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.
- KARAM KHAN vs KHUDA BAKHSH AND ANOTHER1983 P Cr. LJ 2004 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-13Read full judgment →
- KARAM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 427 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-03Read full judgment →
- KARAM BAKHSH AND 7 Others vs NAZIR AHMAD AND 2 Other1983 SCMR 763 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which allowed a settlement revision regarding the verification of a land claim based on a pre-emption decree. The core legal question was whether a pre-emption decree obtained prior to migration could be validly relied upon for land allotment purposes, despite objections regarding the vendors' interest, the decree's executability, and the non-attestation of the mutation. The Supreme Court held that the Rehabilitation Commissioner had already conclusively determined the validity and legal effect of the civil court decree in 1953. The Court found that the non-attestation of the mutation resulted from mass migration rather than any failure to satisfy decree conditions. Consequently, the High Court’s decision to uphold the claim was correct. The Court further affirmed that the rights of subsequent purchasers and informers were subject to the doctrine of lis pendens, as their interests arose during the pendency of the dispute. The petitions were dismissed, reinforcing that once a competent authority has verified a claim, it must be given effect.
Questions settled- Can a pre-emption decree be relied upon for rehabilitation land claims if the mutation was not attested due to mass migration?
- Does the doctrine of lis pendens apply to purchasers of land whose interests arise during the pendency of a settlement dispute?
- Can a final decision by a Rehabilitation Commissioner regarding the validity of a civil court decree be reopened in subsequent settlement revisions?
- KARACHI-ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION WORKERS' UNION vs REGISTRAR1983 PLC 417 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-15Read full judgment →
- KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION WORKERS' UNION vs REGISTRAR, TRAM UNIONS, SIND AND 4 OTHERS1983 PLC 495 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-13Read full judgment →
- KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs IQBAL AHMED MEMON AND Another1983 SCMR 494 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which set aside the removal of an employee from the Karachi Transport Corporation. The core legal questions were whether the Service Tribunal possessed jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an order of removal from service, and whether the Tribunal correctly determined that the competent authority failed to apply its mind when terminating the employee. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Service Tribunal correctly exercised its jurisdiction as the removal order did not fall under the specific bars regarding fitness for appointment or promotion. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding that the removal order was unsustainable because the competent authority had not properly evaluated the relevant facts, particularly given that the same authority had recently recommended the employee for a senior position elsewhere. The key principle established is that while authorities may have powers to remove employees under special ordinances, such actions remain subject to judicial review by the Service Tribunal to ensure they are taken with due application of mind and in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Does the bar in Section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 regarding 'fitness or otherwise' apply to an order of removal from service?
- Can a service tribunal set aside a removal order if the competent authority failed to apply its mind to the relevant facts?
- Is an order of removal from service passed under the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance 1973 immune from challenge before the Service Tribunal?
- KARACHI SHIPYARD AND ENGINEERING WORKS LIMITED AND ANOTHER vs FARID1983 PLC 72 (2) · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION vs NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL1983 PLC 367 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-23Read full judgment →
- KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs ABDUL REHMAN1983 PLC 91 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-31Read full judgment →
- Kanwar IMAM DIN vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE AND Another1983 SCMR 791 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal converted into an appeal, challenging the grant of bail to the respondent who is facing prosecution for murder. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting bail to a minor accused under the proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a capital case, taking into account conflicting evidence regarding age and the attendant circumstances of the crime. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while discretion exists to grant bail to an accused under sixteen years of age in cases punishable with death or life imprisonment, such discretion must not be exercised by ignoring the gravity and attendant circumstances of the offense, such as playing a leading role in the attack. The Court laid down the principle that the discretion to grant bail based on age in heinous crimes must be weighed against the conduct and specific role attributed to the accused in the commission of the crime.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be granted to an accused under the age of sixteen in a case punishable with death or transportation for life without considering the attendant circumstances of the crime?
- Does playing a leading role in a murder attack preclude the grant of bail on the ground of being under sixteen years of age?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the exercise of discretion by the High Court in granting bail when relevant circumstances of the crime were ignored?
- KANWAL NAIN AND 3 OTHERS vs FATEH KHAN AND OTHERS1983 PLD Supreme Court 53 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-07-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case concerned a dispute over a two-thirds share in urban property, where the first respondent claimed his sons (respondents 2 and 3) were benami owners, and their subsequent sale to the appellants was invalid. The trial court and Additional District Judge concurrently held that the appellants were bona fide purchasers for value without notice, protected by Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and dismissed the suit. However, the High Court, in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, re-examined the evidence and overturned these concurrent findings, concluding the appellants had not acted with reasonable care. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the High Court's exercise of revisional powers. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by re-appraising evidence and upsetting concurrent findings of fact in revision, as revisional powers are primarily for correcting jurisdictional errors, not for re-examining facts unless the decision is perverse or based on no evidence. The High Court's judgment was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, affirming the protection of bona fide purchasers under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Questions settled- Can a High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, re-appraise evidence and overturn concurrent findings of fact by lower courts?
