, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge. The Intra-Court Appeals failed on the ground that an alternative remedy of appeal or review was available under the rules. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the Lahore High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction and that the respondents, not being holders of statutory posts with statutory tenure, could not invoke constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court observed a variance in previous decisions regarding territorial jurisdiction and noted the need for an authoritative pronouncement on whether employees of statutory corporations governed by internal rules can invoke Article 199 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and suspended the impugned orders of the High Court.
Questions settled- Whether the Lahore High Court has territorial jurisdiction to challenge orders of reversion passed outside its territorial limits when the affected employees are stationed within its jurisdiction?
- Whether employees of a statutory corporation who do not hold a statutory post or statutory tenure can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to enforce rights arising from internal rules and bye-laws?
- Whether failure to exhaust departmental remedies bars a constitutional petition when service rules are deemed to have the force of a statute?
- NATHOO vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM1983 CLC 2817 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-08Read full judgment →
- NATHANIAL NAZ vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, %ALMA' AND ANOTHERPLD 1983 Lahore.244 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-22Read full judgment →
- NASRULLAH MATAMAKEN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2322 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-20Read full judgment →
- NASRULLAH KHAN vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, HEADQUARTERS, IRRIGATION1983 SCMR 1254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal challenging the termination of his services as a draftsman in the Irrigation and Power Department, Punjab. The core legal question was whether the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications for initial recruitment as a draftsman under Rule 7 of the West Pakistan Irrigation Department Draftsmen's Service Rules, 1962, having obtained a certificate from the Government School of Engineering and Polytechnic Institute, Rasul, rather than passing the formal Draftsmen's Examination mandated by the rules. The Supreme Court held that the Punjab Service Tribunal's decision was unexceptionable as the petitioner's certificate merely indicated completion of a course rather than passing the required examination, and his provisional appointment was subject to government approval which was validly withheld due to lack of qualifications. The key principle laid down is that provisional appointments made subject to statutory qualification approvals are lawfully terminable if the candidate fails to meet the strict prescriptive criteria laid down in the governing service rules.
Questions settled- Whether a candidate holding a course completion certificate rather than passing the prescribed draftsmen's examination fulfills the qualification requirements under the West Pakistan Irrigation Department Draftsmen's Service Rules, 1962?
- Does a provisional appointment made subject to government approval of qualifications create an enforceable right to the post when approval is withheld?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a Service Tribunal's finding regarding the interpretation of service qualification rules when the candidate lacks the mandated credentials?
- NASIR NAZEER vs LAHORE BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY1983 CLC 2394 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-26Read full judgment →
- NASIR MALIK vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE AND ANOTHERs1983 CLC 748 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-09Read full judgment →
- NASIR MAHMOOD vs MUSTAJABI BEGUM1983 CLC 2872 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an ejectment order passed by the Additional District Judge, Jhang, against the appellants regarding a shop. The landlady sought eviction on grounds of subletting and the requirement of the premises for personal use and reconstruction. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the application, but the appellate court reversed this, finding evidence of subletting and valid reconstruction requirements. Upon review, the High Court examined the evidence regarding the alleged sub-tenancy and the bona fide nature of the landlady's requirement. The Court held that the mere induction of partners into a business by a tenant does not constitute subletting, as the tenant retains legal possession and no interest in the immovable property is transferred. Furthermore, the Court found that the landlady's claim for reconstruction was not bona fide but was a pretext to increase rent, noting her failure to rebut allegations of rent enhancement demands. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate order, concluding that the grounds for ejectment were not established, and dismissed the landlady's application.
Questions settled- Does the induction of a partner into a business by a tenant constitute subletting under rent control laws?
- Is a landlord's claim for reconstruction considered bona fide if the primary intent is to increase rent?
- Does the mere use of premises by a partner while the lessee retains legal possession amount to a sub-lease?
- Can a court of appeal interfere with a finding of fact if the lower court failed to discuss the evidence on record?
