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.
- MEMBER FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION vs ABDUL QADIR KHAN AND Other1983 SCMR 834 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from civil petitions directed against a common judgment of the Peshawar High Court concerning land reforms and the interpretation of Martial Law Regulation No. 115. The first respondent, a retired civil servant, had purchased extensive lands and subsequently transferred portions of it by way of gift to his legal heirs and a non-legal heir (daughter-in-law) prior to the promulgation of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. Upon scrutiny of his declaration, authorities differed on the permissible retention limits and the validity of the transfers. The Federal Land Commission in suo motu revision restricted the respondent's retention. The Peshawar High Court in writ jurisdiction upheld the respondent's right to retain a larger area and validated the gift in favour of the daughter-in-law, holding that the embargo under paragraph 10 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 did not apply to a non-heir as defined under paragraph 7. The Supreme Court considered these aspects in light of the statutory provisions governing land transfers and retention limits.
Questions settled- Whether a transfer of land made by way of gift in favour of a non-legal heir is hit by the embargo placed under paragraph 10 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115?
- What is the extent of land a civil servant who purchased land can retain under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
- Does the Federal Land Commission possess suo motu revisional powers to examine orders passed by provincial land authorities?
- MEHTAB KHAN vs FALAK NAZ TEXTILE MILLS1983 PLC 1150 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-19Read full judgment →
- MEHRBAN vs ABDUL HAMID alias MAJID (HAMIDULLAH) AND OTHERS1983 PLD Supreme Court 117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which set aside the convictions and death sentences of the respondents for murder and rioting, acquitting them of all charges. The core legal question was whether the High Court's appraisal of the evidence and rejection of the ocular testimony was based on safe principles of criminal jurisprudence. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court committed no error in disbelieving the prosecution witnesses. The Court laid down the principle that where eye-witnesses are closely related and partisan, and their testimony suffers from grave inherent improbabilities, material contradictions with medical evidence regarding the weapons used, and the withholding of true facts concerning the death of a person on the scene, their testimony cannot safely be relied upon without independent corroboration. Furthermore, the admission of an accused coupled with a self-defence plea cannot be selectively used to convict him when the entire prosecution fabric is tainted with falsehood and suppression of truth.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of partisan and closely related eye-witnesses can form the basis of a capital conviction without independent corroboration?
- Does a material contradiction between the ocular account of weapons used and the medical evidence regarding injuries invalidate the prosecution case?
- Can an accused's statement admitting presence and acts be used to sustain a conviction when the prosecution story is found to be riddled with suppression of truth and improbabilities?
- Whether the High Court's reappraisal of evidence in an appeal against conviction warrants interference by the Supreme Court when based on sound principles of caution?
- MEHRBAN HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs THE REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT1983 CLC 1325 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-05-15Read full judgment →
- MEHRAN COTTON GINNING FACTORY EMPLOYEES' UNION vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS1983 PLC 698 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-17Read full judgment →
- MEHRAM SHAH vs MUHAMMAD RASHID AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-05-11Read full judgment →
- MEHRAM KHAN AND Others vs FATEH KHAN AND Other1983 SCMR 366 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from two petitions concerning agricultural land disputes involving allegations of encroachment. The core legal question raised was whether a civil court lacks jurisdiction to determine a question of encroachment and whether the appointment of a retired Qanoongo as a local commissioner was legally valid. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while demarcation of boundaries is within the exclusive domain of revenue authorities, a civil suit is necessary to claim possession of encroached land, and appointing a retired field Qanoongo with the consent of the parties when serving revenue officers are unavailable is permissible and in accordance with applicable rules. The Court laid down the principle that civil courts possess the jurisdiction to entertain suits for possession following demarcation in boundary disputes, and local commissioners may be appointed from retired revenue personnel not below the rank of field Qanoongo when necessary.
Questions settled- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to determine the question of encroachment and award possession of agricultural land?
- Can a retired field Qanoongo be appointed as a local commissioner in boundary dispute cases when serving revenue officers are unavailable?
- Can a claim of adverse possession be sustained where the encroachment itself was denied by the party?