- What are the limits of revisional powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding questions of fact?
- Under what conditions does Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 protect a transferee from an ostensible owner?
- Is a transferee protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 if the real owner allowed the transferor to hold himself out as the owner?
- What constitutes 'reasonable care' and 'good faith' for a transferee seeking protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- KANDHLA (KANDLA) vs THE STATE-1983 P Cr. L J 1869 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-21Read full judgment →
- KAMRAN ALTAF vs CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY1983 CLC 155 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-31Read full judgment →
- KAMAL KHAN alias KAMLA vs Mst. ZAINABResponddnt1983 PLD Lahore 546 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit challenging an inheritance mutation in favor of the respondent, who was recognized as the granddaughter of the deceased owner. The core legal question concerns the proper interpretation of section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, specifically whether an orphaned grandchild representing a predeceased parent is entitled to the entire estate of the original propositus or only the share that would devolve upon them through their parent under Islamic law. The Lahore High Court held that the legal fiction under section 4 deems the predeceased parent alive at the succession opening, meaning the parent notionally inherits the estate, and the grandchild subsequently inherits from that parent according to Islamic law rather than capturing the entire estate directly. Consequently, where the predeceased parent was an only son and left only one daughter, that granddaughter is entitled to only one-half of the estate, with the remainder reverting to the collaterals. The key principle laid down is that section 4 does not intend to grant a grandchild a greater share than would be permissible under Islamic law if the predeceased parent had actually survived the propositus.
Questions settled- Whether an orphaned grandchild under section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 is entitled to the entire estate of the original propositus or only the share permissible under Islamic law from the predeceased parent?
- How does the legal fiction of a predeceased parent being alive at the time of succession operate under section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
- Does the principle of per stirpes under section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 allow a sole surviving grandchild to inherit more than their legitimate Islamic share from the predeceased parent?
- KAMAL AFREEN vs MANSOOR MUHAMMAD QURESHI1983 PLD Karachi 598 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the dismissal of an ejectment application filed by a widow landlord under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The Rent Controller had dismissed the application on grounds of non-joinder of all legal heirs of the deceased tenant and a statutory bar under Section 14(2) of the Ordinance. The core legal questions were whether all legal heirs must be impleaded in an ejectment suit and whether a landlord occupying residential premises is barred from seeking the ejectment of non-residential premises. The Court held that the definition of 'tenant' under the Ordinance includes only those legal heirs in actual physical possession of the premises; therefore, non-joinder of non-occupying heirs is not fatal. Additionally, the Court ruled that the bar under Section 14(2) does not apply when the premises occupied by the landlord and the premises sought for ejectment differ in nature (i.e., residential versus non-residential). The appeal was allowed, and the ejectment was granted, establishing that statutory bars are contingent upon the nature of the premises involved.
Questions settled- Are all legal heirs of a deceased tenant necessary parties in an ejectment application?
- Does the bar under Section 14(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 apply when a landlord occupies residential premises but seeks ejectment of non-residential premises?
- Who qualifies as a 'tenant' under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 following the death of the original tenant?
- KALEY KHAN AND OTHERS vs FARMAN ALI AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2145 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-24Read full judgment →
- KALEY KHAN AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 760 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-16Read full judgment →
- KALE KHAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1821 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-07Read full judgment →
- KALA vs THE STATE1983 PLD Supreme Court 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of a co-villager. The core legal questions concern the reliability of ocular evidence from related witnesses, the impact of omitting an eye-witness's name from the First Information Report (FIR), the alleged inconsistency between medical and ocular evidence, and whether the death sentence warrants commutation due to the passage of time or alleged mitigating circumstances. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that the relationship of a witness to the deceased does not inherently invalidate their testimony, and that the omission of a witness's name from the FIR does not automatically render their evidence unreliable if they are otherwise credible. The Court found no contradiction between the medical and ocular accounts, noting that the assailant's position relative to the victim explained the injury placement. Regarding sentencing, the Court affirmed that prior disputes settled by a panchayat do not constitute mitigating circumstances, and that judicial delay alone is insufficient to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Does the relationship of an eye-witness to the deceased automatically invalidate their testimony in a murder trial?
- Does the omission of an eye-witness's name from the First Information Report render their subsequent testimony unreliable?