- NASIR KAMAL PASHA vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL KHAN1983 PLD Karachi 192 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an order of the Rent Controller striking off the appellant-tenant's defence and directing eviction for non-compliance with a tentative rent order passed under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller could issue a tentative rent order and subsequently strike off the defence without considering the tenant's disputed rent receipts and affording an opportunity to prove them. The High Court held that the Rent Controller's discretion to pass a tentative rent order is judicial and requires a summary inquiry into material facts, and cannot ignore documentary evidence like rent receipts on a mere denial by the landlord without a prima facie finding of falsehood. The court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the case back for a fresh determination. The key principle laid down is that a Rent Controller must conduct a summary inquiry and consider prima facie documentary evidence presented by a tenant regarding rent payments before passing a tentative rent order.
Questions settled- Whether a Rent Controller can ignore disputed rent receipts produced by a tenant without holding a summary inquiry?
- Does the power to pass a tentative rent order under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance require consideration of all material facts on record?
- Can a tenant's defence be struck off for non-compliance with a tentative rent order that was improperly passed without evaluating documentary evidence?
- NASIR HUSSAIN AND Another vs The STATE1983 SCMR 1000 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the convictions of the petitioners, Nasir Hussain and Ghulam Hussain, for the murder of Muhammad Sharif. The trial court had sentenced Nasir Hussain to death and Ghulam Hussain to life imprisonment for the murder committed with lathis. The petitioners contend that the offence should be mitigated from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 (Part I), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arguing that the deceased provoked the attack by violating a prior compromise agreement to avoid the village. Furthermore, the petitioners challenge the application of Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding common intention, asserting that the fatal injury was a single blow by Nasir Hussain and that the death sentence was disproportionate given the provocation. The Supreme Court, finding that these contentions regarding the nature of the offence, the applicability of common intention, and the appropriateness of the death sentence require further judicial consideration, granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does the violation of a prior compromise agreement by a deceased person constitute sufficient provocation to reduce a charge of murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
- Can a co-accused be held liable under the principle of common intention for a fatal injury inflicted by another when the remaining injuries are merely simple?
- Is a sentence of death appropriate when the victim has effectively invited the attack by violating a prior agreement?
- NASIR AHMED vs THE STATE1983 PLD Shariat Court A J& K 23 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-06-08Read full judgment →
- NASIR AHMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1039 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
- NASIR A. SHEIKH vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1983 PTD 287 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-09Read full judgment →
- NASIMUL ISLAM PASHA vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1983 PLC (C. S.) 483 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-11-04Read full judgment →
- NASIM SHAFI vs TANVEER AND OTHERS1983 CLC 290 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-15Read full judgment →
- NASIM AKHTAR vs RIAZ HUSSAIN SHAH-1983 P Cr. LJ 2005 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- NASIM AHMAD vs SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE/RENT CONTROLLER No. 1, KARACHI AND1983 SCMR 204 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the interpretation of Section 16 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, regarding the determination of arrears and monthly rent during ejectment proceedings. The core legal question is whether the Rent Controller's determination of rent under Section 16 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is of a final nature, unlike the tentative assessment previously provided under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The High Court held that the order passed under Section 16 is of a tentative nature, as quantum of rent is finally decided under Section 19 of the Ordinance. Finding the question to be of general public importance affecting numerous cases, the Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal to provide an authoritative decision while declining to stay the operation of the Rent Controller's order.
Questions settled- Whether the determination of rent by a Rent Controller under Section 16 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is of a tentative or final nature?
- Does Section 16 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 differ materially in its effect from Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 regarding the adjustment of rent?
