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.
- DR. MUNIR AHMED, M.B., B.S., MEDICAL OFFICER vs CHAIRMAN, HOUSE1983 CLC 1783 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges an appellate court order that set aside a trial court's grant of a temporary injunction, which had restrained the government from evicting the petitioner's family from a government bungalow. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner, a government servant, had a legal right to retain government accommodation originally allotted to his retired father, and whether civil courts are barred from granting injunctions against the government in matters concerning the recovery of possession of government property. The Court held that the petitioner had no legal entitlement to the bungalow, as he was not the allottee and was not posted in the relevant district. Furthermore, the Court held that under the West Pakistan Government Land and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1966, civil courts are expressly barred from granting injunctions against the government for the recovery of possession of government premises. The key principles laid down are that an unauthorized occupant cannot claim injunctive relief to perpetuate illegal possession, and that government accommodation constitutes a tenancy at will, terminable by the government at any time.
Questions settled- Can a civil court grant a temporary injunction restraining the government from taking possession of government property under the West Pakistan Government Land and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1966?
- Does a government servant have a vested right to retain government accommodation allotted to a family member after that member retires?
- Is the occupation of government premises by a government servant, in the absence of a valid allotment, a tenancy at will terminable by the government?
- Can an unauthorized occupant of government property obtain an injunction to prevent eviction?
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1824(2) · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-09Read full judgment →
- DR. MUHAMMAD UMAR NIZAMI vs THE STATE-1983 P Cr. L J 355 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-17Read full judgment →
- DR. MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2547 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-26Read full judgment →
- DR. MUHAMMAD RAFIQ CHAUDHRY vs WAPDA AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2397 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges a demand notice issued by WAPDA to the petitioner for electricity charges amounting to Rs. 53,425.84, based on an alleged 55.787 percent slowness of the electricity meter. The petitioner contended that the meter was replaced without notice, no show-cause opportunity was provided, the period of alleged slowness was unspecified, and the charges were levied without due process. The core legal question was whether WAPDA could unilaterally impose detection charges for alleged meter defects without providing the consumer an opportunity to be heard or specifying the relevant period of defect. The Court held that the impugned demand was unlawful, declaring the action to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Court established that under the Electricity Act, 1910, a licensee must serve a show-cause notice and provide an opportunity for the consumer to be heard before creating a charge for unaccounted energy. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that statutory bars on court jurisdiction cannot override the High Court's constitutional writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Is a licensee required to serve a show-cause notice to a consumer before raising a detection bill for alleged meter slowness?
- Can a statutory provision barring court jurisdiction override the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Does an occupier of premises have locus standi to challenge an electricity bill if they are not the registered consumer but are the actual user of the electricity?
- Must a licensee indicate the specific period for which electricity charges are being claimed when alleging meter tampering or defect?
- DR. MUHAMMAD NASIM JAVED vs LAHORE CANTONMENT HOUSING SOCIETY1983 PLD Lahore 552 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses multiple writ petitions challenging land acquisition proceedings for the Lahore Cantonment Housing Society. The petitioners contended that the acquisition was not for a 'public purpose' under Section 40 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arguing the society was a commercial entity and the land would benefit private individuals. Other challenges included the vagueness of the Section 4 notification, non-compliance with inquiry requirements under Section 40, invalidity of Section 17 notifications due to alleged procedural non-compliance, violation of Martial Law Instructions and presidential directives, and mala fide intent. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that providing residential accommodation for defence and civilian personnel through a cooperative housing society constitutes a public purpose. It clarified that the term 'public purpose' has a wide meaning and includes schemes easing housing shortages. The Court found no material irregularities in the acquisition process, upheld the validity of the notifications, and rejected claims of mala fide, emphasizing the presumption of regularity for official acts.
Questions settled- Does the acquisition of land for a cooperative housing society to provide residential accommodation for defence and civilian personnel constitute a 'public purpose' under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Can a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 be deemed vague if it provides district, tehsil, locality, direction, boundaries, and area, but not Khasra numbers, for urban land?
- Is a proper inquiry under Section 40 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 a pre-condition to validate acquisition proceedings for a company, and do landowners have a right to notice in such an inquiry?