- Can judicial delay in the disposal of an appeal serve as a sufficient ground for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Does a prior dispute settled by a village panchayat constitute a mitigating circumstance for sentencing in a murder case?
- KALA KHAN vs SHAH HUSSAIN AND 9 OTHERS1983 CLC 684 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
- KAJAL KHAN vs THE STATE1983 SCMR 130 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a conviction for murder under the Pakistan Penal Code. The appellant, Kajal Khan, was convicted by the trial court for stabbing the deceased, Ishaq Khan, in furtherance of a common intention. The High Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the testimony of two alleged eye-witnesses, who were deemed chance witnesses, was sufficient to sustain a conviction in the presence of admitted blood-feud enmity and the unexplained absence of natural witnesses. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that relying on the testimony of chance witnesses in a case involving long-standing enmity, without independent corroboration, is unsafe. The Court established the principle that where natural witnesses—such as the father and brother of the deceased—are present near the scene but are not produced as eye-witnesses, and the prosecution relies instead on chance witnesses, the evidence lacks the necessary credibility to support a conviction, especially when the conduct of the witnesses contradicts normal human behavior.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of chance witnesses in the presence of long-standing enmity?
- Is it safe to rely on the testimony of eye-witnesses when natural witnesses present at the scene were not produced?
- Does the failure of immediate family members to lodge an F.I.R. when present at the scene cast doubt on the prosecution's version of events?
- KAFEEL AHMAD vs THE STATE1983 PCr. L J 1648 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-21Read full judgment →
- KAFAYATULLAH vs MUHAMMAD INAYAT1983 CLC 3316 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-03Read full judgment →
- K. P. MOIDOO AND ANOTHER vs Mst. NOOR JEHAN BEGUM1983 CLC 723 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, against the judgment of the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the appellants from a shop. The core legal questions involve whether a 'cafe' can be equated with a 'hotel' so as to be excluded from the definition of 'premises' under the Ordinance, whether a joint statutory notice to joint tenants is valid, whether a general power of attorney executed prior to the acquisition of the property suffices, and the interpretation of personal 'need' under section 14 versus 'require' under section 15. The Sindh High Court held that a cafe is not a hotel and remains subject to the Ordinance, that joint notices and joint descriptions of tenants are legally valid and constitute mere technicalities, that a power of attorney covering future properties is fully effective, and that section 14 imposes fewer restrictions on a landlord than section 15. The appeal was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a cafe can be equated with a hotel to exclude it from the definition of premises under section 2(h) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Is a joint statutory notice under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, addressed to multiple joint tenants legally valid?
- Does a general power of attorney executed prior to the acquisition of a property authorize an attorney to file an ejectment application concerning that property?
- Is there a substantive distinction between the term 'needs' in section 14 and 'requires' in section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- K Shariat Court 14 THE STATE vs ABDUL LATIF SHAH1983 PLD Azad J& K Shariat Court 9 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-02-01Read full judgment →
- JURNAlL SING vs THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL JAIL, MACH AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Quetta 97 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-04-24Read full judgment →
- JUPITER TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs HAYAT1983 PLC 94 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-03Read full judgment →
- JUNAID AHMAD vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, LAHORE REGION AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 916 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
- JUMO Slim 7 OTHERS vs Tae STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1067 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
- JUMMA KHAN AND OTHERS vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1983 CLC 566 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-02Read full judgment →
- JUMMA AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2225 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- JUMAN AND OTHERS vs HAKAN AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1186 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-10Read full judgment →
- JUMA GUL AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS HABIB BANK LTD.1983 PLC 163 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-29Read full judgment →
- JUILEE SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD. vs THE KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY1983 CLC 856 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-22Read full judgment →
- JOSEPH vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, GOVERNMENT1983 PLC (C. S.) 600 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
- JOSEPH MASIH vs THE STATE1983 PCr.LJ 631 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- JIWAN BIBI AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQ AND OTHERS1983 PLD Rev. 54 · Board of Revenue · 1982-09-19Read full judgment →
- JEHANGIR vs REHMAT ALI1983 CLC 2483 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-08Read full judgment →
- JEHANDAD KHAN vs NN KHAN AND 9 OTHERS1983 PLD Peshawar 84 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-10-22Read full judgment →
- JEHAN BAHADUR vs HAZRAT WALI AND Other1983 SCMR 872 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a Peshawar High Court judgment dismissing a civil revision concerning a dispute over mortgagee rights in land. The petitioner claimed mortgagee rights through purchase from predecessors-in-interest whose own claims to those rights had been previously litigated and dismissed in a prior civil suit. The plaintiff-respondents, having purchased rights from a different party, sought possession and the removal of the petitioner from the revenue record. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed this, finding that the petitioner could not acquire rights that had been judicially negated in the earlier litigation and that the identity of the suit property was established. The High Court affirmed these findings. The Supreme Court, upon review, held that the petitioner could not validly purchase rights that the predecessors-in-interest did not possess or that had been extinguished by a prior judicial decree. Furthermore, the Court found that the identity of the property was sufficiently established by the evidence. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a person acquire valid mortgagee rights from a predecessor-in-interest whose own claim to such rights has been dismissed by a court of competent jurisdiction?