- NASIM AHMAD KHAN vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL LOCAL, GOVERNMENT AND1983 PLC (C. S.) 1202 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- NASEEBZADA vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC 1226 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
- NASEEBUDDIN vs REHMAN AGRICULTURAL MANUFACTURERS COMPANY1983 PLC 328 · Labour Court · 1982-11-28Read full judgment →
- NARGIS BEGUM AND 5 ANOTHERS vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2923 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1981-06-13Read full judgment →
- NAQVI MUHAMMAD ABBAS vs ADMISSION BOARD FOR 'ADMISSIONS' TO 1ST1983 CLC 1430 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitutional petition concerns the refusal of admission to the First Year M.B., B.S. class by the Admission Board. The petitioner, having completed 12 years of education in Nigeria, challenged the rejection of his application, arguing that his qualification was equivalent to the F.Sc. (Pre-Medical) standard as certified by the University of the Punjab. The core legal question was whether the Principal of King Edward Medical College possessed the unilateral authority to reject the petitioner's application, and whether the petitioner's eligibility certificate from the University of the Punjab was binding. The Court held that the Admission Board, not the Principal in his individual capacity, is the sole competent authority to grant or refuse admission. Furthermore, the Court determined that the Admission Board failed to record reasons for rejection as required by the prospectus. The Court affirmed that the University of the Punjab is the exclusive authority for determining qualification equivalence. Consequently, the petition was allowed, directing the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's application in light of the eligibility certificate and the proper procedural requirements.
Questions settled- Is the Principal of a medical college competent to unilaterally reject an admission application without the Admission Board's involvement?
- Does the Admission Board have an obligation to record reasons when refusing admission to a candidate?
- Which authority is competent to determine the equivalence of foreign educational qualifications for medical college admission in Punjab?
- NANDLAL AND Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SIND AND Another1983 SCMR 954 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging the transfer of a portion of urban property by the settlement authorities and the subsequent dismissal of the petitioners' constitutional petition by the Sind High Court. The core legal question concerns whether the Settlement authorities possessed the jurisdiction to modify transfer documents after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed and whether pure questions of fact regarding property identification and alleged record tampering could be raised for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that questions of fact not raised before the Settlement authorities cannot be agitated in constitutional proceedings, and that the petitioners lacked locus standi to challenge the transfer of a portion of the property that was never lawfully transferred to them. The key principle laid down is that factual controversies and allegations of record tampering must be raised in the appropriate forum below, and a petitioner cannot question the transfer of property portions outside their own valid title.
Questions settled- Can questions of fact and allegations of record tampering not raised before the settlement authorities be agitated in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Does a property owner holding a permanent transfer deed have the locus standi to question the transfer of a separate portion of property that was never included in their own transfer documents?
- Do settlement authorities retain the power to correct or clarify transfer orders and deeds when portions of properties are found to be amalgamated or incorrectly described?
- NAMDAR AND 2 Others vs THE ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1983 SCMR 367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from proceedings concerning the cancellation of a land allotment. The Additional Settlement Commissioner set aside the petitioners' allotment upon discovering that the land in dispute was Provincial Government property rather than evacuee land, making it unallotable under the relevant evacuee laws. The petitioners' constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court was dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners sought to rely upon new documentary evidence, specifically entries in an auction register, to demonstrate that the land was evacuee property prior to Partition, explaining that certified copies were unavailable during the High Court proceedings. The core question before the Supreme Court was whether an order of the High Court could be set aside on the basis of new material that was not produced before it. The Supreme Court held that it could not interfere with the High Court's judgment on the basis of unexamined material, affirming that the High Court's decision was unexceptionable based on the record presented to it. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, with the observation that petitioners could seek review before the High Court if permitted by law.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment based on new evidence or documents that were not produced before the High Court?
- Whether an allotment of land under evacuee laws remains valid if the property is determined to belong to the Provincial Government rather than being evacuee land?
- NAMDANG TEA Co. LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND OTHERS1983 PTD 330 · Calcutta High Court · 1981-09-13Read full judgment →
- NAJAM SAEED AND OTHERS vs Mst. BASHIRAN1983 PLD Supreme Court 196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an objection petition filed during the execution of an ejectment decree obtained by the respondent-landlady against two tenants. The appellants, claiming to be tenants in possession of the property, challenged the execution proceedings. The primary legal issue concerned the adjudication of objection petitions filed by third parties claiming tenancy rights, specifically whether such objectors must surrender possession before their objections are heard, and whether the appellants had established their tenancy over the disputed premises. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the evidence, determined that the appellants failed to substantiate their claim of tenancy over the property in question, except for a specific shop or clinic. The Court observed that the appellants' possession of the remaining premises was derived from the judgment-debtors against whom an ejectment order had already been passed. Consequently, the Court held that the appellants were obligated to deliver possession to the decree-holder. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the appellants could not resist execution based on unsubstantiated claims of tenancy.