- MEHRAJ DIN vs LAHORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND OTHERS1983 CLC 70 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-18Read full judgment →
- MEHRAJ DIN AND Others vs Mst. MEHRAJ BIBI AND Other1983 SCMR 1135 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a civil appeal regarding the maintainability of a review application under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed after the withdrawal of an appeal against the trial court's order rejecting a plaint. The core legal question was whether a review application is competent if an appeal against the order sought to be reviewed was previously filed and subsequently withdrawn. The Supreme Court held that the withdrawal of an appeal effectively removes the appeal from the record, thereby allowing the litigant to benefit from the legal fiction that no appeal had been preferred. Consequently, a review application filed after such withdrawal is maintainable. However, on the merits of the case, the Court found that the plaintiffs had failed to comply with the trial court's order to pay the requisite court fee under Section 7(v)(c) of the Court Fees Act 1870, and had failed to provide any justification for such non-compliance. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order.
Questions settled- Is a review application filed after the withdrawal of an appeal competent?
- Does the withdrawal of an appeal create a legal fiction that no appeal was ever preferred?
- Can a court reject a plaint for non-compliance with an order to pay court fees if the plaintiff fails to provide justification for non-compliance?
- Mehr HAQ NAWAZ vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MANG AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 348 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-11-23Read full judgment →
- MEHMOOD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD AFSAR KHAN AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 254 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-06-23Read full judgment →
- MEHMOOD KHAN vs MESSRS PAKISTAN ENGINEERING Co. LTD.1983 PLC 350 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-27Read full judgment →
- MEHMAND vs KHAN AND 11 OTHERS1983 PLD Rev. 52 · Board of Revenue · 1982-12-15Read full judgment →
- MEHDI KHAN AND Others vs THE STATE AND Another1983 SCMR 199 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioners by an Additional Sessions Judge in a criminal case involving charges under sections 302, 307, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the trial court's discretion to grant bail, given the trial court's alleged misreading of the record regarding the petitioners' specific roles in the fatal assault and the validity of the investigation's findings. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction, as the trial court had ignored material evidence in the First Information Report regarding the petitioners' participation in the attack on the deceased. Furthermore, the Court expressed dissatisfaction with the investigation's reliance on unauthorized oaths to place accused persons in column No. 2. The Supreme Court affirmed that where a lower court misreads material evidence, its exercise of discretion is subject to interference. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with a trial court's order granting bail if the trial court misread the record?
- Is a counter-version filed by complaint two months after an occurrence a sufficient ground for bail?
- Does the placement of an accused in column No. 2 of a police report based on unauthorized oaths bind the court in bail proceedings?
- MEHDI HUSSAIN SHAH vs Malik KHIZAR HAYAT KHAN AND ANOTHER1983 P Cr. L J 1601 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition sought the annulment of a revisional order passed by the Sessions Judge, which had set aside a Magistrate's order cancelling a criminal case registered under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether a Sessions Judge can exercise revisional jurisdiction against a Magistrate's order cancelling a police case under Section 173(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when no evidence had been recorded at trial. The Lahore High Court held that an order cancelling a police report where no evidence has been recorded is administrative in nature rather than an order of discharge on merits, and is therefore not subject to interference in revisional jurisdiction under Sections 435, 439, and 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The key principle laid down is that a Magistrate's order cancelling a case under Section 173(3) does not amount to a judicial discharge unless evidence has been recorded, and Sessions Courts lack revisional competence to interfere with such administrative cancellation orders, though Magistrates must apply their conscious minds rather than act mechanically.
Questions settled- Whether an order of a Magistrate cancelling a case on a police report under Section 173(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure amounts to an order of discharge when no evidence has been recorded?
- Can a Sessions Judge exercise revisional jurisdiction under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an administrative order of cancellation of a case passed by a Magistrate?
- Is the power conferred on Magistrates under Section 173(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to cancel a police case an arbitrary power or one that must proceed on relevant legal principles?