- Is a party bound by the outcome of a previous litigation regarding the same property rights when they claim title through the unsuccessful party in that prior suit?
- Can a court rely on the identity of property established by boundaries provided in the record when determining competing claims to mortgagee rights?
- JAVED IQBAL vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 1954 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-01Read full judgment →
- JAVED HUSSAIN vs EMPLOYEES OLD AGE BENEFITS INSTITUTION1983 PLC 160 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-21Read full judgment →
- JAVED DASTGIR MIRZA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KAHUTA AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 1028 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-07-01Read full judgment →
- JAVED DASTGIR MIRZA vs ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, S G A & I DEPARTMENT1983 PLC (C. S.) 983 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-07-01Read full judgment →
- JAVED ASLAM MALIK AND ANOTHER vs RETURNING OFFICER1983 CLC 2440 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-03Read full judgment →
- JAVED ANWAR AND Others vs Ch. JAMIL HASSAN MANJ AND Other1983 SCMR 1261 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, successful informants, sought leave to appeal against a compromise order recorded by the Lahore High Court on 3-12-1978, which disposed of a constitutional petition regarding property allotments in Village Datewali, Tehsil and District Gujranwala. The core legal question was whether a compromise arrangement allowing parties to retain land allotments—including portions allegedly obtained by fraud or without a genuine claim—could damage the interest of the compensation pool without equivalent produce index units or price being received. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the interest of the compensation pool was compromised by the agreement reached between the parties.
Questions settled- Whether a compromise order in a constitutional petition can allow the retention of land allotments obtained by fraud or without a genuine claim?
- Does an agreed arrangement between parties regarding land allotments from the compensation pool prejudice the interest of the pool if equivalent produce index units or price are not received?
- JAVED AND Another vs The STATE1983 SCMR 557 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the conviction of Javed and Muhammad Ayyaz for offences including murder and attempted murder, stemming from a land dispute. The appellants challenged their convictions, arguing self-defence and contesting the application of common intention. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and determined that the land in question belonged to the appellants, leading to the acquittal of the charge under Section 447 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that Muhammad Ayyaz was not liable for the murder charge, converting his conviction to attempted murder under Section 307, and noting he had already served sufficient time. Regarding Javed, the Court rejected the plea of self-defence but acknowledged a compromise reached between the parties. Relying on precedent, the Court reduced Javed's death sentence to imprisonment for life, set aside the fines due to compensation paid, and granted the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The judgment clarifies the scope of individual liability in joint criminal acts and the impact of compromise on sentencing in capital cases.
Questions settled- Can a conviction under Section 447 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained if the accused are the rightful owners of the land in dispute?
- Does a compromise between parties in a murder case warrant the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Is a co-accused liable for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if they only participated in an attack on a different victim?
- Should the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be granted when commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- JAVED AKBAR vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS1983 CLC 1760 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-02Read full judgment →
- JANOO AND OTHERS vs CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY, SIND AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 1963 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-17Read full judgment →
- JAN-E-ALAM vs ABDUL HAMID1983 CLC 3230 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-06Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND Other1983 SCMR 1226 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Lahore High Court, which set aside a decision by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Chunian, and remanded the matter for a fresh decision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should interfere with findings of fact recorded by a statutory authority when that authority allegedly overlooked material evidence and failed to apply its mind to the merits of the case. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order. The Court held that while it is a general principle that the High Court should not normally interfere with factual findings of statutory authorities in writ jurisdiction, such interference is justified when the High Court's order is designed to further the ends of justice and ensure a decision based on the true merits of the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to remand the matter for a proper adjudication.
Questions settled- Should the High Court interfere with findings of fact recorded by a statutory authority in its writ jurisdiction?
- Is a High Court order remanding a case for fresh decision to ensure justice a proper exercise of writ jurisdiction?
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against a High Court order that remands a matter to a statutory authority for a decision on merits?
