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.

• BASHIR AHMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1549 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-06Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, HEADQUARTERS, LAHORE1983 PLC (C. S.) 986 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-07-05Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD vs RENT CONTROLLER, GUJRANWALA1983 CLC 229 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-23Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD UMAR1983 SCMR 469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-20
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantexecution of decreeidentity of propertyconsent decreebona fide personal requirementDisplaced Persons Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an ejectment order passed in favor of a landlord regarding a commercial shop. The core legal question was whether a subsequent consent decree obtained by the tenant in a separate civil suit, declaring him the owner of a shop, could override and nullify an existing ejectment order concerning the premises in dispute. The Supreme Court held that the ejectment order specifically pertained to a shop identified by its survey number and boundaries, which were distinct from the property involved in the tenant's separate civil suit. The Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the executing court possesses the competency to determine the identity of the property subject to the ejectment order. The key principle laid down is that where there is a dispute regarding the identity of premises subject to an ejectment order versus a subsequent civil decree, the executing court is empowered under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to resolve such issues concerning the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executing court determine the identity of property subject to an ejectment order when a subsequent civil decree creates confusion regarding the premises?
  • Does a consent decree obtained in a separate civil suit automatically nullify an existing ejectment order concerning different premises?
  • Is the question of property identity in an ejectment matter considered germane to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD vs Malik ABDUL HAMID AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2056 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD vs KHURSHIDUL HASSAN AND OTHESRS1983 PLC (C. S.) 1265 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-07Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD vs JAN MUHAMMAD AND OTHER1983 SCMR 1046 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-08
  evacuee propertyPermanent Transfer Deeddemarcation of propertyconstitutional jurisdictionquestion of factsettlement of claims
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the demarcation and identity of transferred evacuee properties in Dera Ghazi Khan. The petitioner, Bashir Ahmad, originally obtained a transfer of Property No. 137. Following unsuccessful attempts to demarcate his property, he obtained an order from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in 1975 correcting his Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) to include properties previously transferred to other individuals, specifically Siraj-ud-Din and the respondent, Jan Muhammad. Upon a subsequent review of the revenue records, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner found the previous correction order to be void ab initio and rectified the records to reflect the correct evacuee owners and property boundaries. The petitioner challenged this decision through revision and a writ petition, both of which were dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the dispute was essentially a question of fact regarding the identity and extent of the transferred property, which had been definitively resolved by the revenue records. Consequently, the High Court correctly declined to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction, and the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere in a dispute regarding the identity and extent of transferred property when the matter is concluded by revenue records?
  • Does a Deputy Settlement Commissioner have the authority to correct a previous order if that order was void ab initio?
  Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD vs CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, MULTAN CIRCLE AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 1218 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-03-19Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD vs ABDUL HAMID AND ANOTHER1983 SCMR 302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-18
  ejectmentlandlord and tenant relationshipRent Restriction Ordinanceregistered sale deedRent Controller jurisdictionadverse possessionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court challenging an order of ejectment passed against the petitioner under the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The respondent claimed ownership of the shop occupied by the petitioner through two registered sale deeds and sought eviction following non-payment of rent and repudiation of tenancy. The petitioner contested the relationship of landlord and tenant, asserting title defects and claiming adverse possession. The Rent Controller and appellate forum ruled against the petitioner, and the High Court affirmed the ejectment order. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that in previous litigation the petitioner's possession was determined to be that of a tenant. The Court held that the Rent Controller, as an authority of limited and exclusive jurisdiction, lacked power to look behind validly registered sale deeds to question their legal effect. Furthermore, the petitioner's failure to give oral evidence or produce witnesses supported adverse inferences. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Rent Controller has jurisdiction to go behind registered sale deeds to determine the validity of a landlord's title?
  • Can an occupant who entered possession as a tenant successfully assert adverse possession against a successor-in-interest claiming through registered deeds?
  • What is the effect of a party's failure to enter the witness box or produce witnesses to substantiate their defense in eviction proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD AND Others vs Mirza SULTAN BAIG AND Other1983 SCMR 277 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-15
  constitutional petitionsettlement propertytransfer of propertyPermanent Transfer DeedcompromiseSupreme Court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a civil dispute over the transfer of a residential property and open courtyard in Dharampura, Lahore, originally governed by settlement laws. The core legal question examined on leave to appeal was whether the High Court's judgment allowing a constitutional petition against the cancellation of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) was in conformity with the applicable law, particularly regarding the powers of settlement authorities after issuing a P.T.D. and the effect of delay. During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the parties reached a compromise to divide the disputed property equally between the appellants and the respondent. The Supreme Court accepted the written compromise, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and allowed the appeal to the extent of the agreed half-share, directing the settlement authorities to give effect to the same. The principle laid down is that appellate courts may dispose of matters in terms of a lawful, amicable compromise arrived at between the parties to advance complete and full justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether settlement authorities become functus officio after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
  • Can an appellate court dispose of a property dispute based on a written compromise between the parties?
  • Whether fraud and gross illegality in the transfer of settlement properties warrant suo motu revision by the Chief Settlement Commissioner?
  Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD AND Others vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER WITH POWERS Of SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (L) AND Other1983 SCMR 1199 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-12
  settlement lawbona fide purchaserallotment cancellationTransfer of Property ActDisplaced Persons (Land Settlement) Actland grant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, purchasers of land from original allottees, challenged a High Court decision declaring their purchase invalid due to the underlying allotment being in excess of entitlement. The core legal question was whether purchasers of land allotted under settlement laws can invoke the principle of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 to protect their title as bona fide purchasers for value when the original allotment is subsequently cancelled. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the principle of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 is not available in settlement matters. The Court reasoned that because allotments are subject to cancellation under Sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958, every purchaser is deemed to have knowledge of this potential incidence. Consequently, a purchaser cannot claim protection against the Department and must instead seek remedies against their vendor. The Court affirmed that such transactions are inherently subject to the statutory conditions of the settlement grant, excluding the applicability of the Transfer of Property Act 1882.