- MEHBOOB ELLAHI vs NATIONAL RADIO TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION1983 PLC (C. S.) 44 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1980-06-01Read full judgment →
- MEHBOOB ALI vs DEPUTY MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR1983 CLC 3160 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
- MEHARBAN vs The STATE1983 P Cr. L J 6 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-15Read full judgment →
- MEHAL vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 562 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
- MECHNNICAL ENGINEER, CENTRAL SIND MECHANICAL DIVISION vs MOHAMMAD1983 PLC 1008 · Labour Court · 1982-12-20Read full judgment →
- MECHANIZED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN AND 2 Other vs RAB NAWAZ AND ANOTHER1983 PLC 1052 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-12-22Read full judgment →
- MECHANISED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN vs ANWAR BAIG1983 PLC 428 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-24Read full judgment →
- MEAT MERCHANTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, KARACHI AND ANOTHER vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 464 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a meat merchants' welfare association and a meat seller challenging the notifications issued by the respondents fixing retail prices of meat, seeking declarations that the prices were unjust, discriminatory, and without lawful authority, alongside quashing of convictions and restraint from enforcement raids. The core legal question was whether retail prices of essential commodities like meat could be fixed under the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977 without current cost analysis and nexus to actual animal prices, and whether such notifications could remain operative indefinitely without periodic review. The court held that control prices must constitute fair prices reflecting the latest prevailing market prices of animals, requiring authorities to review them at reasonable intervals such as quarterly or half-yearly. Since the impugned notifications relied on stale data and lacked proper price analysis for beef, the court declared the notifications to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Whether retail prices of meat fixed under the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977 require a direct nexus with the latest market prices of animals?
- Must price control notifications for essential commodities be reviewed periodically by the concerned authorities?
- Are price control notifications issued without fresh cost analysis and valid data lawful and enforceable?
- MEAT MERCHANT WELFARE ASSOCIATION vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 25 · Federal Shariat Court · 1980-08-09Read full judgment →
- MDAD ALT & COMPANY vs SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS ETC.1983 PLD Supreme Court 30 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition regarding the liability of the appellant's hotel to pay central excise duty. The core legal question was whether the appellant could claim an exemption from excise duty by bifurcating its billing into separate charges for room rent and breakfast, such that neither individual charge exceeded the Rs. 25 daily threshold, even though the aggregate daily charge for the room and breakfast exceeded that amount. The Supreme Court held that the exemption notification, which excluded services where the daily rent of a room, with or without charges for breakfast, did not exceed Rs. 25, was unambiguous. The Court ruled that the exemption is unavailable if the total amount charged for the room, including optional services like breakfast, exceeds the prescribed limit. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the practice of issuing separate bills does not circumvent the tax liability if the aggregate daily charge exceeds the threshold. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the departmental authorities' assessment.
Questions settled- Does the separation of room rent and breakfast charges in hotel billing allow for an exemption from excise duty if the aggregate daily charge exceeds the statutory threshold?
- Are services, facilities, and utilities provided by a hotel considered 'excisable services' under the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944?
- Does the exemption notification for hotel services apply when the total daily charge for a room, including optional services, exceeds the specified monetary limit?
- MAZHAR IQBAL vs WAPDA1983 PLC 673 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-22Read full judgment →
- MAZHAR HUSSAIN KHAN AND OTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN1983 SCMR 40 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a Peshawar High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition regarding the classification of evacuee land for allotment purposes. The core legal question was whether the Rehabilitation Commissioner’s 1958 Memorandum, which reclassified specific evacuee lands as 'canal irrigated' for allotment, was valid and effectively superseded the general instructions contained in paragraph 29 of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Rehabilitation Commissioner possessed plenary power under paragraph 23 of the Scheme to issue instructions for its proper implementation, which included the authority to amend or vary previous instructions. The Court established the principle that a statutory functionary empowered to issue orders for the implementation of a scheme retains the authority to amend or vary those orders, provided they remain consistent with the scheme. Consequently, administrative instructions issued under such delegated power can supersede prior general instructions, and judicial orders passed in direct contravention of valid administrative directives are void ab initio and may be ignored by the relevant authorities.
Questions settled- Does the Rehabilitation Commissioner have the power to amend or vary instructions issued under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme?
- Can administrative instructions issued under paragraph 23 of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme supersede the general instructions in paragraph 29?
- Are judicial orders passed by settlement authorities in contravention of valid administrative instructions void ab initio?
- Does the General Clauses Act 1897 confer the power to amend or vary orders upon a statutory functionary?