- JAMIL AHMAD KHOKHAR vs PUNJAB ROAD1983 PLC 248 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-26Read full judgment →
- JAMALA AND 5 Otherss vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 809 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
- JAMAL DIN vs MUHAMMAD YAQOOB1983 CLC 286 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal challenges a judgment confirming a final decree in a suit for rendition of accounts. The core legal question is whether a defendant, even if previously proceeded against ex parte, is entitled to fresh notice when a case is transferred between courts by administrative order, and whether the failure to provide such notice invalidates subsequent proceedings. The Court held that the trial court erred by proceeding ex parte without issuing fresh notice upon the transfer of the case, as required by law. The Court affirmed that even an ex parte defendant is entitled to notice when a case is transferred by administrative order, and that the provisions of Section 24-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, mandate proper communication of transfer orders to parties. Consequently, the final decree was set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh proceedings starting from the appointment of a local commissioner, while the preliminary decree remained undisturbed as it was not appealed.
Questions settled- Is a defendant who has been proceeded against ex parte entitled to fresh notice when a case is transferred from one court to another by administrative order?
- Can a party challenge the correctness of a preliminary decree in an appeal against the final decree if no appeal was filed against the preliminary decree itself?
- Does the failure to communicate a transfer order to parties under Section 24-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 invalidate subsequent ex parte proceedings?
- JAMAL DIN vs COMMISSIONER, MULTAN1983 PLD Rev. 47 · Board of Revenue · 1983-03-14Read full judgment →
- JALEELUR REHMAN vs MESSRS INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN1983 PLC 88 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-09Read full judgment →
- JALAL SHAH AHD Others vs CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY, WEST1983SCMR 614 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1967-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a dispute concerning evacuee land originally belonging to Hindus who left for India upon Partition. The petitioners claimed title through adverse possession for over twelve years prior to March 1947. After various proceedings before the revenue and rehabilitation authorities and the High Court, the petitioners sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal questions involved the proper appreciation of revenue records regarding adverse possession and the correct interpretation of section 3 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance 1957, specifically whether its protection extends to persons in unauthorized possession or management of evacuee properties. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions of general public importance relating to the interpretation of the statutory provisions of the Ordinance. The Court held that the legal issues raised warranted a full hearing and accordingly granted leave to appeal while continuing the stay already granted.
Questions settled- Whether the finding of adverse possession prior to 1st March 1947 was based on a proper appreciation of revenue records?
- Whether the protection of section 3 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance 1957 is available only to persons who possessed the property under lawful authority?
- JALAL DIN vs DISTRICT JUDGE, SIALKOT AND 13 OTHERS1983 CLC 1444 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
- JAHANGIR vs BADRUZ ZAMAN1983 CLC 3159 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-04Read full judgment →
- JAHANGIR MAHMOOD vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 1298 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-10Read full judgment →
- JAHANGEER vs THE STATE1983 P. Cr. L J 979 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-24Read full judgment →
- JAHANDAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2283 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-01Read full judgment →
- JAFFAR KHAN vs Mst. SHAH BEGUM1983 SCMR 221 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a dispute over agricultural land originally owned by a deceased person whose estate was subjected to previous litigation and a compromise deed in 1943 granting a widow a life interest. The core legal question was the effect of the enforcement of the Shariat Law of Inheritance on prior customary law compromises and limited estates held by widows. The Supreme Court held that upon the termination of the limited estate under the Shariat Act, the entire inheritance reopened and earlier compromise deeds restricting the widow to a life interest or maintenance must yield to statutory succession rights. The key principle laid down is that limited estates held under customary law terminated upon the enactment of the Shariat application statutes, necessitating the reopening of inheritance according to Islamic law regardless of prior family compromises.
Questions settled- What is the effect of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962 on a limited estate previously created under customary law?
- Does a prior family compromise restricting a widow to a life interest survive the enforcement of the Shariat Law of Inheritance?
- Must the inheritance be reopened upon the termination of a limited life estate under the Shariat Act?
- JAFAR KHAN AND OTHERS vs ARIF AND Other1983 SCMR 443 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involved criminal appeals against a Lahore High Court judgment concerning convictions for murder and assault. The core legal question was whether the accused were liable under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for constructive liability as an unlawful assembly, or if individual liability applied under Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 due to a sudden fight. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly rejected the application of Section 149, finding that the accused acted individually during a sudden fight rather than as a pre-planned unlawful assembly. The Court maintained the convictions under Section 304, Part I, but enhanced the fines and compensation amounts for the heirs of the deceased. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence indicates a sudden fight and unexplained injuries on the accused side, constructive liability under Section 149 is not automatically applicable; instead, individual responsibility for specific acts is the appropriate legal standard when a common object is not established.
Questions settled- Does the presence of weapons consistent with agricultural work and the lack of a pre-arranged plan negate the common object required for an unlawful assembly under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a court convict accused persons for individual acts rather than constructive liability when the evidence suggests a sudden fight rather than a pre-planned attack?
- Is the failure of the prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused a relevant factor in determining whether a case falls under Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- JABBAR vs THB STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2361 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
- J. K. SYNTHETICS LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KANPUR1983 PTD 285 · Supreme Court of India · 1981-04-28Read full judgment →
- It ,3'')/*''"di 131111 In" 10 Before Sardar Fakhre Alam and Muhammad !shag1983 PLD Peshawar 27 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-09-21Read full judgment →
- ISMAIL vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1750 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-14Read full judgment →
- ISMAIL vs THE STATE-Opponent1983 P Cr. L J 1426 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-01Read full judgment →
- ISMAIL vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Rev. 40 · Board of Revenue · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
- ISMAIL vs RENT CONTROLLER, SHAHDADPUR AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 2994 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Rent Controller awarding costs of adjournment in rent proceedings. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller is empowered to award costs of adjournment under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, given the limited applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court held that the Rent Controller, acting under a special law, possesses no inherent or statutory power to award adjournment costs, as the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are strictly limited to the specific matters enumerated in Section 20 of the Ordinance. Consequently, the Court ruled that an order imposing adjournment costs is without jurisdiction, coram non judice, and of no legal effect. The key principle laid down is that rent tribunals cannot exercise powers not expressly conferred upon them by their governing special statute, and the general provisions of civil procedure cannot be invoked beyond the explicit exceptions provided in the law.
Questions settled- Whether the Rent Controller has the power to award costs of adjournment in proceedings under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Do the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, generally apply to proceedings before a Rent Controller under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- What are the specific matters for which a Rent Controller can exercise the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- ISMAIL AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 823 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Sindh High Court arose out of the conviction of four appellants for murder (Section 302/34 PPC) and attempted murder (Section 307/34 PPC) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad. The prosecution alleged that the appellants fired shots at the victims over a prior murder feud, killing one woman and injuring two others. The High Court scrutinised the prosecution's evidence, which comprised ocular testimony, a dying declaration, motive, and ballistic recoveries. The Court excluded the evidence of one alleged eye-witness due to an unexplained eight-day delay by the police in recording his statement. It further held that ocular evidence from interested and inimical witnesses requires independent corroboration, which cannot be satisfied by motive alone where motive is co-extensive with enmity. Additionally, the dying declaration was discarded due to the lack of evidence of imminent death and potential tutoring, while the ballistic expert's report was rendered valueless owing to an unexplained seven-month delay in despatching the gun and empties. Consequently, the High Court extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted all appellants.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of an eye-witness whose statement was recorded by the police after an unexplained delay be relied upon to uphold a conviction?
- Does prior enmity between parties require independent corroboration for interested ocular testimony in a capital case?
- Can motive that is co-extensive with established enmity serve as independent corroboration of interested ocular evidence?
- What is the evidentiary value of a ballistic expert report when there is an unexplained long delay in despatching seized weapons and empties to the expert?
- ISLAMUL HAQ AND ANOTHER vs Haji JAMIL AHMAD1983 CLC 1415 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-12Read full judgment →
- ISLAMUDDIN vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE MEMON AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2776 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-06Read full judgment →
- ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN vs Haji AHMAD JAN AND Other1983 SCMR 765 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arises from an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal directing the Government of Pakistan to pay the respondent, a permanent provincial employee retained by the Central Government upon the takeover of the Regional Passport Office, a deputation allowance for the period he held a higher post. The core legal question was whether the provincial employee, subsequently reverted to his parent department due to a policy change, was entitled to a deputation allowance despite initial terms disallowing it under an expected permanent absorption scheme. The Supreme Court held that the initial denial of deputation pay was tied to a policy of permanent absorption which the Central Government failed to honor, and upon the policy's reversal and the respondent's reversion, he reverted to the status of a deputationist governed by the terms and conditions clarified by the lending provincial government. The Court laid down the principle that when a government servant retains a lien in their parent department and the premise of permanent absorption in the borrowing department fails due to a unilateral policy reversal, the employee is entitled to deputation terms and allowances as determined by the lending authority.
Questions settled- Whether a provincial government employee transferred to the central government is entitled to a deputation allowance upon being reverted due to a policy change?
- Does the failure of a borrowing government to permanently absorb an opted staff member alter the employee's status to that of a deputationist?
- Are the terms of employment of a deputationist governed by the rules of the lending government?
- ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN vs Da. SAFDAR MAHMOOD1983 PLD Supreme Court 100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a Service Tribunal order reinstating a civil servant to Grade 20. The respondent, originally an Income-tax officer, was promoted to Grade 20 in the Intelligence Bureau. Following a change in government, he was reverted to Grade 19 and subsequently faced disciplinary proceedings for misconduct, which were later dropped, though the reversion was maintained. The government argued the reversion was a valid exercise of power under Section 12 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, claiming the appointment was ad hoc. The Service Tribunal ruled the appointment was not ad hoc and the reversion was a punitive measure in disguise. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Service Tribunal is the exclusive arbiter of facts in service matters. The Court found the Tribunal's factual determination that the appointment was not temporary was plausible. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the reversion was a punitive action disguised as an administrative one, and thus not protected by Section 12. The judgment reinforces the finality of Service Tribunal findings on facts and limits judicial interference in service disputes.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to interfere with findings of fact made by a Service Tribunal in service matters?
- Can a civil servant appointed to a higher grade be reverted without notice under Section 12 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, if the appointment was not ad hoc, temporary, or officiating?
- Is a reversion of a civil servant to a lower grade valid if it is imposed as a punitive measure disguised as an administrative act?
- ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, FINANCE DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD vs Qazi ABDUL KARIM, DEPUTY ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, N.W.F.P., PESHAWAR AND Another1983 SCMR 883 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is filed by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan against the judgment of the Services Tribunal, Islamabad, which accepted the appeal of respondent No. 1. The respondent, employed as an Assistant Accounts Officer, had worked in the higher post of Deputy Accountant-General for various periods without formal promotion to that grade. The core legal question was whether an employee who is appointed to officiate in a higher post involving greater responsibilities is entitled to draw the pay of that higher office, despite terms in his appointment restricting him to his original grade's pay. The Supreme Court held that the Services Tribunal rightly concluded in favor of the respondent, ruling that as long as an employee's services are utilized in a higher post, they are entitled to draw the minimum pay admissible in that post. The key principle laid down is that officiating in a higher post carries the right to draw the minimum pay of that grade regardless of restrictive conditions in the appointment notification, aligning with established jurisprudence.
Questions settled- Is an employee entitled to draw the pay of a higher post when appointed to officiate in it despite a condition restricting him to his original grade's pay?
- Does an employee who performs duties in a higher office without formal promotion have a right to the minimum pay of that grade for the period worked?
- ISLAM MUHAMMAD vs MESSRS CAFE-DE-KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC 169 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
- ISLAM HASSAN KHAN vs SCERETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, INDUSTRIES1983 PLC (C. S.) 782 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-06-03Read full judgment →
- ISHTIAQ ALI Alias NAGA AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 785 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-28Read full judgment →
- ISHAQ vs Haji WALI MUHAMMAD1983 CLC 1653 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
- IRSHAD KHAN vs ABDUL MAJEED AND 3 Other1983 SCMR 64 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal in limine of a constitutional petition relating to a local government election. The petitioner, who had been declared successful in the election for Union Council No. 50 (Electoral Unit, Nizampur Ghallian), faced an election petition filed by respondent No. 2. The Election Tribunal allowed the petition, set aside the election result, and disqualified the petitioner for four years under section 21-A of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, for contesting on a political basis. The High Court dismissed the subsequent constitutional petition, holding that the Tribunal's findings of fact were conclusive and not open to interference. The Supreme Court considered whether the Election Tribunal misread the evidence. The Court held that the counsel failed to point out any misreading justifying interference, and that seeking a reappraisal of evidence in writ jurisdiction is unwarranted. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that findings of fact by a tribunal are conclusive unless shown to be without lawful authority through clear misreading.
Questions settled- Can the High Court reappraise evidence in its constitutional jurisdiction against findings of fact by an Election Tribunal?
- Whether findings of fact arrived at by an Election Tribunal are conclusive in writ proceedings?
- Does contesting a local government election on a political basis attract disqualification under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- IRSHAD HUSSAIN (THROUGH HIS HEIRS) vs ABDUR REHMAN KAZI1983 SCMR 471 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Sind High Court which had allowed a landlord's second appeal, resulting in the eviction of the tenant, Irshad Hussain. The core legal question was whether the tenant's failure to deposit rent as ordered under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, could be condoned on the grounds of illness. The Rent Controller had initially struck off the tenant's defence due to the default, finding the illness was not sufficiently incapacitating to prevent the deposit. Although the first appellate court condoned the default, the High Court reversed this, finding the tenant failed to prove the non-deposit was beyond his control. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the tenant's illness was not of such an incapacitating nature as to render the failure to deposit rent inevitable or unavoidable. The Court reiterated that the principles established in Ghulam Muhammad Khan Lundkhor v. Safdar regarding default apply equally to cases involving claims of illness, requiring proof that the default was truly beyond the tenant's control.
Questions settled- Can a tenant's failure to deposit rent under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 be condoned due to illness if the illness was not incapacitating enough to make the default unavoidable?
- Does the principle that a default in rent payment must be beyond the tenant's control apply to cases where the tenant claims illness as the cause for non-deposit?