Questions settled- Does a failure to produce rent receipts to identify the specific property claimed as a tenancy cast doubt upon the validity of the claim?
- Are occupants who derive their possession from judgment-debtors subject to the same ejectment order as the original judgment-debtors?
- Is an objection petition regarding possession maintainable when the objector fails to prove their independent tenancy over the disputed premises?
- NAIMUDDIN SIDDIQUI vs S. M. AHMED HABIBUR REHMAN1983 CLC 1378 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an ejectment order issued by the Controller, which was based on two grounds: the tenant's alleged default in rent payment and the landlord's bona fide personal requirement of the premises. The appellant contended that no specific plea of default was made and that the landlord's bona fide requirement was not established, citing a previous instance where the landlord returned to Zambia after making a similar demand. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Controller's findings. The Court held that while a specific plea of default was absent, it could be implied from the landlord's complaint of non-payment and illegal adjustment of rent, as the tenant had notice of the allegations. It was further held that the landlord's bona fide requirement for personal use was established, as he had resigned from his job abroad and demonstrated a clear intention to permanently settle in Pakistan with his family, despite a prior temporary return. The suitability of the premises for the landlord's family was also considered.
Questions settled- Can a finding of default in rent payment be made even if there is no specific plea, provided the tenant has notice of the allegations?
- Does a landlord's prior temporary return from abroad negate a current claim of bona fide personal requirement for premises if permanent settlement is now established?
- What factors are considered when assessing a landlord's bona fide requirement for personal use and occupation of rented premises?
- Can a tenant unilaterally deduct repair costs from rent without the landlord's consent or Controller's permission?
- NAIK MUHAMMAD AND Another vs MANZOOR AHMAD AND Other1983 SCMR 13 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a civil revision in a suit for possession based on title. The core legal questions were whether the defendants could introduce a plea of adverse possession after the initial written statement, and whether they could simultaneously claim ownership while arguing that the civil court lacked jurisdiction due to a landlord-tenant relationship. The Supreme Court held that the defendants were not entitled to introduce the plea of adverse possession because it was not raised in the original pleadings and was inconsistent with their primary defense of ownership. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a party cannot be permitted to raise mutually inconsistent pleas through an amendment, especially when the application is belated. The Court also noted that the defendants had conceded the plaintiffs' ownership before the appellate court. The key principle laid down is that amendments to pleadings that introduce inconsistent, contradictory, or highly belated defenses should be disallowed, and parties are bound by the pleadings originally presented to the court.
Questions settled- Can a defendant introduce a plea of adverse possession through an amendment if it was not raised in the original written statement?
- Is a party permitted to raise mutually inconsistent pleas in a civil suit?
- Can a party challenge the jurisdiction of a civil court by asserting a landlord-tenant relationship after previously claiming independent ownership of the property?
- NAFEES-UD-DIN AHMAD vs KANWAR SHAUKAT NAZ1983 PLC 296 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →
- NAEEM HASSAN vs SWISSAIR TRANSPORT COMPANY LTD.1983 PLC 949 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-16Read full judgment →
- NAEEM AKHTAR vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PLANNING1983 P L .C (C. S.) 727 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-04-03Read full judgment →
- NADIR KHAN vs SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR ENGINEERING COLLEGES THROUGH CHAIRMAN, PUBLICE SERVICE COMMISSION, QUETTA AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Quetta 102 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-04-03Read full judgment →
- NADEEM ASGHAR vs THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SPECIAL1983 P Cr. L J 881 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-17Read full judgment →
- NADEEM Alias MUSHTAQ vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2518 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
- NADEEM AHMAD SHAIKH vs PROVINCE OF SIND1983 CLC 495 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
- NABI BUX vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1348 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-13Read full judgment →
- MUZAFFAR MALIK vs SHAMIM AHMED1983 CLC 2886 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-09Read full judgment →
- MUZAFFAR KHAN vs YARN1983 CLC 1469 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-04Read full judgment →
- MUZAFFAR KHAN AND ANOTHER vs Haji NABI GUL AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1777 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-08Read full judgment →
- MUZAFFAR BEG AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2482 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-03Read full judgment →