- MAZDOOR ITEHAD UNION STAR TEXTILE MILLS AND ANOTHER vs THIRD SIND1983 PLC 491 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-06Read full judgment →
- MAULU AND OTHERS vs SECRETARY, COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1265 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →
- MAULOO AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1847 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-29Read full judgment →
- MAULA BAKHSH ETC. vs Mst. BUSHRA KHATOON ETC.S1983 SCMR 20 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of a Letters Patent Bench, which had set aside the transfer of disputed property in favour of the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, Maula Bakhsh, due to unsigned C. H. Forms. The core legal questions involve whether the absence of a signature or thumb-mark on a C. H. Form is a curable defect under paragraph 7 of Scheme No. I, and whether the Letters Patent Appeal had abated due to the delayed substitution of legal representatives following the death of Maula Bakhsh. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the curability of the defect and the abatement of the appeal require formal consideration. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal to examine these issues further.
Questions settled- Whether the absence of a signature or thumb-mark on a C. H. Form is a curable defect under paragraph 7 of Scheme No. I?
- Whether a Letters Patent Appeal abates if an application to implead legal representatives is filed beyond the prescribed period without showing sufficient cause?
- MAULA AND 4 OTHER vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND 6 OTHERS1983 CLC 2868 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-11Read full judgment →
- Maul vi MUHAMMAD MUKHTAR AND OTHERS vs LICENSING OFFICER AND OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 174 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →
- MAUDOOD AHMAD FAROOQUI vs AMIN FABRICS LTD. AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Karachi 176 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-25Read full judgment →
- MATUBHAI C. PATEL vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1983 PTD 140 · Gujarat High Court · 1980-08-26Read full judgment →
- MATLOOB. AHMAD KHAN vs BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 779 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
- MATIUL HAQ AND 6 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 429 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-09-07Read full judgment →
- MATHELA vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 642 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-02Read full judgment →
- MASTER NIZAM vs ABDUL MAJID AND Another1983 SCMR 1310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court dismissing the petitioner's First Rent Appeal, which challenged an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller. The core legal questions involve the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant, the necessity of a registered sale-deed for property transfer where legal restrictions apply, and the validity of service of notice regarding the transfer of ownership. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord-tenant relationship and default in rent were properly made, noting that the petitioner's own pleadings admitted the absence of a registered sale-deed due to the location of the property and that notice under section 13-A was duly served and established. The petition was accordingly dismissed as meritless, upholding the lower courts' findings.
Questions settled- Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant can be established without a registered sale-deed in respect of properties where registered conveyances are not applicable?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and the High Court regarding default in rent are open to further scrutiny in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Whether service of notice of attornment is established when the tenant's signatures on court pleadings tally with the acknowledgment receipt?
- Master MUHAMMAD ASAF vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 908 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-03Read full judgment →
- MASTER HAIDER ALI vs DR. ABDUL MAJID AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 2111 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-21Read full judgment →
- MASOOD AHMED vs The STATE1983 SCMR 497 · Federal Shariat Court · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
- MASOOD AHMAD vs THE STATE1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 94 · Federal Shariat Court · 1982-10-09Read full judgment →
- MASOOD AHMAD vs Mst. ANWAR BEGUM1983 CLC 1139 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
- MASOOD AHMAD vs DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE,1983 PLC (C. S.) 1030 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-03-07Read full judgment →
- MASOOD AHMAD JAVED vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAHIWAL AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 14 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MASITAY KHAN AND ANOTHER vs Sardar HADAYATULLAH KHAN, SETTLEMENT1983 CLC 3143 · Lahore High Court · 1972-01-21Read full judgment →
- MASITA KHAN vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.). 342 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-16Read full judgment →
- MASIL KHAN vs MESSRS UNITED WOOLLEN MILLS LTD.1983 PLC 458 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
- MASHOOQ ALI AND 3 OTHERS vs DANOMAL AND 4 OTHERS1983 CLC 1254 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-05Read full judgment →
- MAQSOOD HUSSAIN NAQVI vs MUHAMMAD HIMAYATULLAH AND 4 OTHERS1983 CLC 539 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-01Read full judgment →
- MAQSOOD AHMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2236 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-08Read full judgment →
- MAQSOOD AHMAD KHAN vs D. B. AVARI AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 2594 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-13Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOLUR RAHMAN AND 2 OTHEES vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN AND 91983 CLC 38 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-08-31Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL HUSSAIN vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENTPAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE1983 PLC 596 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-06Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 766 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-14Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL ALAM vs DIRECTOR FOOD, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 35 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-09-19Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL AHMED REHMANI vs MUHAMMAD ZIKARIA1983 PLC 1088 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL AHMAD vs The STATE1983 SCMR 1034 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld his conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question revolved around the reliability of ocular testimony from closely related witnesses in the presence of subsisting enmity and the possibility of identification at the time of the occurrence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the appreciation of evidence by the courts below was free from any violation of legal principles and that concurrent findings of fact regarding the credibility of witnesses and identification would not be interfered with. The key principle laid down is that the assessment and belief of evidence is a matter of fact, and appellate interference is unwarranted where lower courts have properly evaluated ocular testimony despite related witnesses and previous enmity.