- IRSHAD BIBI AND 3 Others vs HABIBULLAH AND ANOTHER1983 P Cr. L J 1384 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
- IRSHAD AHMAD vs The STATE1983 SCMR 1263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the petitioner was sentenced for the murder of his mother-in-law. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, aggrieved by his mother-in-law's refusal to allow his wife to accompany him to his place of business, fatally stabbed the deceased. The defense contended that the nature of the injuries suggested multiple assailants and that the prosecution witness, the petitioner's wife, had an illicit liaison with another witness, Faizul Haq, who allegedly committed the murder with her connivance. The Supreme Court observed that the evidence raised significant questions regarding the petitioner's motive, the possibility of third-party involvement, and the reliability of the eyewitness accounts given the alleged illicit relationships. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to specifically examine the appropriateness of the sentence awarded and to further deliberate on the points raised by the defense counsel regarding the evidentiary inconsistencies and the potential for alternative perpetrators.
Questions settled- Does the nature of multiple incised wounds on a victim necessarily imply the presence of more than one assailant?
- Can allegations of an illicit relationship between a prosecution witness and a third party constitute sufficient grounds to challenge the credibility of eyewitness testimony?
- Is the sentence of death or life imprisonment appropriate when there is evidence of lurking suspicion regarding the victim's conduct and the involvement of third parties?
- IRADAT MUHAMMAD AFFENDI vs IQBAL AHMED SIDDIQUI1983 CLC 1512 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
- IQBAL vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2496 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-25Read full judgment →
- IQBAL SILK FACTORY vs COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION1983 CLC 3227 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
- IQBAL SHAH vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION1983 PLC (C. S.) 403 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- IQBAL SHAH AND ANOTHER vs KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER1983 PLC 1199 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-05Read full judgment →
- IQBAL MUHAMMAD KHAN vs ABDUL HAQ CH.1983 SCMR 567 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, concerning the limitation period for filing a pre-emption suit where the sale mutation was attested on 28-11-1973 and the suit was filed on 25-11-1975. The core legal question is whether the suit was time-barred based on the date of actual sale versus the date of attestation of the mutation. The Supreme Court held that since the land was in the actual physical possession of tenants—a fact undisputed by the parties—the vendees could not be deemed to have taken physical possession on the date of sale, meaning limitation correctly ran from the date of mutation attestation. The Court further held that a valuation and court-fee point not pressed before the High Court cannot be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- From which date does limitation run for filing a pre-emption suit when the land is in the actual possession of tenants?
- Can a new point regarding the valuation of the suit for court-fee, not pressed before the High Court, be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- IQBAL MUHAMMAD AND Others vs MUHAMMAD ILYAS AND Other1983 SCMR 438 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the transfer of a composite evacuee property in Lahore under the settlement laws. The core legal questions involved the competency of an Assistant Settlement Commissioner to transfer a composite property without explicit delegation of powers under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and the curative effect of subsequent validating legislation, namely the Assistant Settlement Commissioners (Validation of Orders) Act, 1973. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that any inherent lack of jurisdiction or technical defect regarding the absence of a specific declaration treating the composite property as a single unit stood fully cured and validated by the enactment of the Assistant Settlement Commissioners (Validation of Orders) Act, 1973. The Court laid down the principle that validating legislation of this nature covers both competency issues and formal procedural defects in the exercise of delegated powers, thereby rendering prior concluded transfers final and unassailable.
Questions settled- Does the Assistant Settlement Commissioners (Validation of Orders) Act, 1973 cure the inherent lack of jurisdiction in an Assistant Settlement Commissioner transferring a composite property?
- Whether the absence of a specific formal declaration treating a composite property as a single unit destroys the efficacy of a transfer order under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Can a time-barred application seeking the transfer of a portion of an already transferred property be treated as an appeal?
- IQBAL HUSSAIN vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS1983 PLC 591 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-01Read full judgment →
- IQBAL HUSSAIN vs MESSRS SUBHANALLAH HOTEL AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 2212 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-24Read full judgment →
- IQBAL HUSSAIN vs AUDITOR-GENERAL OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 722 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-05-01Read full judgment →
- IQBAL HASSANALLY EFFENDIs vs Mst. ZARINA BEGUM AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 1731 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-05Read full judgment →
- IQBAL AHMED vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 598 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
- IQBAL AHMAD KHAN LODHI vs Mirza MUHAMMAD AJMAL1983 PLD Karachi 501 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
- INTIZAR- HUSSAIN vs CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 21983 PLC (C. S.) 1094 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- INTIZAR ALI ANJUM vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.1983 PLC 607 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-05-11Read full judgment →