- MUZAFFAR AND 2 OTHERS vs Moulvi AZIZUR RAHMAN AND OTHERS1983 CLC 16 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
- MUZAFFAR ALI vs TAUQIR ALAM ASHHAR AND 5 OTHERS1983 PLD Karachi 445 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-11Read full judgment →
- MUZAFFAR ABBAS AND ANOTHER vs UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB AND 21983 CLC 1333 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUSTAQEEM KHAN vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND Other1983 SCMR 103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of land allotments. The petitioner, having been allotted land based on verified Produce Index Units, faced cancellation of an alleged excess allotment by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The core legal question was whether the High Court, having identified a procedural error in the dismissal of the petitioner's application for the recall of an ex parte order, was legally obligated to remand the case to the Settlement authorities rather than dismissing the writ petition on merits. The Supreme Court held that since the High Court found the actual allotment remaining in the petitioner's name was consistent with his verified entitlement, and this fact remained uncontroverted, the cancellation of the excess land was substantively correct. Consequently, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the writ petition, establishing the principle that where the substantive outcome of an administrative order is demonstrably correct and uncontroverted, a court may decline to interfere in writ jurisdiction despite procedural irregularities in the lower administrative proceedings.
Questions settled- Is a court required to remand a case to administrative authorities if it identifies a procedural error in the dismissal of an application for the recall of an ex parte order?
- Can a writ petition be dismissed if the substantive outcome of the challenged administrative order is found to be correct and uncontroverted?
- MUSTAFA AND ANOTHER vs Yaqoob Sheikh for the State.1983 PCr. LJ 1712 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-01Read full judgment →
- MUSTAFA ALI SIDDIQI. vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 894 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-06-01Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. vs MUHAMMAD AKHTAR1983 PLC 654 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. vs EHSAN NAVEED GOHEER1983 PLC 594 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-05Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. vs AKBAR ALL SAM1983 PLC 307 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-12-12Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI1983 CLC 2813 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-26Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AND Others vs THE STATE AND Another1983 SCMR 662 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-21Read 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 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur. The High Court's cancellation was primarily based on the petitioners' failure to appear in court despite service of notice. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the cancellation of bail was justified given the circumstances and the merits of the case. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the appellants attributed with inflicting fatal blows were not entitled to bail, thereby dismissing their appeal. However, the Court found the remaining appellants entitled to bail, setting aside the High Court's cancellation order and restoring the original bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge. The key principle established is that while bail cancellation may be considered for non-appearance, the appellate court retains the discretion to evaluate the merits of the case to determine whether the accused are entitled to bail, distinguishing between those attributed with specific fatal acts and those with lesser roles.
Questions settled- Is an accused person who is attributed with fatal blows entitled to bail?
- Can an appellate court restore a bail order that was previously cancelled by the High Court?
- Does the failure of an accused to appear in court justify the cancellation of bail regardless of the merits of the case?
- MUSHTAQ AND Another vs SHAHZAD AKHTAR AND ANOTHER1983 SCMR 1274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the cancellation of bail by the High Court. The petitioners, Mushtaq and Muhammad Iqbal, were accused alongside a co-accused, Muhammad Hanif, of attacking the complainant and his brother, resulting in a fatality and injuries. While the Additional Sessions Judge initially granted bail to the petitioners on the grounds that the fatal blow was not attributed to them, the High Court subsequently cancelled this bail. The High Court reasoned that the accused acted in concert pursuant to a pre-planned design, with all participants being armed with knives (chhuris). The core legal question was whether the High Court's cancellation of bail was justified given the circumstances of the alleged common intention and concerted action. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order, finding no valid grounds to interfere with the lower court's assessment that the petitioners' participation in a pre-planned attack warranted the cancellation of bail. The principle affirmed is that bail may be cancelled where evidence suggests the accused acted in concert in a criminal design.
Questions settled- Is the cancellation of bail by a High Court justified when the accused are alleged to have acted in concert in a pre-planned attack?
