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.

• ALI MUHAMMAD vs RAMZANI AND 6 OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 1086 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-05Read full judgment →
• ALI MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD FAROQ1983 CLC 476 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-23Read full judgment →
• ALI MUHAMMAD vs ASHRAF AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 3142 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-21Read full judgment →
• ALI MUHAMMAD KHADIM vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF1983 PLC (C. S.) 1271 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-08-25Read full judgment →
• ALI MUHAMMAD BROHI vs Haji MUHAMMAD HASHIM1983 CLC 2052 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-21Read full judgment →
• ALI MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs COLLECTOR, VEHARI AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2888 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-17Read full judgment →
• ALI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2022 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-11Read full judgment →
• ALI MUHAMMAD AND Another vs FAZAL HUSSAIN AND Other1983 SCMR 1239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-06
  limitationcondonation of delayspecial lawurban rent restrictionstatutory interpretationappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions challenging the dismissal of applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, could be invoked to condone delays in appeals filed under the special limitation period prescribed by the Ordinance, which differs from the period provided in the Limitation Act, 1908. The Supreme Court held that because the special law (the Ordinance) provides a specific limitation period of 30 days for appeals to the High Court, which conflicts with the general period of 90 days under the Limitation Act, 1908, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is excluded by operation of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908. Consequently, the Court affirmed that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 cannot be applied to extend the time for filing such appeals, and the High Court correctly dismissed the applications for condonation of delay.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 apply to appeals filed under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Does Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 when a special law prescribes a different period of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• ALI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs BABOO alias MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM1983 CLC 3189 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-07Read full judgment →
• ALI MUHAMMAD AND Another vs ABDUL GHANI1983 SCMR 946 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-08
  right of easementlight and airmandatory injunctionmaterial discomfortspecial leave petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Sind High Court, which accepted the respondent's revision and set aside the appellate decree granted in favor of the petitioners. The core legal question involved whether the closure of a 'Magh' constituted an actionable infringement of the right of easement of light and air, causing material discomfort to the petitioners. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the trial Court and the High Court established that the petitioners failed to prove any material discomfort, damage, or nuisance, and that partial impairment of air and light does not amount to an actionable infringement of an easement. The petition was accordingly dismissed on the basis that the High Court's factual findings based on evidence warranted no interference.