  Questions settled

  • Can a purchaser of land allotted under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 invoke Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 to protect their title?
  • Does the cancellation of an original allotment due to excess entitlement invalidate subsequent sales to third-party purchasers?
  • Is a purchaser of settlement land deemed to have notice of the potential for cancellation under Sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
  Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD AND ANOTEHR vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 589 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-25Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD AND 4 OTHERS vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND 4 OTHERS1983 CLC 3117 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-06Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD AHD Others vs THE-STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2191 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-14Read full judgment →
• BASHARAT ALI vs ARSHID ALI AND ANOTHER1983 P Cr. L J 1826 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-20Read full judgment →
• BASHAM KHAN AND Others vs Syed SHAFI SHAH AND Other1983 SCMR 183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-13
  review jurisdictionerror apparent on the face of the recordcondonation of delayopportunity of hearingrevisional powerland reforms
  Summary & questions settled

  This review application arises from a Supreme Court judgment dated 22-12-1976, which had set aside a High Court order and restored an order of the Chief Land Commissioner dated 19-12-1968. The applicants sought review, arguing that the Supreme Court's previous decision was based on a factual error regarding the nature of the defect in the proceedings. The High Court had originally quashed an earlier order dated 19-11-1960, passed in revision by Mr. Ahsan-ud-Din, on the grounds that it was a nullity due to a failure to provide an opportunity of hearing, violating the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1969. The Supreme Court, in its 1976 judgment, erroneously believed this defect of non-hearing applied to the later order of 19-12-1968. The Court held that an error apparent on the face of the record existed because the defect of non-hearing related specifically to the 1960 order, not the 1968 order. Consequently, the Court allowed the review, condoned the delay in filing, set aside its previous judgment, and restored the original Civil Petition for fresh consideration by a Petition Bench.

  Questions settled

  • Does an error regarding the specific order to which a procedural defect relates constitute an error apparent on the face of the record sufficient for review?
  • Can a court condone a delay in filing a review application where the applicant demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the impugned order?
  • Is an order passed in revision without providing an opportunity of hearing to affected parties a nullity under the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• BARKHA AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 502 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-07Read full judgment →
• BARKAT vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2511 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-29Read full judgment →
• BARKAT ALL KHAN AND ANOTHER vs KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION1983 PLD Karachi 453 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-22
  Fatal Accidents Actnegligenceduty of careelectrocutionvicarious liabilitycompensationutility provider liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit was filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, by the parents of a deceased individual seeking compensation following his death by electrocution. The core legal questions concerned whether the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (K.E.S.C.) was negligent in maintaining its electric wires and whether it failed to take necessary precautionary measures after being notified of a broken live wire. The court held that the K.E.S.C. failed to discharge its duty of care to the public, as it provided no evidence regarding maintenance or protective measures. The court found that the accident could have been avoided had the K.E.S.C. acted promptly upon receiving the complaint. Consequently, the court held the defendants liable for the death. The key principle laid down is that a utility provider, such as an electric supply company, bears a strict obligation to maintain its infrastructure and implement safety measures to prevent live wires from posing hazards to the public; failure to provide evidence of such maintenance creates a presumption of negligence.

  Questions settled

  • Is an electric supply company liable for damages if it fails to maintain its wires and prevent them from remaining live after breaking?
  • Does the burden of proof regarding the maintenance of electric infrastructure lie with the utility provider?
  • Can a court award compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, based on a reasonable estimate of financial support the deceased would have provided to his parents?
  • Are defendants jointly and severally liable for compensation in a fatal accident case involving negligence?
  Read full judgment →
• BARKAT ALI vs The STATE1983 SCMR 208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-04Read full judgment →
• BARKAT ALI AND OTHERS vs RASHIDA AND OTHERS1983 PLC 590 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1976-10-21Read full judgment →
• BARKAT ALI AND OTHERS vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND OTHERS1983 CLC 3149 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• BARKAT ALI AND Other vs CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, PLANNING AND1983 PLC (C. w.) 667 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-02-14Read full judgment →
• BARHAQ ALI KHAN vs SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION1983 PLC 686 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-09-04Read full judgment →
• BAQIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2556 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-09Read full judgment →
• BANNA (REPRESENTED BY HEIRS) AND 11 Others vs Mst. HUSSAIN BIBI1983 SCMR 460 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-09
  abatementlegal heirspower of attorneywithdrawal of appealcondonation of delaylocus standirestoration of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of applications for the re-hearing of a regular second appeal and the condonation of delay. The appeal had been withdrawn in 1973 by the appellants' attorney and counsel. Six years later, the legal heirs of one of the deceased appellants, Banna, sought to restore the appeal, arguing that Banna had died prior to the withdrawal, which terminated his attorney's authority, and that the delay should be condoned. The High Court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the restoration application as time-barred. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, holding that because the legal heirs of the deceased appellant were not impleaded within the prescribed statutory period, the appeal had abated in respect of the deceased. Consequently, the heirs lacked locus standi to seek restoration of the abated appeal. Furthermore, the attorney's authority remained valid for the surviving appellants, and the withdrawal was lawfully executed by their counsel.

  Questions settled

  • Do the legal heirs of a deceased appellant have locus standi to seek the restoration of an appeal if they failed to implead themselves within the statutory period and the appeal consequently abated?
  • Does the death of one appellant invalidate the authority of a common attorney to act on behalf of the remaining surviving appellants?
  • Can an appeal be restored on the application of heirs after a delay of six years without sufficient grounds for condonation of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• BANI ISRAEL AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2164 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-30Read full judgment →
• BAKHTMAND vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE AND OTHERS1983 PLC (C- S.) 824 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• BAKHTIAR KHAN vs MESSRS ASPRO NICHOLAS (PAKISTAN) LTD.1983 PLC 952 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
• BAKHTIAR AND Another vs The STATE1983 SCMR 46 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-14
  multiple murderocular evidenceidentification under fire lightbenefit of doubtcorroborationrecovery of firearmscriminal conspiracyjail appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court concerning a gruesome multiple murder case where ten persons were killed during a night attack on a house in District Sanghar, and several others were injured. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony, the possibility of identification in the light of a raging fire, the application of the rule of corroboration in respect of interested witnesses, and the credibility of incriminating recoveries including firearms. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts convicting the appellants were well-founded, as the eye-witnesses were present at the scene and identified the culprits under the illumination of the fire, and their testimony stood sufficiently corroborated by ballistic evidence and weapon recoveries. The court laid down the principle that the acquittal of co-accused on the basis of benefit of doubt does not automatically vitiate the case against remaining convicts where independent and corroborated ocular and circumstantial evidence exists against them, and that previous enmity or litigation does not preclude co-accused from acting in concert when shared motives and subsequent compromises are established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether identification of culprits by eye-witnesses in the light of a burning house is reliable?
  • Does the acquittal of some co-accused on the benefit of doubt automatically entitle other convicts to an acquittal?
  • Whether the testimony of interested eye-witnesses can form the basis of a conviction when supported by strong corroborative evidence?
  • Can previous animosity or litigation between co-accused preclude them from joining together in the commission of a subsequent crime?
  Read full judgment →
• BAKHSHA vs THE STATE.1983 P Cr. L J 1547 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-31Read full judgment →
• BAHAWALNAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. vs SOCIAL SECURITY COURT1983 PLC 242 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
• BAHAWALNAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL1983 PLC 247 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-04Read full judgment →
• BAHAWALNAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. vs MUHAMMAD JAMIL AND 9 OTHERS1983 PLC 1075 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
• BAHADUR YAR JANG CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING " SOCIETY LTD.-Pettitioner vs1983 CLC 2773 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
• BAHADUR KHAN vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAHIWAL AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 631 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
• BAGH HUSSAIN SHAH vs COMMISSIONER, WORKMEN's COMPENSATION, AND ANOTHER1983 PLC 109 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
• BAGH AND OTHERS vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2148 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
• BAGH ALI vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR AND Another1983 SCMR 1292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-09-11
  ocular testimonyretracted confessionmedical evidencecapital chargeacquittalinterested witnessappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Sind High Court, which had set aside the conviction and death sentence of the respondent for murder. The core legal question concerned the reliability of the sole ocular witness and the validity of a retracted judicial confession in a capital case. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s acquittal, finding that the prosecution’s case was fundamentally flawed. The Court held that where ocular testimony is inconsistent with medical evidence—specifically regarding the number of injuries sustained—and where the prosecution fails to clarify such contradictions, the testimony is unreliable. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a retracted confession is inadmissible if it lacks procedural safeguards, such as proper warnings, and contains material inconsistencies with the prosecution's own narrative. The key principle laid down is that the intrinsic worth of a witness's testimony must be evaluated first; if the Court finds the witness untruthful due to inconsistencies with material facts, the question of whether corroboration is required becomes irrelevant, and the evidence must be discarded.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number of injuries render a witness's testimony unreliable?
  • Is a retracted judicial confession admissible if it lacks proper procedural warnings and contains inconsistencies with the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of recoveries when the ocular testimony and confession are rejected?
  Read full judgment →
• BADRUDDIN vs AZIZUR REHMAN1983 CLC 93 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →
• BADARUL SALAM vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SADDAR, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1983 P Cr. L J 821 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-18Read full judgment →
• BADAR DIN vs THE STATE1983 PLD Lahore 122 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-03Read full judgment →
• BACHU vs THE STATE-Opponent1983 P Cr. L J 1417 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-25Read full judgment →
• BACHAL vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1780 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-16Read full judgment →
• BABU KHAN vs BARKAT BIBI AND Other1983 SCMR 1098 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-29
  ejectment proceedingspersonal requirementspecific performancelandlord and tenantrent restrictionrecovery of damages
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from ejectment proceedings initiated by the heirs of a deceased landlord against a tenant. The tenant, having advanced a significant sum for the reconstruction of the property under an agreement that allegedly restricted the landlord's right to evict, challenged the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller, the appellate court, and the High Court, which all ordered his eviction. The core legal question was whether an agreement between a landlord and tenant, which restricts the landlord's right to evict, can legally bar an ejectment order based on personal need, or if it merely provides a basis for a claim for damages. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the agreement did not affect the validity of the ejectment order. The Court affirmed that such an agreement does not grant a right to specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1877, but rather leaves the tenant with the remedy of a civil suit for the recovery of the advanced amount and damages. The principle established is that an agreement restricting eviction does not override statutory ejectment grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Can an agreement between a landlord and tenant restricting the right of eviction bar an ejectment order based on personal need?
  • Is an agreement for the advancement of funds for property reconstruction specifically enforceable to prevent eviction under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Does a tenant have a remedy for the recovery of funds advanced to a landlord if the tenant is subsequently evicted?
  Read full judgment →
• BABOO KHAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2376 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-07Read full judgment →
• B.C. PAUL vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1983 PTD 1 · Calcutta High Court · 1980-09-11Read full judgment →
• B. P. BOMANJI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 2058 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-01Read full judgment →
• AZMAT WALI vs HASSAN ALADAWI AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 546 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-17
  summary suitpromissory noteleave to defendconditional leavecollateral securitycancellation of adhesive stampsnegotiable instruments
  Summary & questions settled

  This summary covers a summary proceeding under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 3,00,000 based on a demand promissory note. The defendants filed applications seeking unconditional leave to defend the suit, asserting that an endorsement on the carbon copy of the promissory note tied it to a share sale agreement dated 27-10-1980, making the note subject to counter-obligations, conditional, invalid under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, and lacking consideration due to share cancellation. The Sindh High Court held that while the carbon copy's endorsement entitled defendants to refer to the underlying agreement, the original promissory note contained an unconditional undertaking. Analyzing the defence, the Court held that the defendants had taken full control of the company, audited accounts beforehand, and unilaterally cancelled the shares to avoid liability. Finding the defence unsatisfactory and lacking bona fides rather than plausible, the Court granted conditional leave to defend subject to furnishing security for the full claim amount.

  Questions settled

  • Does an endorsement on the carbon copy of a promissory note rendering it subject to an agreement invalidate the original promissory note under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881?
  • Under what circumstances is a defendant entitled to unconditional leave to defend versus conditional leave to defend in a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be maintained by a single payee named in a promissory note where the underlying contract involved multiple vendors?
  Read full judgment →
• AZMAT ULLAH vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND 5 OTHERS1983 PLC 565 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-23Read full judgment →
• AZMAT ALI vs NOOR ELAHI, MANAGING DIRECTOR, 7-UP BOTTLING Co. LTD. AND ANOTHER1983 PLC 1281 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1983-05-17Read full judgment →
• AZIZUR REHMAN vs MASTER PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL1983 CLC 1080 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
• AZIZUR REHMAN vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, NA WABSHAH AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2277 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-15Read full judgment →
• AZIZ-UR-REHMAN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 50 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1982-07-10Read full judgment →
• AZIZ HUSSAIN vs Mst. AFIFA KHATOON1983 CLC 2368 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
• AZIZ BAIG vs UMER DIN (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 727 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-23Read full judgment →
• AZIMULLAH AND Others vs Khawaja INAYATULLAH AND Other1983 SCMR 642 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-12Read full judgment →
• AZHARUL MULK vs NAQSHBANDI INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANOTHER1983 PLC 209 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-05Read full judgment →
• AZHAR HUSSAIN AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2154 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-31Read full judgment →
• AZHAR AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2529 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-23Read full judgment →
• AZHAR ALI KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1983 CLC 2514 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-30Read full judgment →
• AZEEM vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2373 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →
• AZAM KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 1819 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-10Read full judgment →
• AZAM BRIG vs PAKISTAN NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION1983 PLC 644 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-09-21Read full judgment →
• AZEEM AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 488 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-15Read full judgment →
• AZAM BEG MIRZA vs TAJAMMAL HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1983 P Cr. L J 1476 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-09Read full judgment →
• AZAM BAIG vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other1983 SCMR 1244 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-12
  informant rightsland resumptionexcess land allotmentconstitutional jurisdictionsettlement authorities discretionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, successor-in-interest of an informant, sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that declined to interfere with an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as an informant, possessed a statutory right to be allotted land resumed from respondents due to excess entitlement, or whether the authorities could permit the original allottees to purchase said excess land. The Supreme Court held that the settlement authorities acted within their discretion in allowing the original allottees to purchase the resumed land, noting that the excess resulted from administrative errors by revenue staff rather than fraud or collusion by the allottees. The Court affirmed that where the nature of the irregularity stems from official miscalculation rather than claimant misconduct, the authorities have the discretion to determine the method of disposal of resumed property. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, finding no justification to interfere with the High Court's refusal to exercise constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does an informant have an absolute statutory right to be allotted land resumed from another party due to excess entitlement?
  • Can settlement authorities permit original allottees to purchase land resumed from them due to administrative miscalculation?
  • Is the High Court's refusal to interfere in constitutional jurisdiction against a discretionary order of the Board of Revenue sustainable when the order is based on administrative error rather than fraud?
  Read full judgment →
• AZAD MAZDOQR UNION vs MESSRS RASHID TEXTILE. MILLS LTD.1983 PLC 47 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
• AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT vs ALIF DIN AND 4 OTHERS1983 CLC 966 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-02-14Read full judgment →
• AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND ANOTHER vs GHULAM RASUL LONE1983 CLC 926 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-03-10Read full judgment →
• AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE S FATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR vs Ch. MUHAMMAD1983 PLD SC (A J & K) 70 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-11-30Read full judgment →
• AYUB HASSAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY1983 PLC (C. S.) 1113 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-04-19Read full judgment →
• AWAL DIN vs AWAL SAID AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLD Peshawar 106 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-11Read full judgment →
• AVAIS MAZHAR HUSSAIN vs ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, GOVERNMENTOF1983 PLC (C. S.) 183 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-10-25Read full judgment →
• AUSTRALASIA BANK LTD. vs ABDUL AZIZ JAN AND OTHERS1983 PLD Peshawar 64 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-11-30
  institution of suitpower of attorneyrecognized agentdefective signatureprocedural irregularityamendment of plaintremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arose from a recovery suit filed by the appellant bank against the respondents. The trial court and the lower appellate court dismissed the suit on the sole preliminary ground that the suit was incompetent because the plaint and Wakalatnama were signed by only one of the bank's attorneys (the Manager), whereas the terms of the power of attorney required two attorneys to act jointly. The key legal question before the High Court was whether the failure of a second attorney to sign the plaint and Wakalatnama rendered the suit a nullity or constituted a curable procedural irregularity. Setting aside the lower courts' findings, the High Court held that under Order XXIX Rule 1 and Order III Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the Manager was a recognized agent and principal officer. The omission to join the second attorney was a mere procedural defect, not a violation of a mandatory provision, and did not affect the court's jurisdiction or suit's merits. The court remanded the case with directions to permit amendment and correction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of one of two joint power-of-attorney holders to sign a plaint render the suit a nullity or merely an irregularity?
  • Can an appellate court under Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 grant permission to amend the plaint and allow a second attorney to sign it post-trial?
  • Does a defect in the signing or verification of a plaint by a recognized agent affect the jurisdiction of the civil court?
  Read full judgment →
• AURANGZEB DAR vs S. M. ALAM1983 CLC 3220 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-07Read full judgment →
• Auqaf & Settlement WAJEED ALI vs KARIM DINO1983 PLD Rev. 14 · Board of Revenue · 1982-10-29Read full judgment →
• ATTU vs GHULAM ALI1983 SCMR 401 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-10
  ejectmentcondonation of delaysufficient causeex parte orderlimitationrented premisespetition for special leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Sind High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an ejectment order as time-barred. The petitioner, who had been ejected via an ex parte order, sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, citing his detention in India and subsequent return to Pakistan. The High Court had dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits of the condonation application, holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, was inapplicable to appeals filed under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The Supreme Court observed that even if the High Court's legal interpretation regarding the applicability of Section 5 was erroneous, a remand would be futile because the petitioner failed to establish 'sufficient cause' on the merits of his case. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to resolve the legal question regarding the applicability of the Limitation Act to the Ordinance and dismissed the petition in limine, finding no justification for condoning the delay.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to establish sufficient cause for delay on the merits justify dismissing a petition for leave to appeal without deciding the underlying legal question of the applicability of the Limitation Act?
  • Can an appellate court dismiss an application for condonation of delay without considering the merits of the reasons provided?
  Read full judgment →
• ATTAULLAH vs THE STATE1983 PLC (C. S.) 205 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-09-21Read full judgment →
• ATTAULLAH MEHR vs PUNJAB GOVERNMENT1983 CLC 2903 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-21
  writ jurisdictionpublic service commissioneducational qualificationslocus standijudicial reviewservice rulesappointmentamendment of pleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the recommendation of the Punjab Public Service Commission for the post of Physiotherapist (NPS 18), arguing the selected candidate lacked the mandatory educational qualification of B.Sc. (Physiotherapy) prescribed by the Punjab Health Department (General, Specialists and Miscellaneous Posts) Service Rules 1981. The core legal question was whether the Commission could recommend an ineligible candidate and whether the government could lawfully appoint them. The Court held that the Commission’s recommendation and the government’s subsequent offer of appointment were without lawful authority, as the candidate failed to meet the mandatory educational requirements. The Court established that statutory bodies must strictly adhere to prescribed qualification rules; 'suitability' for a post implies meeting these mandatory requirements. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that it has the power of judicial review over recommendations of statutory bodies when they act in flagrant disregard of the law. The Court also permitted amendments to the writ petition to include subsequent developments, emphasizing the principle of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. The impugned actions were declared to be of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Does a candidate for a public post have locus standi to challenge the selection of an ineligible candidate?
  • Can a court exercise judicial review over the recommendations of a Public Service Commission?
  • Is a Public Service Commission required to strictly adhere to the educational qualifications prescribed in service rules when recommending candidates?
  • Should amendments to a writ petition be allowed to include events that occur during the pendency of the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• ATTA-UR-REHMAN vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI1983 PLC (C. S.) 388 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1979-03-11Read full judgment →
• ATTA ULLAH vs COMMISSIONER, GUJRANWALA DIVISION AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 907 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-03-21Read full judgment →
• ATTA MUHAMMAD KHAN NIAZI vs DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, SARGODHA RANGE,1983 PLC (C. S.) 962 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-03-27Read full judgment →
• ATIQURREHMAN AND OTHERS vs MUHA MMAD IBRAHIM AND OTHERS1983 PLD Supreme Court 182 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-13
  constitutional jurisdictionadequate alternative remedyex parte decreeminor without guardianrevival of suitIntra-Court AppealLaw Reforms Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arose from a pre-emption suit where an ex parte decree against minor petitioners—sued without a guardian ad litem—was declared to be without lawful authority in an earlier constitutional petition. The respondents subsequently obtained revival of the suit before the trial court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners challenged the revival proceedings through a fresh writ petition and a subsequent Intra-Court Appeal, both of which were dismissed by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the constitutional petition was incompetent because an adequate alternative remedy was available under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court reiterated that invoking extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction to resolve interlocutory controversies in a civil suit, bypassing ordinary remedies provided by law, frustrates the constitutional scheme and must be avoided. The Intra-Court Appeal was also held barred under Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972. Consequently, the leave petition was converted into an appeal and dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge interlocutory proceedings in a civil suit when an adequate remedy is available under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the declaration of an ex parte decree as a nullity operate to wipe out the underlying suit proceedings entirely?
  • Is an Intra-Court Appeal maintainable when it arises from an incompetent constitutional petition and violates Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972?
  Read full judgment →
• ATA-UR-RAHIM vs V AND OTHERS1983 PLC 1213 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• ATA MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 3311 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-10Read full judgment →
• ASWAR MUHAMMAD AND Others vs SHARIF DIN AND Other1983 SCMR 626 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-23
  leave to appealinheritance disputeco-sharer possessionrevenue mutationssuit for declarationlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, who were defendants in a property dispute, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court that had accepted the plaintiffs' second appeal, set aside concurrent findings of the lower courts, and decreed the plaintiffs' suit for declaration regarding inheritance. The core legal question concerned whether a suit for declaration and correction of revenue records was competent and barred by time where mutations had been attested in 1907 and 1908 reflecting only cultivating possession of certain co-sharers. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly decided that revenue mutations are fiscal arrangements for land revenue realization and do not confer substantive property rights or determine inheritance. The possession of one co-sharer is deemed to be for the benefit of all, meaning joint land possession prevents the suit from being time-barred. The key principle laid down is that administrative practices or revenue record entries regarding cultivating possession cannot override the rules of inheritance under custom or Shariat, and mutations do not impart sanctity or confer title to property.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mutation entries in the revenue record can determine the devolution of the estate of a deceased person?
  • Does the possession of one co-sharer constitute possession for all other co-sharers in joint land?
  • Whether revenue mutations attested decades prior confer substantive rights in property?
  • Is a suit for declaration regarding joint land barred by time merely because the plaintiff is not recorded in cultivating possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Asst: NAZIRAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1972 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-29Read full judgment →
• ASSADULLAH KHAN vs ABDUL KARIM1983 CLC 2061 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-12Read full judgment →
• ASPRO-NICHOLAS (PAKISTAN) LTD. vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN1983 PLC 219 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-03Read full judgment →
• ASMAT vs MODERN ESTATES LTD.1983 CLC 2601 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-10Read full judgment →
• ASLAM vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1003 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-05Read full judgment →
• ASLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., KHANPUR vs PAKISTAN EDIBLE CORPORATION AND Other1983 SCMR 316 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-15
  court-feeleave to appealstatutory interpretationPunjab Finance Actinterim stay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the demand for an additional court-fee. The core legal question is whether section 17 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 is subject to the proviso to Article 1 of Schedule I of the said Act, as substituted by section 8 of the Punjab Finance Act, 1973, rendering the demand for an additional court-fee of Rs. 15,000 unwarranted when that amount had already been paid on the suit. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the contention requires further consideration and accordingly granted leave to appeal, while directing security to be furnished and staying the payment of the additional court-fee in the interim. The key principle laid down is that substantial legal contentions regarding statutory interpretation of court-fee provisions warrant a full hearing upon the grant of leave.

  Questions settled

  • Is section 17 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 subject to the provisions of the proviso to Article 1 of Schedule I of the said Act as substituted by the Punjab Finance Act, 1973?
  • Whether the demand for an additional court-fee is warranted when the requisite court-fee has already been paid on the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• ASLAM ALI SHAH vs COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & LAND CUSTOMS AND OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 498 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-14Read full judgment →
• ASIM KHAN vs MUHAMMAD FAZIL KHAN1983 PLD Supreme Court 387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-25
  ex parte decreelimitation periodknowledge of decreesetting aside decreecivil procedureservice of summons
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an ex parte money decree passed against the appellant, Asim Khan. The appellant sought to set aside the decree under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, claiming he had not been duly served and only learned of the decree on May 8, 1969. While the trial court set aside the decree, the High Court restored it, finding the application time-barred based on the appellant's cross-examination admission that he knew of the decree by late March 1969. The core legal question was whether the limitation period under Article 164 of the Limitation Act 1908 begins upon mere knowledge of the decree's existence or requires knowledge of specific particulars. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant had sufficient knowledge of the essential particulars of the decree by late March 1969. Consequently, the Court found no factual basis to intervene, concluding that the appellant was aware of the decree's nature and details, thereby rendering the application for setting aside the decree time-barred under the relevant limitation provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period under Article 164 of the Limitation Act 1908 begin upon the mere knowledge of the existence of an ex parte decree?
  • Is an application to set aside an ex parte decree time-barred if the applicant admits to having knowledge of the decree's existence and nature beyond the statutory limitation period?
  Read full judgment →
• ASIF JAH SIDDIQI vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND OTHERS1983 PLD Supreme Court 46 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-08-30
  res judicatacivil suit maintainabilityservice terminationwrit jurisdictionfinality of judgmentsCode of Civil ProcedureSpecific Relief Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a civil revision filed by the petitioner, who sought to challenge his dismissal from service and subsequent eviction from official accommodation. The core legal question was whether a civil suit is maintainable to challenge service termination and departmental orders when the underlying issues have already been adjudicated in prior constitutional petitions. The Supreme Court held that the suit was barred by the principles of res judicata and the statutory framework governing the finality of judgments. The Court affirmed that a party cannot circumvent the binding nature of superior court decisions by initiating fresh civil litigation. The key principle laid down is that challenges to the validity of a judgment, decree, or order—whether based on fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction—must be pursued by making an application to the court that passed the final order, rather than through a separate civil suit. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the lower courts' findings that the suit was legally incompetent.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party challenge a judgment on the grounds of fraud or lack of jurisdiction through a separate civil suit?
  • Does a decision in a constitutional petition operate as res judicata in a subsequent civil suit involving the same cause of action?
  • Is a civil suit maintainable to challenge an order of dismissal when the issue has already been decided by a superior court?
  • What is the proper forum for challenging a judgment on the plea of fraud or misrepresentation under the Code of Civil Procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• ASHRAF MASIH vs SWISSAIR TRANSPORT COMPANY LTD.1983 PLC 224 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
• ASHFAQ HUSSAIN vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL PAKISTAN RAILWAY POLICE AND 21983 PLC (C. S.) 841 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-05-19Read full judgment →
• ASHFAQ ALI MORYANI vs UNITED BANK LTD. SUKKUR AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC 1030 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-04-09Read full judgment →
• ASHFAQ AHMED KHAN vs Messrs KARACHI GAS COMPANY LTD.1983 PLC 525 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-10Read full judgment →