- Can a notification under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 be invalidated for non-compliance with government circulars regarding emergency justification, inquiry into land excessiveness, cost certificates, or private negotiation attempts?
- Is the acquisition of agricultural land for a public purpose subject to judicial review based on a presidential directive advising against such acquisition 'as far as possible'?
- Can acquisition proceedings be annulled solely due to delay in issuing notifications under Sections 6 and 17 beyond one year of the Section 4 notification, especially when petitioners agitated against the acquisition?
- Can an allegation of mala fide in land acquisition proceedings be sustained without concrete evidence, merely on bald assertions, and is the presumption of regularity attached to official acts?
- Does the term 'work' in Section 40(1)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 encompass the construction of residential houses by a cooperative society?
- Is a cooperative housing society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 considered a commercial organization, thereby precluding its land acquisition from being for a public purpose?
- DR. MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2157 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-25Read full judgment →
- DR. MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN vs Mian ABDUL QAYYUM AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 904 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-28Read full judgment →
- DR. MRS. NOOR BANO ALVI vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1983 CLC 905 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-15Read full judgment →
- DR. MIR REHMAN ALI HASHMI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 542 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-02-18Read full judgment →
- DR. MANZUR AHMAD vs AHMAD ALI SIDDIQUI1983 CLC 2072 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-04Read full judgment →
- DR. JAMIL AHMAD KHAN vs MASEEL AHMAD AND 8 OTHERS1983 CLC 1567 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-11Read full judgment →
- DR. IQBAL AHMAD CHAUDHRY vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB ETC.S1983 SCMR 339 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Assistant Professor of Dermatology, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal regarding a seniority dispute as non-maintainable. The core legal question was whether the failure of the appellant to implead other professors whose seniority would be adversely affected by the success of the appeal warranted the dismissal of the service appeal under the Punjab Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules of 1975. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal, holding that necessary parties who are likely to be affected by the outcome of an appeal must be impleaded as respondents. The key principle laid down is that an appellant before a service tribunal is obligated under procedural rules to implead all persons who would be adversely affected if the appeal succeeds, and failure to do so renders the appeal incompetent.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal is rendered incompetent by the failure to implead necessary parties who are likely to be affected by its outcome?
- Does a modification of a promotion date affecting inter se seniority require other affected civil servants to be impleaded as respondents?
- DR. HASSAN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE1983 CLC 2446 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-29Read full judgment →
- DR. GHULAM MUSTAFA vs PUNJAB GOVERNMENT1983 PLC (C. S.) 47 · Lahore High Court · 1974-01-21Read full judgment →
- DR. BHAGWANDAS MANGHRAJ PATHAI vs PROVINCE OF SIND THROUGH CHIEF1983 PLC (C. S.) 1075 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1983-06-28Read full judgment →
- DR. BASHIR AHMAD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE1983 CLC 2378 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-13Read full judgment →
- Dr. BASHARAT ALI vs Mrs. AHMADI BEGUM1983 CLC 2464 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-01Read full judgment →
- DR. AMANAT ALI AND OTHERS vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 15 · Federal Shariat Court · 1980-08-02Read full judgment →
- DR. AKHLAQ AHMAD vs Mst. KISHWAR SULTANA AND OTHERS1983 PLD Supreme Court 169 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment affirming the dissolution of marriage by Khula granted by a Family Court. The petitioner contended that the Family Court improperly relied on events occurring after the institution of proceedings and that the wife should not benefit from her own misconduct. The core legal questions concerned the relevance of subsequent events in Khula proceedings, whether an errant spouse can obtain Khula, and whether the dissolution remains valid pending an inquiry into the return of benefits. The Supreme Court held that the Family Court’s discretion was properly exercised, noting that the conduct of parties during proceedings, including reconciliation efforts, is relevant to determining if spouses can live within the limits of God. The Court affirmed that the dissolution of marriage by Khula is not invalidated by a pending inquiry into the terms or consideration for such dissolution; rather, such inquiry merely establishes civil liabilities regarding the return of benefits. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can events occurring after the institution of proceedings in a Family Court be considered when determining whether to grant dissolution of marriage by Khula?
- Does the failure to immediately pay the consideration for Khula invalidate the dissolution of the marriage?
- Is the discretion of a Family Court to grant Khula subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction if not exercised arbitrarily?
- DR. ABDUL WARIS vs JAVED HANIF AND Other1983 SCMR 716 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the Lahore High Court's refusal to review its earlier order dismissing the petitioner's First Appeal against a Civil Court order making an arbitration award the rule of the court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could challenge the validity of an arbitration award—specifically the existence of a written arbitration agreement—after failing to file formal objections within the statutory limitation period. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had ample opportunity to inspect the agreement and file objections within the prescribed thirty-day period but failed to do so. The Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the trial court correctly made the award the rule of the court because no formal objections were filed within the time prescribed by law. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot circumvent mandatory statutory limitation periods for filing objections to an arbitration award by merely requesting the production of documents after the limitation period has expired, and the court is not obligated to revisit the validity of the arbitration agreement when no timely objection is raised.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge the existence of an arbitration agreement after the statutory period for filing objections to an award has expired?
- Is a request for the production of an arbitration agreement equivalent to filing a formal objection to an arbitration award?
- Does a court have a duty to independently verify the existence of an arbitration agreement if no formal objection is filed within the prescribed time?
- DR. ABDUL RASHID vs ABDUL QAYUM KAMIL1983 CLC 3243 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
- DOSU vs THE, STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2106 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-01Read full judgment →
- DOST MUHAMMAD AND Others vs NAZAR HUSSAIN KHAN AND Other1983SCMR 683 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a pre-emption suit decreed by the Senior Civil Judge, Vehari, on condition of depositing the sale price of Rs. 4 lacs by a specified date. Although the plaintiffs/respondents appealed the fixed price, they obtained an ad interim stay of the deposit requirement. Later, the stay application was dismissed in default, and the pre-emption money was deposited beyond the unexpired period allowed by the trial court. The petitioners sought a declaration that the suit stood dismissed and the decree inexecutable due to non-compliance with the deposit condition, which the High Court rejected. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether a pre-emption suit stands dismissed for non-performance of conditional deposit requirements during the pendency of an appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emption suit stands dismissed and the decree becomes in-executable on account of the non-performance of deposit conditions during the pendency of an appeal?
- Does the dismissal in default of a stay application regarding the deposit of pre-emption money revive the original time limit set by the trial court?
- What is the legal character of a pre-emption decree when the pre-emptor commits a default in depositing the required amount?
- DOST MUHAMMAD AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 633 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
- DONA vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2434 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-28Read full judgment →
- DOMINIC PEREIRA vs MRS. HAMEEDA BEGUM1983 CLC 317 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-27Read full judgment →
- DOLLA alias DARA vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SUKKUR AND 21983 CLC 952 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-20Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL, SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN 1AILWAYS, MULTAN vs PUNJAB LABOUR1983 PLC 103 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-25Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR vs ALI MUHAMMAD1983 PLC 313 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-20Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR AND ANOTHER vs EHSAN ELAHI1983 PLC 444 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-05Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN vs MUHAMMAD1983 PLC 335 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-12-22Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs INAYATULLAH1983 PLC 866 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-27Read full judgment →
- DITTO vs THE STATE1983 PLD Lahore 143 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-04Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT CONTROLLER OF STORES (SHOP DEPOT) PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE AND 2 Other1983 SCMR 155 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the reinstatement of an employee, respondent No. 3, by the Labour Court. The respondent, initially reverted from the post of ward-keeper to ledger-keeper, challenged his removal from service after failing to join the new post. The Labour Court set aside his removal and ordered reinstatement as a ward-keeper, a decision affirmed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the High Court. The core legal questions were whether the respondent, as a purported civil servant, was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, and whether he should have been reinstated to the post of ledger-keeper rather than ward-keeper. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly declined to interfere, noting that the jurisdictional plea regarding civil servant status was not pressed before the Labour Appellate Tribunal and thus could not be reagitated. Furthermore, the Court found that the factual determination regarding the respondent's designation as a ward-keeper was settled by prior proceedings and was not open to challenge at this stage. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a party raise the issue of a Labour Court's jurisdiction over a civil servant for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction if it was not pressed before the Labour Appellate Tribunal?
- Is a finding of fact regarding an employee's designation, established by prior unchallenged proceedings, open to challenge in subsequent appellate proceedings?
- Does the failure to press a legal contention before an appellate tribunal preclude its consideration in a subsequent writ petition?
- DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, MULTAN AND APJOTHBR vs Malik MUHAMMAD- AMIN1983 PLC 1280 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-27Read full judgment →
- DIRECTOR OF FOOD, GOVERNMENT OF SIND vs ISMAIL AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC 684 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-09-01Read full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (I), SARGODHA DIVISION, SARGODHA AND Other1983 SCMR 480 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the allotment of agricultural land to a displaced person. The petitioner, having been allotted land equivalent to 35 Produce Index Units, sought to purchase an additional area of 37 Produce Index Units that had previously been cancelled from his possession due to being in excess of his entitlement. The core legal question was whether the petitioner possessed an enforceable right to purchase this excess land, despite it having been subsequently allotted to a third-party respondent. The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner had declined to disturb the existing allotment to the respondent, reasoning that the land was already committed to a temporary allottee with a verified claim. The High Court upheld this decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner’s decision to prioritize the existing allotment to the respondent was just, equitable, and fair. The judgment establishes that administrative authorities possess the discretion to decline the disturbance of settled land allotments when doing so would unfairly prejudice third parties with verified claims, even if a claimant asserts a right to purchase excess land.
Questions settled- Can a displaced person claim a right to purchase agricultural land that has already been allotted to another party with a verified claim?
- Is a Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner justified in refusing to disturb an existing land allotment to a third party to accommodate a claim for excess land?
- Does the High Court have the authority to uphold an administrative decision regarding land settlement that is deemed just and equitable?
- DILKUSHA ENTERPRISES LTD. vs PRESIDING OFFICER, FOURTH1983 PLC 1229 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
- DILDAR vs The STATE1983 SCMR 1019 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 31-10-1982, which partly allowed the petitioner's criminal appeal by converting his conviction under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to one under section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and reducing the sentence accordingly. The core legal question involved the appreciation of prosecution evidence, the credibility of eye-witnesses, the establishment of motive regarding illicit overtures, the delay in lodging the First Information Report, and the reliability of recoveries. The Supreme Court held that the High Court duly considered all vital defence circumstances and that the appreciation of evidence was in accordance with accepted principles of criminal justice. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding the appreciation of evidence and evaluation of eye-witness testimony by the courts below will not be interfered with when conducted in accordance with accepted legal principles.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the appreciation of evidence by the courts below warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report vitiate the prosecution case when eye-witness testimony is found reliable?
- Whether an offence originally charged under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be altered to section 325 based on the established injuries and evidence?
- DILAWAR KHAN vs MESSRS H. NIZAM DIN & SONS LTD.1983 PLC 1171 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
- DILAWAR ALI vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C.S) 800 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-06-15Read full judgment →
- DIL SAID AND 3 Other vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA ETC.1983 PLC 311 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
- DHANJISHAW BBHRAMJI GHADIALLY AND Others vs ABDUL LATIF KHAN1983 SCMR 1003 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against an appellate bench decision of the High Court of Sind, which had refused to set aside an ex parte decree passed against them in a recovery suit. The core legal question was whether the failure of the petitioners' counsel to appear on the date of hearing, due to alleged health issues causing him to overlook the case in the court lists, constituted 'sufficient cause' under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside the ex parte decree. The Supreme Court held that while the counsel's failure to notice the case was unusual given standard court notification procedures, his advanced age and documented health issues, which impaired his faculties and efficiency, suggested a human failing rather than willful negligence or a deliberate attempt to avoid professional responsibilities. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the ex parte decree, conditional upon the payment of costs. The principle established is that where a counsel's non-appearance is attributable to genuine, albeit partial, physical or mental impairment rather than gross negligence, the court may exercise discretion to restore the suit to prevent injustice.
Questions settled- Does a counsel's failure to notice a case in the court list due to impaired health constitute sufficient cause to set aside an ex parte decree?
- Can an appellate court interfere with the refusal to set aside an ex parte decree if the lower court failed to adequately consider the counsel's health condition?
- Is the personal absence of a party from court proceedings excusable if the party relied on counsel who failed to appear due to health reasons?
- DHANJISHAW BAHRAMJI GHADIALY AND ANOTHER vs ABDUL LATIF1983 PLD Karachi 121 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an order dismissing an application to set aside an ex parte decree passed in a civil suit. The core legal question was whether the appellants demonstrated "sufficient cause" under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to justify their non-appearance at the hearing. The appellants argued that their counsel’s illness caused him to miss the hearing date, despite it being listed in the cause list. The Court held that the appellants failed to establish sufficient cause. Evidence showed the counsel was present in court for other matters on the same day, undermining the claim of illness-induced absence. The Court affirmed that "sufficient cause" is fact-dependent and not susceptible to a rigid definition. Crucially, the Court laid down the principle that engaging a counsel does not absolve a litigant of the responsibility to diligently prosecute their case. Where a counsel is negligent or lacks professional responsibility, the client cannot automatically shift the burden of that negligence to the opposing party, and the client must bear the consequences of such default.
Questions settled- Does the engagement of a counsel absolve a litigant of the responsibility to diligently prosecute their case?
- Can a party successfully set aside an ex parte decree based on the negligence of their counsel if the counsel was present in court for other matters on the same day?
- Is there a hard and fast rule for defining 'sufficient cause' under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Dewan JAIRAMDASS AND Others vs Syed NIAMAT ALI AND Other1983 SCMR 330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for review of a judgment of the Supreme Court dated 25-4-1982, which had allowed an appeal and set aside a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court dated 4-10-1981. The original proceedings originated from a civil suit filed in 1972 before the Deputy Commissioner, Karachi, which was referred to the Qazi at Lehari, where the suit was dismissed and a counterclaim was rejected under Order VIII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Subsequent appellate and revisional proceedings before the Majlis-e-Shoora and the High Court culminated in a decree for possession in favor of the petitioners, which was later reversed by the Supreme Court. The core legal question in the review petition was whether sufficient grounds existed to justify a review of the appellate judgment. The Supreme Court held that the arguments advanced merely sought to reagitate questions already considered and disposed of, and no valid ground for review was made out. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that a review cannot be used to reargue settled matters.
Questions settled- Whether a review petition is maintainable when it merely seeks to reagitate questions already considered and disposed of in the original judgment?
- Can a counterclaim be maintained under Order VIII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a suit before a Qazi?
- DES vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2193 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-13Read full judgment →
- DEPUTY MANAGER, M.C.P. WORKSHOP, SUKKUR vs AYYAZ HUSSAIN1983 PLC 138 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-05Read full judgment →
- DEPUTY LAND COMMISSIONER, DERA GHAZI KHAN AND Others vs Ch. GHULAM1983 SCMR 826 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging orders passed by land commission authorities under Martial Law Regulation 115 regarding land declared by a civil servant. The core legal question was whether land purchased in 1954, prior to the target date of January 1, 1959, and standing in the name of a third party who subsequently gifted it to the declarant's sons, could be scrutinized and resumed under paragraph 10 of the Land Reforms Regulation without a finding that the original purchase was made benami by the declarant. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that paragraph 10 requires the acquisition to be by the declarant and that transactions prior to the target date without a valid finding of benami acquisition cannot be sustained. The key principle laid down is that land acquisition scrutiny under the Land Reforms Regulation requires proof of acquisition by the declarant where transactions occurred prior to the prescribed target date.
Questions settled- Whether land purchased prior to the target date of January 1, 1959, can be scrutinized under paragraph 10 of Martial Law Regulation 115?
- Is a finding of a benami purchase necessary for land commission authorities to resume land standing in the name of persons other than the declarant?
- Can orders passed by land commission authorities without establishing acquisition by the declarant be sustained?
- DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD, LAHORE vs A. R.1983 SCMR 1240 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Deputy Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property Board, sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed in limine a constitutional petition challenging the Federal Government's decision to maintain a property transfer. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing to interfere with the Federal Government's finding that the disputed land was not evacuee trust property, and whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge this. The Supreme Court held that the determination of the property's status as evacuee trust property was essentially a finding of fact, which the Federal Government had resolved. The Court affirmed that such factual findings are immune from interference under constitutional jurisdiction absent compelling reasons. Furthermore, the Court noted that the revenue record provided no evidence of the property's dedication or use as trust property. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, determining that the High Court's refusal to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction was appropriate and that the case did not present a substantial controversy warranting further review.
Questions settled- Whether a finding of fact regarding the status of property as evacuee trust property is immune from interference in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Can the High Court decline to exercise constitutional jurisdiction when the petitioner challenges a factual determination made by the Federal Government?
- DAWOOD vs ABDUL GHANI1983 CLC 339 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second rent appeal arose from an eviction proceeding initiated by the landlord-respondent under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The Rent Controller and the first Appellate Court granted eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent, finding that the tenant-appellant was a wilful defaulter for a single month's rent (April 1964). The core legal question before the High Court was whether, in a second appeal, the Court could exercise statutory discretion under Section 13 of the Ordinance in favour of the tenant to condone a single month's default, where the lower tribunals had refused to exercise such discretion. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the eviction order, holding that where a tenant has committed default for only one month since the inception of tenancy and the landlord failed to prove other grounds of eviction, it constituted a fit case for the exercise of judicial discretion to refuse the order of ejectment.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court in second appeal can exercise statutory discretion under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 to condone a default in rent after lower courts refused to do so?
- Whether a single month's default in payment of rent by a long-term tenant constitutes a fit case for exercising judicial discretion against ordering eviction?
- DAWOOD H. CHATTO vs QAMAR MUHAMMAD1983 CLC 1977 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-23Read full judgment →
- DAWOOD COTTON MILLS LTD. vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ1983 PLC 763 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-05Read full judgment →
- DAWA JAN vs The STATE1983 SCMR 596 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, Dawa Jan, was convicted for the murder of Hidayatullah and sentenced to death, a decision upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the effect of eye-witnesses resiling from their statements recorded under section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and to determine if the First Information Report could be treated as a dying declaration, corroborated by the accused's abscondence. The Court held that the dying declaration, recorded by the police immediately after the incident while the deceased was in full possession of his senses, remained unchallenged and credible. This declaration was further corroborated by the testimony of disinterested witnesses who heard the deceased name the appellant as the assailant immediately after the shooting. The Court found the prosecution case free from reasonable doubt. However, considering evidence of the deceased's illicit relations with the appellant's wife, the Court held that the death penalty was disproportionate. Consequently, the conviction was maintained, but the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, with the fine for compensation upheld.
Questions settled- Can a First Information Report recorded by the police be treated as a dying declaration if the deceased was in full possession of his senses?
- Does the abscondence of an accused provide corroboration to a dying declaration?
- Can the death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment on the ground of grave and sudden provocation arising from illicit relations?
- Is a conviction sustainable when eye-witnesses resile from their statements but the dying declaration remains credible?
- DAULAT ALI vs Mst. BARGUZIDA MUNTIZAR AND Other1983SCMR 713 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his constitutional writ petition which had challenged a transfer order of October 1960 and a Permanent Transfer Deed of May 1967. The petitioner's earlier writ petition filed in 1979 had been dismissed for non-prosecution in March 1980, and subsequent restoration applications were also dismissed due to non-compliance with court directions and delay. A fresh writ petition filed in 1981 was dismissed in limine by the High Court on the grounds that it was an attempt to review the previous order and suffered from gross laches. The Supreme Court observed that although a fresh petition might technically be permissible after a dismissal for non-prosecution, the challenge to a decades-old transfer order and Permanent Transfer Deed was excessively belated. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in refusing to exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction, and the petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a subsequent writ petition can be filed after an earlier writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution?
- Does a constitutional petition challenging a transfer order and Permanent Transfer Deed issued decades ago suffer from laches?
- Is the High Court justified in refusing to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in a belated challenge?
- DARYA KHAN AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2127 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-05Read full judgment →
- DALAL CONSULTANTS & ENGINEERS (P.) LTD. vs Miss D. V. BAPAT, INC0I.9E-TAX1983 PTD 317 · Bombay High Court · 1981-09-25Read full judgment →
- DAILY "AFTAB" NEWSPAPER, HYDERABAD vs VI AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC 201 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-18Read full judgment →
- DAHLA vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS) AND Other1983 SCMR 1039 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition challenging an order of the High Court, which had set aside a Settlement Commissioner's decision to cancel land allotments made to the respondents. The petitioner had initially failed to challenge the allotments through appeals and revisions but later succeeded in having a Settlement Commissioner cancel the allotments under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, alleging they were in excess of entitlement. The High Court reversed this, citing the principle of res judicata and the fact that the excess allotment resulted from a mistake by public authorities. The Supreme Court affirmed that while the principle of res judicata applies to proceedings before Settlement authorities, preventing them from contradicting earlier final decisions on the same issue, it clarified that allotments made in excess of entitlement due to a bona fide mistake by authorities are indeed subject to cancellation under Section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed because the Settlement Commissioner could not lawfully ignore the earlier binding decisions regarding the same entitlement dispute.
Questions settled- Does the principle of res judicata apply to proceedings before Settlement authorities?
- Can an allotment made in excess of entitlement due to a bona fide mistake by public authorities be cancelled under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
- DADA STEEL MILLS vs BALUCHISTAN GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 571 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged a notification issued by the Revenue Department of the Government of Baluchistan enhancing ground rent and royalty on ship-breaking activity, along with a claim for refund of amounts paid under protest. The core legal questions involved whether the government had proprietary interest in the land to levy land revenue or special assessment, whether barren land was exempt from land revenue, and whether the High Court could order a refund of illegally recovered amounts in writ jurisdiction. The Balochistan High Court held that the land in question was privately owned rather than government-owned, that waste and barren land was exempt from land revenue under the relevant statutory provisions, and that the retrospective notification was without lawful authority. The Court established the principle that the government cannot levy land revenue, special assessment, or royalties on privately owned barren land, and that the High Court may order the refund of illegally recovered taxes under constitutional jurisdiction to prevent multiplicity of litigation.
Questions settled- Whether the government can levy land revenue or special assessment under section 70 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 on land that is privately owned and not granted by the government?
- Is waste and barren land exempt from the payment of land revenue under section 56 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967?
- Whether a retrospective notification enhancing tonnage charges or ground rent can be sustained without statutory backing or curative legal provisions?
- Can the High Court direct the refund of an amount illegally recovered by the government in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Da. ROSHAN ALI SIAL vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 429 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-12-01Read full judgment →
- CONVELL LABORATORIES LTD. vs M. v. ALEXANDERS' FAITH1983 PLD Karachi 459 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-14Read full judgment →
- CONTINENTAL FURNISHING Co. MAZDOOR UNION vs MESSRS CONTINENTAL1983 PLC 1197 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-05Read full judgment →
- CONFORCE LTD. vs K. U. NAEEM MALIK1983 CLC 1005 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX (CENTRAL). KARACHI vs MESSRS PARACHA1983 PTD 335 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-30Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX. STATE OF GUJERAT vs MESSRS UNION MEDICAL1983 PTD 32 · Supreme Court of India · 1980-10-08Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (CENTRAL), KARACHI vs MESSRS PAKISTAN1983 PTD 117 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-07Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, KARACHI (WEST) vs Haji GULZAR & SONS1983 PLD Karachi 291 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-21Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL-II, CALCUTTA vs MESSRS R.1983 PTD 370 · Calcutta High Court · 1982-04-07Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, POONA vs MESSRS P. V. GORE & CO., POONA1983 PTD 379 · Bombay High Court · 1982-04-26Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LUCKNOW vs Smt. VIMLA LAL1983 PTD 350 · Allahabad High Court · 1982-08-16Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KARACHI(WEST), KARACHI vs MANZOOR1983 PTD 291 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-26Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH-1, HYDERABAD vs MESSRS1983 PTD 397 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1982-07-27Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD vs J. D.1983 PTD 358 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1982-08-11Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH II, HYDERABAD vs JALADU1983 PTD 405 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1982-08-04Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, A-RANGE, CHITTAGONG vs HARENDRA KUMAR SII_1983 PTD 87 · Supreme Court of Bangladesh · 1982-01-19Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs ORIENT SUPPLY SYNDICATE1983 P T D59 · Calcutta High Court · -Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs MESSRS KARIM] INDUSTRIES, PESHAWAR1983 PTD 100 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-11-05Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs INDRAMOHAN SHARMA AND OTHERS1983PTD 340 · Bombay High Court · 1981-01-13Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs COMMERCIAL FINANCE CORPORATION1983 PTD 314 · Allahabad High Court · 1982-04-19Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs Ch. RAMZAN ALI AND ANOTHER1983 PTD 93 · Supreme Court of Bangladesh · 1978-08-13Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs B. S. BADVE AND ANOTHER1983 PTD 264 · Bombay High Court · 1982-07-12Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs ASSOCIATE INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUTORS1983 PTD 292 · Calcutta High Court · 1981-01-13Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs ARYAN INDUSTRIES (P.) LTD.1983 PTD 305 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1982-07-26Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs ALOK PAPER INDUSTRIES1983 PTD 304 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1981-04-05Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL III vs MESSRS PICOT CHAMPAN1983 PTD 210 · Supreme Court of India · 1982-04-13Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL II vs Messrs KOLBEONG Co. LTD:1983 PTD 382 · Calcutta High Court · 1982-08-01Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY-I, BOMBAY vs MESSRS1983 PTD 380 · Bombay High Court · 1982-04-21Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs RAVALGAON SUGAR FARM LTD1983 PTD 106 · Bombay High Court · 1981-09-09Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs Haji GULZAR & SONS1983 PTD 111 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-21Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs CLIVE MILLS Co. LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION)1983 PTD 105 · Calcutta High Court · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs MESSRS Haji JETHAAHOI1983 PTD 30 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- COLONY WOOLLEN MILLS, MULTAN vs RAB NAWAZ AND ANOTHER1983 PLC 877 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
- COLONY THAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND 31983 CLC 2738 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-26Read full judgment →
- COLONY SARHAD TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs SALES TAX OFFICER, COMPANIES1983 PLD Lahore 631 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- COLLECTOR, QUETTA SUBDIVISION vs SARDAR QASIM AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-08-09Read full judgment →
- COL. SHER AFZAL vs SHAMIM FIRDAUS AND OTHERS1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 14 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-08-18Read full judgment →
- COL. AMANGIR SHAHZADA AND Others vs HABIB KHAN AND Another1983 SCMR 847 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the jurisdiction of the civil court in a representative suit regarding land ownership in District Malakand. The petitioners argued that under Provincial Regulation No. 11 of 1975, the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of the Regulation, noting that disputes regarding land rights fall under Part 2 of the Schedule. Under paragraph 3(b), matters in Part 2 can only be referred to a tribunal if all parties consent. Since this condition was not met, the matter remained outside the tribunal's purview. Consequently, the bar on civil court jurisdiction under paragraphs 14 and 17 did not apply. Furthermore, the Court found that Provincial Regulation No. IV of 1976 was inapplicable to the area in question. The Court held that the civil court retained jurisdiction, finding no legal error in the lower courts' decisions, and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does the bar on civil court jurisdiction under Provincial Regulation No. 11 of 1975 apply to land disputes where the parties have not consented to a tribunal reference?
- Is Provincial Regulation No. IV of 1976 applicable to the Malakand protected area?
- Under what conditions can a matter falling under Part 2 of the Schedule to Provincial Regulation No. 11 of 1975 be referred to a tribunal?
- COL. (RETD.) DR. WAHAJ A. MIRZA vs THE DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI AND 21983 CLC 1036 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
- CO-OPERATIVE TEXTILE MILLS LTD. KHANEWAL vs SULTAN TEXTILE MILLS1983 CLC 452 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-22Read full judgment →