Questions settled- Can ocular testimony from witnesses closely related to the deceased be relied upon without corroboration in cases of subsisting enmity?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the credibility of witnesses and identification of the assailant?
- Does the appreciation of evidence by lower courts warrant interference when no violation of a principle of law has been committed?
- MAQBOOL AHMAD vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FORESTRY,1983 PLC (C. S.) 1299 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MAQBOOL AHMAD AND Others vs Mst. HANIFA BIBI AND Other1983 SCMR 1247 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed an application filed by the petitioners seeking to avoid a compromise decree previously passed in a constitutional petition. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could repudiate a compromise agreement, which had been accepted by their counsel and their brother in open court, on the grounds that they were personally absent and had not authorized the compromise. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioners failed to establish any valid basis to challenge the compromise. The Court observed that the petitioners' counsel had approved the settlement, and the compromise was dictated in open court, leaving no ambiguity requiring clarification. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and refused to grant leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that a party is bound by a compromise entered into by their counsel in open court, especially when the record indicates the settlement was accepted and no credible evidence exists to suggest the counsel lacked authority or that the compromise was invalid.
Questions settled- Can a party avoid a compromise decree on the ground that they were not personally present when it was entered into?
- Is a compromise entered into by a counsel in open court binding on the parties?
- Does a court have grounds to set aside a compromise order when the counsel for the parties has approved it?
- MAQBOOL AHMAD AND ANOTHER vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1983 PLD Supreme Court 337 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which disposed of a writ petition in an urban settlement dispute by directing the parties to seek remedy in a civil court, holding that the Settlement Authorities had become functus officio after issuing Permanent Transfer Deeds (P.T.Ds.). The core legal question was whether the Settlement Authorities possessed jurisdiction to clarify, determine, or demarcate specific portions, such as the roof of a transferred property, after the issuance of P.T.Ds., or if the parties must resort to a civil court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Settlement Authorities are competent to determine questions and interpret transfer orders by demarcating portions of a building included in respective transfers when a dispute arises between transferees of separate properties. The Court laid down that while Settlement Authorities generally become functus officio after P.T.D. issuance, they retain jurisdiction to clarify or demarcate exact portions or resolve disputes concerning the inclusion of specific parts like roofs, and that the civil court's prior determination of lacking jurisdiction barred referring the parties back to it.
Questions settled- Whether the Settlement Authorities become functus officio to determine and demarcate properties after the issuance of the Permanent Transfer Deed?
- Do Settlement Authorities have jurisdiction to clarify or determine whether a roof of a transferred property was included in the transfer documents?
- Can the High Court in writ jurisdiction refer parties to a civil court when a civil court has already finally held that the dispute falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Settlement Authorities?
- MANZOORUL HAQ vs TAJ BIBI1983 CLC 1934 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-09Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR vs HOME SECRETARY AND Other1983 SCMR 245 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, previously convicted of an offense under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, had his conviction reduced to section 304-I by the High Court. After serving his sentence and being released, the complainant filed a petition for leave to appeal against the acquittal of the original murder charge. The Supreme Court granted leave, resulting in the petitioner's re-arrest and subsequent detention pending the appeal. The Supreme Court eventually allowed the appeal against acquittal, restoring the original life imprisonment sentence. The core legal question was whether the period of detention served by the petitioner while the appeal against his acquittal was pending before the Supreme Court should be counted towards his total sentence. Relying on established precedents, the Court held that such detention must be computed towards the sentence. The principle laid down is that the period an accused spends in custody during the pendency of an appeal against acquittal before the Supreme Court must be credited against the sentence ultimately imposed upon the restoration of the conviction.
Questions settled- Should the period of detention served by an accused during the pendency of an appeal against acquittal before the Supreme Court be counted towards the sentence eventually imposed?