- Does the absence of a fatal blow attribution to specific petitioners automatically entitle them to bail in a case involving concerted criminal action?
- MUSHTAQ Alias BILLO vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 288 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs The STATE1983 SCMR 529 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from the dismissal of the petitioner's murder appeal by the Peshawar High Court, wherein the petitioner was convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of two persons and sentenced to death on each count. The core legal questions involved the reliability of multiple dying declarations, the credibility of ocular witnesses who were employees of the complainant, and the implications of discrepancies regarding weapon recovery and the absence of blood at the crime scene. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were well-founded, affirming that the dying declarations—duly attested by medical officers—and the trustworthy ocular testimony sufficiently established the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The Court laid down the principle that minor variations in injury sizes do not negate ocular and dying declarations, and that the absence of blood at a crime scene is satisfactorily explained where medical evidence shows the nature of the injuries did not cause external oozing.
Questions settled- Can a dying declaration be relied upon when recorded in the presence of an allegedly inimical complainant?
- Does the absence of blood at the spot of a firearm occurrence invalidate the prosecution's case regarding the place of occurrence?
- Whether minor differences in the size of firearm injuries are sufficient to establish the presence of multiple assailants?
- Can the testimony of ocular witnesses who are employees of the complainant be discarded solely on the ground of their employment?
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD MALLICK vs Syed SHAFARAT HUSSAIN1983 CLC 3081 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-13Read full judgment →
- MUSALLI KHAN AND Another vs Mst. SARDARA1983 SCMR 823 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns an inheritance dispute regarding the estate of a common ancestor, Khadi Khan. The respondent, Mst. Sardara, claimed shares in the property as the uterine sister of the deceased Ajun and as the daughter of Qabil Shah. The trial court decreed her a 5/27th share, which the appellate court subsequently modified to a 2/5th share. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appellant's revision petition. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was the determination of the correct share entitlement of a uterine sister under Islamic Law. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred in their calculation of the respondent's share. Relying on established principles of Muhammadan Law, the Court clarified that a uterine sister is entitled to a 1/6th share of the deceased's estate, rather than the larger portion previously awarded. Consequently, the Court modified the lower court's decree to reflect the correct 1/6th share entitlement for the respondent, rejecting alternative arguments regarding the calculation of shares based on the sequence of deaths of other family members.
Questions settled- What is the correct share entitlement of a uterine sister in the estate of a deceased under Muhammadan Law?
- Can a court modify a decree based on an incorrect calculation of inheritance shares under Islamic law?
- MUSA vs THE STATE1983 PCr.LJ 16 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-01Read full judgment →
- MUSA KHAN vs THE STATE1983 PLD Peshawar 76 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-11-30Read full judgment →
- MUREED HUSSAIN AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2020 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-16Read full judgment →
- MURAD-- vs ALLAH DAD1983 CLC 2840 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-25Read full judgment →
- MURAD KHAN vs FAZALESUBHAN AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Supreme Court 82 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court challenged an order of the Peshawar High Court granting pre-arrest bail to the respondent in a case involving an attempt to commit murder under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court acted in accordance with well-established principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by examining only the merits of the injury without considering the essential pre-condition for pre-arrest bail, namely, whether the apprehension of arrest stems from ulterior motives, malice, or a design to cause unwarranted humiliation and harassment. Setting aside the impugned order, the Court laid down the principle that the presence of mala fides or political victimization is a mandatory consideration for granting pre-arrest bail, and without satisfying this condition, anticipatory bail cannot be sustained.
Questions settled- Whether the existence of ulterior motives or mala fide is a necessary pre-condition for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Can anticipatory bail be granted solely by examining the merits of the physical injuries without establishing apprehension of arrest due to victimization?
- Did the introduction of Section 498-A in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 change the established principles for granting pre-arrest bail?
- MUNSHI vs Khawaja MAHMOOD SADIQ AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 609 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-09Read full judgment →
- Munshi MUHAMMAD AYUB vs COLLECTOR_ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, NAROWAL1983 PLC (C S.) 1145 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- NASRULLAH vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 751 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-18Read full judgment →
- Munshi MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION AND ANOTHER1983PLC(C 5.)329 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →