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.
- Malik MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs VICECHANCELLOR, KARACHI UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2385 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-01Read full judgment →
- Malik KHUDA BAKHSH vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, MULTAN REGION, MULTAN AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 486 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1902-12-13Read full judgment →
- Malik KHANAN vs Malik BAZ MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Quetta 30 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, acting as Chief of the Shamamzai-Kibzai Tribe, challenged an administrative order concerning boundary pillars on disputed lands, seeking to maintain the petition in a representative capacity under Order I, Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal questions were whether a Constitutional petition can be filed in a representative capacity and whether the petitioner possessed the requisite locus standi as an "aggrieved party" under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any direct, personal interest in the subject property, such as ownership or possession of huts or grazing grounds. The Court established that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court requires a petitioner to show a direct, personal injury or interest to qualify as an "aggrieved party." Consequently, the Court ruled that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding representative suits are inapplicable to Constitutional petitions where the petitioner lacks personal standing, and a tribal chief cannot invoke writ jurisdiction solely based on their representative status.
Questions settled- Can a Constitutional petition be filed in a representative capacity under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does a tribal chief have locus standi to file a writ petition on behalf of a tribe without demonstrating a direct personal interest in the subject matter?
- Is a tribe or a 'body politic' considered an 'aggrieved party' under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Malik KHAN MUHAMMAD vs ABDULLAH AND Other1983 SCMR 1259 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging the High Court's order which set aside the transfer of an evacuee shop made in favour of the petitioner by the Settlement Authorities. The core legal question concerned whether a tenant, who entered into a rent deed with the auction-purchaser of a property, could subsequently claim and obtain the transfer of the same property in his own name under the settlement schemes by creating confusion regarding property numbers. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was eminently just and proper, affirming that a tenant who rented the property from the rightful auction-purchaser and execution of a rent deed could lay no claim to the shop. The court laid down the principle that a tenant is estopped from denying the title of the landlord from whom he took the property on rent, and that Settlement Authorities cannot arbitrarily transfer properties to tenants in derogation of valid auction purchases and issued permanent transfer documents.
Questions settled- Can a tenant who executed a rent deed for an evacuee property subsequently obtain its transfer in his own name under the settlement schemes?
- Whether the Settlement Authorities can transfer a property to a tenant in disregard of a valid auction purchase and issued permanent transfer documents?
- Does a tenant have any lawful claim to a property he obtained on rent from the rightful owner?
- Malik GULZAR AHMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1692 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-19Read full judgment →
- Malik GHULAM YASIN vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 350 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-11-14Read full judgment →
- MALIK GHULAM MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 3 Others vs MAULA BAKHSH AND 31983 SCMR 39 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These four petitions for leave to appeal were filed by the pre-emptor/plaintiff, Malik Ghulam Muhammad, against the judgment of the High Court accepting four civil revision petitions and setting aside the decrees passed in his favour. The core legal questions involved whether an improvement in a vendee-defendant's status after the institution of a pre-emption suit affects the pre-emptor's right under Section 21-A of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, and whether a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was competent. The Supreme Court observed that an improvement of status prior to the filing of a pre-emption suit successfully defeats a pre-emptor's claim with an inferior right, whereas an improvement made after the suit's institution is barred by Section 21-A. The Court granted leave to appeal to consider the pre-emptor's claim against the respondent who improved his status after the institution of the suit, while holding that a new plea challenging the competency of the revision petitions under Section 115 CPC could not be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Does an improvement in a vendee's status made after the institution of a pre-emption suit affect the pre-emptor's right of pre-emption under Section 21-A of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
- Can a party raise an objection regarding the competency of a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the first time before the Supreme Court when it was not urged in the High Court?
- Malik GHULAM ABBAS vs ALLAH WADHAYA1983 CLC 205 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-23Read full judgment →
- Malik FAZAL-UL-HAQ AND ANOTHER vs HASSAN MUHAMMAD1983 CLC 2584 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-27Read full judgment →
- Malik ATA HUSSAIN vs D. C., MUZAFFARGARH1983 CLC 2445 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-05Read full judgment →
- Malik ANWAR ALI AND OTHERS vs Malik BASHIR AHMAD1983 CLC 3083 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-17Read full judgment →
- Malik ALLAH DITTA vs EXECUTIVE, ENGINEER, STORES & WORKSHOP DIVISION, LAHORE1983 PLC 853 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Malik AFZAL ALI vs Malik ASHRAF ALI1983 SC M R1271 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from ejectment proceedings initiated by the respondent against his brother, the petitioner, on the ground of personal requirement. Although the Rent Controller initially dismissed the ejectment petition, the Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and ordered eviction. The High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's writ petition in limine. During the pendency of the matter, no stay was granted and the petitioner was evicted from the premises on 17-01-1982. The core question before the Supreme Court was whether the petition survived or had become infructuous following the execution of the eviction order. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner had already been ejected from the shop, the petition had become infructuous. Addressing the petitioner's contention that the respondent subsequently sold the property in violation of statutory provisions, the Court observed that the petitioner could seek appropriate remedies under the law for any such post-eviction violation.
Questions settled- Does a petition challenging an eviction order become infructuous once the tenant has been actually ejected in execution of the order?
- Can a post-eviction sale of the property in alleged violation of statutory provisions be determined in an appeal against the eviction order when the tenant has already been ejected?
- MAJOR AMIR MUHAMMAD KHAN vs DR. FAQIR MUHAMMAD AND mums1983 CLC 1173 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-12Read full judgment →
- MAJOR (RETD.) AZIM ULLAH ANSARI vs LT.CoL. (RETD.) M. A. MANNON AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2488 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-03Read full judgment →
- MAJOR (RETD.) A. S. K. SAMAD vs LT: COL. (RETD.) A. HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1983 SCMR 773 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Sind High Court, which upheld the Rent Controller's decision to strike off the petitioner's defence in ejectment proceedings and order eviction due to an alleged failure to deposit rent. The core legal question was whether the striking off of a defence for non-deposit of rent is mandatory or if technical compliance, such as depositing rent in earlier proceedings between the same parties, mitigates the default under the relevant rent control legislation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the petitioner's argument regarding the technical nature of the default and the prior history of rent deposits warranted further judicial consideration. The Court allowed the petition, suspended the eviction order subject to the petitioner continuing to deposit rent, and directed that the appeal be heard on the existing record. The principle established is that where a tenant has a history of depositing rent in court in related proceedings, a failure to deposit in a specific case may be viewed as a technical default rather than a wilful violation justifying the extreme penalty of striking off the defence.
Questions settled- Does a history of depositing rent in court in earlier proceedings between the same parties mitigate a failure to deposit rent in a subsequent case?
- Is the striking off of a defence for non-deposit of rent under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 an automatic consequence or can it be excused for technical reasons?
- MAJOR (R) A. S. K. SAMAD vs LT.Cot. (R) A. HUSAIN AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 2211 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-28Read full judgment →
- MAJID AHMAD AND 4 OTHERS vs Chaudhry MUHAMMAD SADIQ AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Peshawar 108 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
- MAJEEDAN BIBI vs MUKHTAR ALI AND OTHERS1983 P Cr. L J 142 · Lahore High Court · 1980-08-29Read full judgment →
- MAHMUD ALAM KUREISHY vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND TOURISM AND 5 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 872 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1979-02-23Read full judgment →
- MAHMOODULLAH KHAN vs Mst. KANIZ FATIMA SHAIFTA1983 CLC 3033 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-05Read full judgment →
- MAHMOODUL HASSAN SIDDIQUI vs MRS. ABDUL RAHIM ARAIN (AZIZ BIBI)1983 CLC 831 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-28Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD-UL-HASSAN vs PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL AND DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPLIES1983 PLC (C. S.) 1154 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MAHMOOD PERVEZ NAZ vs MESSRS SHABBIR TILES AND CERAMICS LTD.1983 PLC 1205 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-14Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD AND 11 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1034 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-15Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD ALI KASURI vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1792 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-04Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD AKHTAR vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1641 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-13Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN1983 PLD Quetta 81 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-03-23Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD AHMAD AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 PLD Lahore 612 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-27Read full judgment →
- MAHBOOB HASAN vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE. PUNJAB AND 3 Others1983 PLC (C. S.) 524 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-10-31Read full judgment →
- MAHBOOB ELAHI vs MUHAMMAD ZAMAN1983 SCMR 37 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which reversed the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding a landlord's application for ejectment. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant from a shop on grounds of default in rent payment and bona fide personal requirement. While the Rent Controller and the first appellate court dismissed the application, the High Court accepted the landlord's second appeal, finding that the landlord's personal need was established. The petitioner contended that the High Court erred by interfering with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the evidence, held that while the High Court generally lacks the competence to interfere with concurrent findings of fact, it is justified in doing so where the lower courts have misread the evidence or based their conclusions on extraneous considerations not supported by the record. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that misreading of evidence or reliance on extraneous factors allows for appellate interference with factual findings.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal?
- Does the misreading of evidence by lower courts justify interference by the High Court in a second appeal?
- Is a conclusion based on extraneous considerations not supported by evidence a valid ground for setting aside concurrent findings of fact?
- MAHAND vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND Other1983 SCMR 761 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, nephews of the last male owner Maula Bakhsh, sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court judgment dated 13th May, 1980, which held they had no claim to the property held by Mst. Fateh Bibi, the daughter of Maula Bakhsh. The property originally devolved upon Mst. Bhago, who gifted it to Mst. Fateh Bibi via a registered deed in 1946. Post-migration, Mst. Fateh Bibi obtained land allotments, a portion of which was awarded to reversioners by revenue authorities. The Board of Revenue upheld this division, but the High Court set it aside through a constitutional petition, finding the allocation to collaterals without lawful authority. The core legal question concerned whether revenue authorities and the High Court correctly determined the inheritance and gift rights regarding self-acquired property versus collateral succession. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioners regarding factual determination by the Board of Revenue and the inheritance rights of collaterals require further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a High Court interfere with the factual determinations of the Board of Revenue in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether collaterals are entitled to inherit a share in property gifted to a daughter by a limited owner?
- What is the extent of a daughter's right of inheritance concerning self-acquired property of her father against collaterals?
- MAHABAT KHAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2142 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-11Read full judgment →
- MADAT ALI LALANI vs MRS. SAKINA1983 CLC 2647 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-20Read full judgment →
- MADAD HUSSAIN vs DIRECTOR FOOD, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 1131 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-04-23Read full judgment →
- M. YASIN SIDDIQUI AND 7 OTHERS vs Ch. MUHAMMAD BOOTA1983 CLC 1462 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition arises from a suit for declaration and subsequent ex parte decree passed against the petitioners-defendants. The core legal question concerns the validity of substituted service and ex parte proceedings initiated on the basis of an incorrect address provided in the summons and newspaper publication, as well as the limitation period for filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court acted with material irregularity in proceeding ex parte where an incorrect address was used for substituted service and mandatory procedural rules regarding newspaper publication and proof thereof were not complied with. Consequently, the High Court set aside the ex parte proceedings and the resulting decree, and accepted the application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The key principle laid down is that no legal presumption of knowledge can be raised regarding a notice published in a newspaper unless statutory and procedural rules requiring the sending of the newspaper copy to the party under postal certificate are strictly fulfilled.
Questions settled- Whether an ex parte decree can be sustained when substituted service is ordered and executed on an incorrect address?
- Does a legal presumption arise that a notice published in a newspaper was read by the party when mandatory procedural rules regarding proof of service are not complied with?
- Whether an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is time-barred when knowledge of the ex parte decree is disputed and unsupported by conclusive evidence?
- M. SIDDIQUE ZAHID vs PAKISTAN ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING &1983 PLC 302 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
- M. SHARIF HILAL AND ANOTHER vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1983 SCMR 1149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arises out of a property dispute concerning a house originally transferred to a widow, Mst. Amina Begum, under the settlement laws. The core legal question involves the legality of the resumption and subsequent auction of a transferred property while an application challenging the unilateral enhancement of its price and requests for installment payments were pending consideration before the settlement authorities. The Supreme Court held that the auction of the property while the price enhancement issue was sub judice was wholly unwarranted and any rights claimed thereunder were devoid of validity. The ratio decidendi is that settlement authorities cannot legally auction a property previously transferred when the transferee's challenge to price enhancement and related applications remain pending and undecided. The key principle laid down is that administrative actions affecting vested property rights, such as auction and resumption during pending adjudications on valuation, are illegal and void.
Questions settled- Whether a property can be legally auctioned while a dispute regarding the enhancement of its price is pending before settlement authorities?
- Does an auction conducted during the pendency of an application questioning price enhancement convey valid rights to the auction purchaser?
- Is the resumption of a transferred property valid when the transferee has already paid a substantial portion of the original price and applied for installments?
- M. SADIK MALIK vs SECRETARY, CABINET SECRETARIAT1983 PLC (C. S.) 421 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-12-08Read full judgment →
- M. S. MUSHTAQ ISLAMABADI vs DIRECTOR, PUBLIC RELATIONS, PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS1983 P, L C (C. S:) 1146 · Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- M. S. IBRAHIM BEG vs Mst. AMINA BAI1983 CLC 2093 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-27Read full judgment →
- M. S. CHOUDHRY vs ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 124 · Federal Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- M. S. CHAUDHRY AND Another vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND Other1983 SCMR 546 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioners' appeals regarding their claim to seniority in service. The petitioners were initially appointed as temporary Section Officers in 1959 under the Section Officers Scheme but failed the qualifying examinations conducted by the Federal Public Service Commission in 1960 and 1961. Consequently, they were allowed to continue in service without encadrement in the Central Secretariat Service as a matter of departmental concession. They later passed the qualifying examination in November, 1976 and were placed on a regular footing under a 1977 notification, prompting their claim for seniority from their original 1959 appointment dates. The core legal question is whether temporary Section Officers who failed initial qualifying examinations but were retained in service as a concession are entitled to seniority from their initial appointment date prior to regular encadrement. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' retention without encadrement did not confer any right to seniority from their initial appointment date, as encadrement and regular status were achieved only after passing the 1976 examination. The key principle laid down is that service rendered as a concession without formal encadrement does not accrue seniority rights prior to regular appointment.
Questions settled- Are temporary Section Officers who failed initial qualifying examinations entitled to seniority from their original date of appointment?
- Does retention in service as a departmental concession confer a right to encadrement in the Central Secretariat Service?
- From which date does a Section Officer accrue seniority upon qualifying the promotional examination?
- M. NAWAZ MAKHDOOM vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND 173 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 1205 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- M. M.AROOF vs MUHAMMAD-AKRAM AND 2 OTHERS1983PLC 411 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-14Read full judgment →
- M. M. KHALIL vs MESSRS MANZOOR TEXTILE WORKS AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1670 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
- M. K. KHAKWANI vs COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Lahore 427 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
- M. K. ABBASI vs UNITED BANK LTD.1983 CLC 482 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The defendant filed an application under Order II, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit on the basis that the plaintiff had intentionally relinquished a claim for Rs. 27,320.78 in a prior proceeding before a Special Court. The core legal question was whether the statutory bar under Order II, Rule 2, C.P.C. against splitting claims applies when the previous court lacked the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the omitted claim. The Court held that the bar under Order II, Rule 2 does not apply in such circumstances. The ratio is that the prohibition against omitting claims or reliefs is predicated on the assumption that the former court had the jurisdiction to adjudicate those matters. Because the Special Court had previously ruled it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's counter-claim, the plaintiff did not omit or relinquish the claim in a manner that would preclude a subsequent suit. Consequently, the Court dismissed the defendant's application, affirming that the bar is inapplicable unless the former court had the jurisdiction to try the claim omitted by the plaintiff.
Questions settled- Does the bar under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply if the previous court lacked jurisdiction to try the omitted claim?
- Can a plaintiff file a subsequent suit for a claim that was previously raised as a counter-claim but rejected by the court for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction?
- Does the failure to pursue a counter-claim in a court lacking jurisdiction constitute an intentional relinquishment of that claim under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- M. HAYAT AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 260 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- M. DARYAB YOUSAF QURESHI vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 17 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-08-07Read full judgment →
- M. A. TAHIR vs P. D. S. P., VEHARI1983 P Cr. LJ 208 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-04Read full judgment →
- M. A. QAYOOM vs Mst. ROSHAN SULTAN1983 PLD Karachi 417 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-28Read full judgment →
- M. A. MAJID ENGINEERING Co. vs SOLVEX (PAKISTAN) LTD.1983 CLC 3059 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-19Read full judgment →
- M. A. JALIL vs GROUP CAPT. (RETD.) SALAHUDDIN KHAN1983 CLC 1685 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from proceedings to make an arbitration award a rule of the court. The core legal questions involved the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court and forum of appeal based on the subject-matter of the reference under the Arbitration Act, 1940, as well as the legality of the trial court closing the petitioner's evidence and the validity of an award rendered by multiple arbitrators. The Lahore High Court held that the pecuniary jurisdiction and the forum of appeal in arbitration matters are determined by the value of the subject-matter of the reference, not the amount awarded or the market value under the Suits Valuation Act, 1887. The Court further held that a trial court acts illegally in closing a party's evidence merely for failing to file a witness list within the prescribed period, as parties retain the right to produce evidence on their own. The impugned orders making the award the rule of the court and dismissing the appeal were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after recording evidence.
Questions settled- How is the pecuniary jurisdiction of a court and the forum of appeal determined for applications and proceedings under the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- Does the failure to file a list of witnesses within the prescribed period deprive a party of the right to produce evidence on their own?
- What is the effect of an arbitration award rendered by multiple arbitrators where one arbitrator fails to join or give a verdict on the entire dispute?
- Can a civil revision petition be treated as an appeal and the time spent in prosecuting it in a wrong forum be condoned under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
- M. A. HAFEEZ KHAN AND 9 Others vs RIAZ AHMAD MEHRA AND 3 Other1983 SCMR 803 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal concerns whether a non-evacuee mortgagor's interest in property is extinguished upon its acquisition by the Central Government as evacuee property under Section 3 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The property in question, mortgaged by a local to an evacuee, was transferred to the petitioners by settlement authorities. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, holding that the acquisition of property under the Act does not extinguish the rights of a non-evacuee mortgagor. The Court ruled that only the evacuee mortgagee's interest vests in the Custodian or the compensation pool, while the mortgagor’s right of redemption remains unaffected. Consequently, the settlement authorities lacked the power to transfer the mortgagor's interest, and the mortgagor is entitled to redeem the property upon discharge of the mortgage debt. The Court established that a non-evacuee mortgagor’s interest does not form part of the compensation pool and is not subject to forfeiture merely due to the property's status as evacuee property.
Questions settled- Does the acquisition of property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, extinguish the rights of a non-evacuee mortgagor?
- Is a non-evacuee mortgagor required to obtain a declaration under Section 22 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, to preserve their equity of redemption?
- Does the interest of an evacuee mortgagee in a property constitute the entirety of the interest that vests in the Custodian upon acquisition?
- M UHAM MAD I DREES vs THE STATE1983 PLD Lahore 148 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-13Read full judgment →
- M ACDONALD LAYTON & Co. LTD. vs PAKISTAN SERVICES LTD AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 2252 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two temporary injunction applications filed in connected suits arising from the termination of a construction contract for a winter sports and summer recreation centre at Malam Jabba, Swat. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of declaratory and injunctive suits concerning the encashment of bank guarantees and performance bonds, and whether temporary injunctions could be granted to restrain such encashment where the underlying contract was allegedly wrongfully terminated. The Sindh High Court held that while a construction contract cannot be specifically enforced and common reliefs seeking to thrust the contractor upon the employer are not maintainable, the plaintiffs had made out a strong prima facie case regarding the conditional nature of both the performance bond and the bank guarantee. The court ruled that encashment of these securities was subject to proof of conditions such as abandonment or breach, which were genuinely disputed, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting temporary injunctions to prevent multiplicity of litigation. The key principle laid down is that unconditional-seeming guarantees tied to mobilization advances or performance must be interpreted in light of their specific terms, and courts may restrain their encashment pending trial if the conditions for their invocation are prima facie unmet.
Questions settled- Can a temporary injunction be granted to restrain the encashment of a bank guarantee or performance bond during the pendency of a suit challenging contract termination?
- Whether a construction contract can be specifically enforced to compel an unwilling employer to allow a contractor to continue work?
- Are bank guarantees issued for mobilization advances encashable arbitrarily without establishing the fulfillment of underlying conditions or proper utilization of the advance?
- Does a suit for a declaration that a bank guarantee and performance bond are not encashable lie under the law?
- LYALLPUR CHEMICAL & FERTILIZERS LTD vs PUNJABLABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL1983 SCMR 1100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed in limine a constitutional petition filed by an employer. The dispute originated from a labour matter where the Labour Appellate Tribunal had ruled in favour of the employee, finding that the employee had not signed the resignation letter submitted by the employer and condoning the delay in filing the employee's grievance before the Labour Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged the Tribunal's findings of fact regarding the signature and the exercise of discretion in condoning the delay. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the High Court correctly exercised its writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's findings of fact regarding the signature were unexceptionable and that the Tribunal possessed the requisite authority to review and overturn the Labour Court's findings concerning the delay. Consequently, the Court found no legal error or violation of principle in the Tribunal's approach, determining that the petition lacked merit and dismissing it accordingly.
Questions settled- Does a Labour Appellate Tribunal have the authority to overturn a Labour Court's finding regarding the condonation of delay?
- Can a High Court interfere with findings of fact made by a Labour Appellate Tribunal in its writ jurisdiction?
- Is the condonation of delay in filing a grievance petition a matter within the discretionary field of the Labour Appellate Tribunal?
- LUBNA HAFEEZ vs SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR ADMISSION TO BOLAN MEDICAL1983 CLC 1788 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-08-08Read full judgment →
- LT.GEN. Sardar FAROOQ SHAUKAT KHAN LODHI vs TALEH MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1983 PLD Supreme Court 442 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that set aside an order by the District Collector resuming a Lambardari land grant due to the grantee's failure to maintain livestock as required by government instructions. The core legal question was whether the resumption of the tenancy required a formal notice for rectification of the breach under the Breeding of Pedigree Livestock Scheme. The Supreme Court held that the specific conditions violated were not part of the original Scheme but were separate tenancy conditions, thus invoking paragraph 29 of the Scheme, which allows for determination of tenancy without prior notice, rather than paragraph 26. Furthermore, the Court held that even if paragraph 26 applied, the requirement for notice was substantially complied with through open inquiries and the grantee's participation in proceedings, and the breach was not rectifiable given the long-standing, deliberate failure to maintain the required livestock. The principle laid down is that where a breach of tenancy conditions falls outside the specific scope of a scheme's rectification clause, or where the breach is not rectifiable, formal notice is not a prerequisite for resumption.
Questions settled- Does the failure to maintain livestock as required by a government notification constitute a breach of the Breeding of Pedigree Livestock Scheme justifying immediate resumption of land?
- Are the provisions of paragraph 26 and paragraph 29 of the Breeding of Pedigree Livestock Scheme independent of each other?
- Is a formal notice for rectification of a breach required under paragraph 26 of the Breeding of Pedigree Livestock Scheme when the breach is not capable of rectification?
- Does substantial compliance with the requirement of notice for rectification of a breach suffice to validate an order of resumption of a government land grant?
- LT. COL. (RETD.) ISHTIAQ UR REHMAN KHAN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION1983 SCMR 1061 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from civil petitions for leave to appeal challenging a judgment of the High Court in writ petitions concerning the transfer of evacuee property under the settlement scheme. The central factual issue was whether contiguous Plots 80-B and 82-B formed an integral part of a bungalow situated at Plot No. 81-B, Model Town, Lahore, previously owned by an evacuee. The petitioner, who was transferred Plot No. 81-B, claimed entitlement to the adjoining plots as part of the main bungalow, whereas Plot No. 80-B had been transferred to a private respondent before settlement authorities ordered the disposal of both plots by public auction. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition while accepting the respondent's petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's order, holding that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the petitioner's claim were adequately addressed by the settlement authorities and the High Court, and required no interference. The Supreme Court laid down that findings of fact determined by relevant authorities and upheld by the High Court will not be disturbed in constitutional jurisdiction absent any legal infirmity.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by settlement authorities and the High Court can be interfered with by the Supreme Court in leave to appeal petitions?
- Whether contiguous evacuee plots automatically form an integral part of an adjacent transferred bungalow?
- LLAH BAKHSH AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD DIN AND OTHERS1983 PLD Rev. 46 · Board of Revenue · 1981-03-19Read full judgment →
- LILA RAM vs GHULAM ALI AND 9 OTHERS1983 PLD Karachi 93 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-05Read full judgment →
- LIAQUAT ALI vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1213 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-08Read full judgment →
- LIAQUAT ALI vs CHAIRMAN, TOWN COMMITTEE, QILA SOBHA SINGH1983 PLC (C. S.) 831 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-18Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1286 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-22Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT ALI vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 4 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-08Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT ALI vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 1065 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-27Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT ALI vs MESSRS PACKAGES LTD.1983 P L C587 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-05Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT ALI vs GENERAL MANAGER, NAGINA CINEMA, LAHORE1983 PLC 855 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-07Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT ALI vs FAITH MUHAMMAD AND orHERs1983 CLC 1637 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-22Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT ALI vs DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR/DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMIS SIONER1983 CLC 306 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-16Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT ALI vs AHMED DIN GILL AND 2 OTHERS1983 P Cr. L J 1075 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-20Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT ALI RATHORE vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WASA)1983 PLC (C. S.) 259 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-08-01Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT ALI AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1983 P. Cr. L J 1203 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-04Read full judgment →
- LATIF-UR-REHMAN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB LIVESTOCK1983 PLC (C. S.) 1120 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
- LATIF BUX vs MUHAMMAD NOOR HASSAN AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 1759 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-23Read full judgment →
- LATE DR. JAN MUHAMMAD ALVI (THROUGH ITS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES) vs ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INDUSTRIAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, LAHORE AND 5 OTHERS1983 CLC 1714 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-19Read full judgment →
- LAND ACQUISITION, COLLECTOR-V, TARBELA DAM RESETTLEMENT1983 CLC 1879 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
- LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR-II AND 2 OTHERS vs FAZALUR REHMAN AND 51983 CLC 1847 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-15Read full judgment →
- LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR IV, TARBELA DAM, RESETTLEMENT1983 CLC 1868 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
- LAND ACQUISITION (B & R), HYDERABAD vs Seth ALLAINO1983 CLC 865 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These first appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Officer challenge a common judgment and decree enhancing compensation for acquired agricultural and Sakni lands. The core legal questions involve the calculation of limitation periods for filing appeals following the amendment of a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908, and the restriction on awarding compensation exceeding the amount originally claimed pursuant to section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act. The court held that procedural amendments to a decree—such as supplying an omission to specify a satisfaction period under section 82 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908—do not provide a fresh starting point for limitation unless the amendment materially alters the substantive rights and obligations of the parties. However, sufficient cause under section 5 of the Limitation Act was established due to bona fide mistaken legal advice. On merits, the court held that compensation for Sakni land could not exceed the amount claimed by the claimant under section 25(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, while upholding the enhanced compensation for agricultural land based on sufficient evidence.
Questions settled- Does the amendment of a decree by supplying an omission regarding the time for satisfaction under section 82 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 provide a fresh starting point of limitation for filing an appeal?
- Can a court award compensation in a land acquisition reference exceeding the amount claimed by the applicant pursuant to section 25(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Whether mistaken legal advice regarding the computation of limitation following a decree amendment constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Under what circumstances does an amendment to a judgment or decree alter the date from which the limitation period for an appeal is calculated?
- LALU AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2060 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-08Read full judgment →
- LALJI vs MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM1983 CLC 3051 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-03Read full judgment →
- LALA vs SATTAR AND OTHERS1983 CLC 582 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-05Read full judgment →
- Lala MADAN LAL AGARW AL vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KANPUR1983 PTD 344 · Allahabad High Court · 1982-09-02Read full judgment →
- LAL MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2153(1) · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
- LAL MUHAMMAD vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA AND 31983 CLC 770 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calls in question a revisional order of the Additional District Judge, which set aside the trial court's order allowing the petitioner to amend a reply to an application regarding a preliminary issue of unsound mind. The core legal question revolves around whether the trial court had the legal basis to permit the correction of an inadvertent clerical omission in a reply, and whether the appellate court correctly applied Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court held that the Additional District Judge erred in restricting his view to Order VI, Rule 17, while completely overlooking other applicable provisions such as the second proviso to Order XII, Rule 4, C.P.C. concerning the amendment or withdrawal of admissions, as well as the inherent powers of the court under section 151, C.P.C. The key principle laid down is that procedural rules should not be construed to defeat justice, and courts possess adequate inherent and specific statutory powers to allow corrections of clerical mistakes in applications and replies in the interest of justice.
Questions settled- Whether Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applies to applications and replies filed in a suit or is strictly confined to pleadings?
- Can a trial court allow the correction of an inadvertent clerical mistake in a reply by invoking the inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the second proviso to Order XII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 empower the court to allow a party to amend or withdraw an admission?
- Whether a revisional order passed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is open to challenge under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court if it would otherwise attain finality and cause grave prejudice?
- LAL KHAN vs THE STATE-1983 P Cr. L J 1667 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-17Read full judgment →
- LAL HUSSAIN alias LAL vs BAGGA1983 CLC 657 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
- LAL DIN vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE1983 CLC 2946 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-08Read full judgment →
- LAL AND ANOTHER vs AZAD GOVERNMENT1983 CLC 647 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-05-24Read full judgment →
- LAL AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1127 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-13Read full judgment →
- LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION vs KHUSHI MUHAMMAD1983 PLC 581 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
- LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs MESSRS OWN HOMES SERVICE LTD.1983 PLD Lahore 475 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-24Read full judgment →
- LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs MESSRS KHALID JAVED & Co.1983 SCMR 718 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed in limine the petitioner's First Appeal against a Civil Judge's decree making an arbitration award the rule of the court. The underlying dispute arose from a road-widening contract awarded by the petitioner to the respondent, which was referred to two arbitrators who were both nominees of the petitioner. The arbitrators awarded a sum to the respondent, and the petitioner's objections were rejected by the trial court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the arbitrators were the petitioner's own nominees, both parties were afforded a fair opportunity to present their cases, and each item of the claim was adequately considered on its merits. Finding that no legal misconduct was established against the arbitrators, the Court held that the trial court was fully justified in making the award the rule of the court and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether an arbitration award can be set aside or challenged if no legal misconduct is established against the arbitrators?
- Can a party successfully object to an arbitration award rendered by its own nominees where a fair opportunity was given to both sides and claims were decided on merit?
- LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, L. D. A.1983 PLD Lahore 413 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-04Read full judgment →
- LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs LABOUR COURT No. 1 LAHORE AND OTHERS1983 PLC 1284 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
- LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WASA), LAHORE vs SALAH-UD-DIN1983 PLC 281 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-11-23Read full judgment →
- LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WASA), LAHORE vs Ch GHULAM1983 PLC 279 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-28Read full judgment →