- Is a petitioner entitled to credit for time spent in custody while an appeal against their acquittal is being heard by the Supreme Court?
- MANZOOR NIAZ FARUKI vs Mian GULZAR AHMAD1983 PLD Supreme Court 176 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the dismissal of a second appeal by the Lahore High Court, which upheld an ejectment order against the appellant for failure to comply with a rent deposit order. The core legal question was whether the appellant's failure to deposit rent strictly 'before' the 15th of the month, and a specific delay in one month's deposit, constituted a default warranting the striking off of his defence under the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds to interfere with concurrent findings of fact that the appellant had failed to comply with the Rent Controller's order. The Court affirmed that depositing rent on the 15th day did not satisfy an order requiring payment 'before' the 15th. Furthermore, the Court established a procedural principle to prevent protracted litigation: Rent Controllers should direct tenants to file copies of bank challan receipts within one week of deposit. This practice ensures landlords can monitor compliance and address defaults promptly, thereby avoiding the long-standing disputes seen in the present case.
Questions settled- Does a rent deposit made on the 15th day of the month satisfy a judicial order requiring payment before the 15th day?
- Can a tenant's defence be struck off for failure to comply with a Rent Controller's order under Section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- What procedural measures should Rent Controllers adopt to ensure timely verification of rent deposits by landlords?
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs THR STATE1983 SCMR 285 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction and death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a murder case. The core legal question involves the appreciation of evidence regarding the time and place of the occurrence, the credibility of prosecution witnesses, and whether the sentence of death was appropriate given the circumstances. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully established the time and place of the occurrence, and that the natural witnesses were credible and corroborated by medical evidence. However, upon examining the features of the case—specifically that the shooting occurred in the heat of the moment following a hot exchange of words—the Court granted leave to appeal restricted to the question of sentence. The key principle laid down is that while concurrent findings on guilt based on properly appreciated evidence will not be re-examined, mitigating circumstances such as a sudden quarrel and the heat of the moment warrant a re-examination of the appropriateness of the death sentence.
Questions settled- Whether the absence of wad or pellet marks on the ground or adjoining wall disproves the prosecution's case regarding the place of occurrence?
- Does the empty stomach of the deceased corroborate the prosecution witness's testimony regarding the time of occurrence?
- Whether a shooting that occurs in the heat of the moment after an exchange of abuses warrants a re-examination of the death sentence?
- Can concurrent findings of guilt by the lower courts be interfered with when the evidence has been carefully appreciated?
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs Mst. ZOHRA BIBI1983 SCMR 24 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment in a pre-emption suit. The respondent, Mst. Zohra Bibi, successfully claimed a superior right of pre-emption in the trial court, asserting she was the daughter of the original owner. The first appellate court reversed this finding, but the High Court restored the trial court's decree, finding the appellate court's decision was based on a misreading of evidence. The core legal question is whether the High Court, in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, has the jurisdiction to disturb a finding of fact when the first appellate court has reversed the trial court's finding (a judgment of variance). The Supreme Court notes conflicting precedents regarding the scope of interference in second appeals, particularly distinguishing between concurrent findings and judgments of variance. The Court grants leave to appeal to authoritatively settle whether the High Court can reverse findings of fact in such circumstances, noting that while findings of fact are generally final, judgments of variance require careful scrutiny of the appellate court's reasoning.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with a finding of fact in a second appeal when the first appellate court has reversed the trial court's decision?
- Does a judgment of variance by a first appellate court enjoy the same immunity from interference in second appeal as a concurrent finding of fact?
- Under what circumstances can a finding of fact by a first appellate court be considered arbitrary or capricious, justifying interference in a second appeal?
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN AND Others vs THE STATE1983 PCr.LJ 2140 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-11Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN AND Others vs SAJAWAL AND Other1983 SCMR 465 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a civil revision against an order allowing the amendment of a pre-emption suit plaint. The core legal questions pertained to whether condonation of delay in filing the petition was justified based on a clerk's failure to check copying branch notices, and whether a pre-emption suit plaint could be amended to cover substitute land allocated to vendees during consolidation proceedings pending litigation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petition was barred by time without sufficient cause for condonation. On the merits, the Court held that the trial court properly exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in allowing the amendment, which contained no jurisdictional error warranting revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court reiterated the established principle that a pre-emptor is entitled to follow substitute land obtained by vendees in consolidation proceedings during the pendency of litigation.
Questions settled- Whether failure of a counsel's clerk to check copying branch notices constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing an appeal or petition?
- Can a pre-emptor amend the plaint in a pre-emption suit to claim substitute land allocated to the vendees in consolidation proceedings during the pendency of the suit?
- Does an order allowing an amendment of a plaint under discretionary jurisdiction constitute a jurisdictional error subject to revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN AND 6 Othrss MUHAMMAD AZIM AND 15 Others vs ZULFIQAR ALI AND Other ALI MOHTISHAM KHAN AND 14 Other ZULFIQAR ALI AND 9 Other1983 SCMR 137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves three consolidated petitions for special leave to appeal arising from a Lahore High Court judgment concerning land allotment disputes. The primary legal questions concerned the validity of land allotments made to claimants under Martial Law Regulations 89 and 91, specifically whether temporary allotments to Jammu and Kashmir refugees could be cancelled without notice, and whether alienation of land under the relevant Scheme was permissible before full payment. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions of A.I. Mohtisham and Manzoor Hussain, holding that the Board of Revenue acted within its discretion to allow vendees to pay defaulted installments, as alienation with the Collector's sanction is valid under the Scheme. However, the Court granted leave to appeal to the Jammu and Kashmir refugee petitioners. The ratio established is that while land transactions under Martial Law Regulations 89 and 91 are generally immune to challenge, the cancellation of temporary allotments to Jammu and Kashmir refugees without notice is legally impermissible and potentially void, necessitating further judicial review.
Questions settled- Can temporary land allotments made to Jammu and Kashmir refugees be cancelled without notice to the allottees?
- Is an agreement for the sale of land valid under the Scheme for the disposal of land surrendered under Martial Law Regulation No. 89 if the Collector's sanction is obtained?
- Does the Board of Revenue have the authority to allow vendees to pay defaulted installments on land surrendered under Martial Law Regulations?
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN Alias JHOORA vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 88 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-23Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR Alias MANZOORI AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1931 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-18Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR ALI KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs Syed HASHAM RAZA1983 CLC 2703 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMED vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 1967 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-02Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD vs XXIV CIVIL JUDGE, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 1146 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-13Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD vs THE. STATE1983 PLD Supreme Court 197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Manzoor Ahmad, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased Iqbal. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular testimony from an interested witness who harbored previous enmity against the accused, the legal effect of the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive, and whether such testimony required independent corroboration for a capital conviction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where an eye-witness is shown to have an existing enmity or bias against the accused, her uncorroborated testimony cannot be safely relied upon to sustain a capital conviction. The Court laid down that the failure of motive does not automatically falsify the prosecution case as a whole or render an eye-witness completely untruthful, but where the witness's impartiality is compromised by underlying enmity, independent and cogent corroborative material is strictly required. Consequently, as the recoveries and other supporting testimonies were discarded and no valid corroboration existed, the benefit of the doubt was extended to the appellant, leading to the setting aside of his conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive automatically destroy the entire prosecution case?
- Whether the uncorroborated testimony of an eye-witness who harbors previous enmity against the accused can form the sole basis for a capital conviction?
- Can a previous statement made before a Committing Magistrate be utilized as substantive evidence at the trial without being lawfully transferred under Section 33 of the Evidence Act?
- Under what circumstances does the failure of the prosecution to establish a motive affect the quantum of sentence or the credibility of eyewitness accounts?
- MANZOOR AHMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2326 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-27Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.-W.F.P. AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 551 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1981-11-10Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD vs ABDUL GHAFFAR AND OTHERS1983 PLD Rev. 55 · Board of Revenue · 1983-01-31Read full judgment →
- MANZAL SHAH vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1837 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-18Read full judgment →
- MANSUR ALI KHAN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 1186 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MANSOOR AHMED GAYA vs Mian REHM ATULLAH1983 CLC 2332 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-12Read full judgment →
- MANO Alias KIRI AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 537 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-25Read full judgment →
- MANGAL KHAN vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER (LANDS), LAHORE AND Another1983 CLC 22 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-01Read full judgment →
- MANAGING DIRECTOR, UTILITY STORES CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN AND 21983 PLC 679 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD. vs DEPUTY1983 PLC 243 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-26Read full judgment →
- MAMRAIZ vs EIDHI AND OTHERS1983 CLC 96 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-21Read full judgment →
- MAMOON-UR-RASHID vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, EDUCATION1983 PLC (C. S.) 395 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-04Read full judgment →
- MAMMAN vs ABDUL AZIZ AND 6 Other1983 SCMR 70 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order dismissing a writ petition regarding the allotment of land under the Ejected Tenants Scheme. The petitioner, Mamman, claimed rights to the land based on a 1962 order declaring the original allottee, Abdul Majid, ineligible and protecting the petitioner's possession under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. The respondents, heirs of Abdul Majid, successfully challenged this in a revision before the Member, Board of Revenue, who found the 1962 orders were passed without lawful authority and that the petitioner was not a tenant entitled to protection. The core legal question was whether the petitioner established a valid entitlement to the land and whether the 1962 orders had attained finality. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any entitlement under the Ejected Tenants Scheme or status as a tenant under the Act. The Court affirmed that a petitioner must succeed on the strength of their own case, not the weakness of the respondents, and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner succeed in a land dispute based solely on the alleged weakness of the respondent's case?
- Does a person in possession of land without a formal allotment qualify as a tenant under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912?
- Can a sub-tenancy be created under the Ejected Tenants Scheme?
- MALKU AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2551 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-28Read full judgment →
- Malik ZULFIQAR AHMAD vs THE STATE AND Other1983 SCMR 1267 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's application for the quashment of criminal proceedings pending before the Special Judge (Customs) under section 156(1) clauses 77, 89, and 90 of the Customs Act, 1969, relating to the alleged smuggling and mortgage of a Mercedes Benz car. The core legal question is whether the import and handling of a motor car not specifically listed in the notification under section 2(s) constitutes 'smuggling' punishable by imprisonment, or whether it merely attracts confiscation and penalties under other provisions. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the legal contentions raised regarding the scope of smuggling definitions, the effect of notifications under section 16 of the Customs Act and section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950, and the applicability of specific versus general penal clauses require detailed consideration. The Court laid down that violations of notifications under section 16 resulting from restrictions on items not covered under section 2(s) do not constitute smuggling punishable with imprisonment before the Special Judge (Customs).
Questions settled- Does the import of a motor car not specifically mentioned in notifications under section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969 constitute 'smuggling' punishable by imprisonment?
- Whether violation of notifications issued under section 16 of the Customs Act, 1969 or section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950 exclusively attracts confiscation and pecuniary penalty rather than prosecution?
- Can general penal provisions under section 156(1)(77) of the Customs Act, 1969 be invoked when a specific provision like section 156(1)(14) applies?
- Malik SIKANDAR KHAN vs SHAN MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHER1983 CLC 1256 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-07Read full judgment →
- Malik SHABBIR AHMAD BHUTTA vs COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 926 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Malik RIAZ HUSSAIN vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 1166 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
- Malik NAZIR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN AND OTHERS1983 PLD Supreme Court 86 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the decision of the Settlement Commissioner to transfer a property to a displaced person claimant. The core legal dispute involved the cancellation of an allotment by Settlement Authorities due to an alleged failure to pay the balance price of the house, despite the claimant having provided compensation books for adjustment. The Settlement Authorities had failed to adjust the available funds from the second compensation book, leading to the erroneous cancellation of the allotment and the subsequent inclusion of the property in an auction list. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Authorities were at fault for failing to adjust the available compensation funds, which were already in their possession. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that the claimant could not be penalized for the administrative oversight of the authorities. The principle established is that a party cannot be deprived of their property rights due to an administrative failure or omission by the state authorities to perform a mandatory adjustment of funds already submitted.
Questions settled- Can a property allotment be cancelled for non-payment of the balance price if the Settlement Authorities failed to adjust compensation funds already in their possession?
- Does the failure of Settlement Authorities to adjust available compensation books constitute a valid ground for cancelling an allotment?
- Malik MUHAMMAD YASEEN vs COMMERCE BANK LTD.1983 CLC 2864 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-17Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD WARYAM vs Mst. SHAHNAZ MASOOD1983 CLC 109 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-13Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD SARWAR ETC. vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2087 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-03Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 394 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-14Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD HANIF vs ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURING Co. LTD.1983 PLC 1253 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-07Read full judgment →