  Questions settled

  • Does the partial impairment of air and light constitute an actionable infringement of the right of easement?
  • Can a second appellate or revisional court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding material discomfort?
  • What must a plaintiff prove to succeed in a suit for mandatory injunction regarding the closure of a 'Magh'?
  Read full judgment →
• ALI MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs GULFAM AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Karachi 99 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-11
  equitable mortgageclog on equity of redemptionpower of attorneydelegation of authorityratificationprivate salemortgage redemption
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected suits relating to a declaration, cancellation of a conveyance deed, redemption of a mortgage, and possession of a property. The core legal questions involved whether an attorney possessed the implied power to delegate authority to sell or mortgage the principal's property, whether a separate power of attorney executed alongside an equitable mortgage constituted a clog on the equity of redemption, and whether an unauthorized filing of a suit by an agent could be cured through subsequent ratification. The court held that an agent cannot delegate authority without express power under the maxim delegatus non potest delegare, that a mortgagee under an equitable mortgage cannot sell the property privately without the intervention of the court, and that any separate collateral arrangement restricting the right of redemption amounts to a void clog on the equity of redemption, though procedural irregularities like an unauthorized plaint are curable by subsequent ratification. The key principles laid down include the strict construction of powers of attorney, the prohibition against private sale in equitable mortgages, and the validity of subsequent ratification curing procedural filing defects.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agent or attorney can delegate powers of sale or mortgage without express authority from the principal?
  • Does a mortgagee under an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds have the right to sell the mortgaged property privately without the intervention of the court?
  • Whether a separate power of attorney executed to secure a mortgage loan that bypasses the mortgagor's right to redeem constitutes a clog on the equity of redemption?
  • Can the unauthorized institution of a suit and signing of a plaint by an agent be validated through subsequent ratification by the principals?
  Read full judgment →
• ALI ISLAMA ppellant vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Lahore 262 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-14
  intra-court appealexamination re-evaluationwrit jurisdictionstatutory bodyarbitrary markingeducational boardconstitutional petitiongross injustice
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal challenged an order dismissing a writ petition filed by a student against the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore. The appellant sought re-evaluation of an examination paper after an expert examiner, appointed by the Board, assessed his paper at 41 marks compared to the original 21. The Board refused to refer the matter to its Review Committee, citing rules that restricted such referrals to cases where "zero" marks were awarded for correct answers. The core legal question was whether the High Court could intervene in the internal affairs of an educational board to rectify manifest injustice when the Board's own internal expert identified arbitrary marking. The Court held that while it generally does not interfere in academic marking, the Board’s departure from its strict rules by initiating an expert review created a situation where it could not ignore the expert's findings of arbitrary evaluation. Consequently, the Court set aside the dismissal and directed the Board to refer the case to the Review Committee, establishing that constitutional jurisdiction may be invoked to prevent gross injustice and ensure compliance with the Board's own regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise writ jurisdiction to intervene in the internal marking processes of an educational board?
  • Does a statutory educational board have the authority to ignore findings of arbitrary marking by its own appointed expert?
  • Can a court rectify a misdescription of a party in a petition under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a student entitled to relief when an educational board's internal expert identifies gross injustice in the evaluation of an answer script?
  Read full judgment →
• ALI HUSSAIN- SHAH vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1983 PLC 258 · Labour Court · 1979-05-05Read full judgment →
• ALI HUSSAIN vs LATE ALI AHMED KHAN WARSI THROUGH His LEGAL1983 SCMR 1178 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-18
  dissolution of partnershipamendment of plaintlimitationlegal representativesspecific performanceres judicataIqrarnama
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court upholding a decree in favor of the respondents, who are the legal representatives of the deceased original plaintiff, A.I Ahmed Khan Warsi. The petitioner and the deceased had entered into a partnership which was dissolved by a deed of dissolution, subsequently modified by an instrument called 'Iqrarnama' concerning the transfer of a disputed plot and monetary payments. Upon the petitioner's failure to abide by the terms and subsequent agreement to sell the plot to a third party, the deceased filed a suit for declaration and recovery of money, which was later amended by his legal representatives to include the relief of possession. The core legal questions involved whether the suit was barred by limitation, whether the trial court erred in allowing the amendment of the plaint to include the relief of possession, whether legal representatives can seek such amendments, and whether the document in question constituted a bond rather than an enforceable agreement. The Supreme Court held that the suit was within limitation, that the amendment of the plaint did not alter the character of the suit and was properly granted under the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the legal representatives were competent to seek such amendments. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for possession added through an amendment of the plaint after the limitation period is barred by time when the original suit for declaration and recovery of money was filed within limitation?
  • Whether legal representatives substituted in place of a deceased plaintiff can seek an amendment of the plaint to incorporate an additional relief of possession arising from the same cause of action?
  • Does a judgment in a separate suit between co-defendants operate as res judicata when no active contest or issue was framed and decided between them in that earlier proceeding?
  • Whether an 'Iqrarnama' modifying the terms of a dissolved partnership agreement constitutes an enforceable contract or a bond barred by law?
  Read full judgment →
• ALI HUSSAIN AND Another vs MUKHTAR AND 2 Other1983 SCMR 806 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-14
  murderdying declarationcommon intentionmitigation of sentenceobscure motivecapital punishmentreduction of sentenceeye-witness testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals before the Supreme Court arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and death sentence of Mumtaz Ahmad under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965, while maintaining the acquittal of co-accused Mukhtar and Sabir Ali under Section 302/34 of the PPC. The prosecution alleged that the co-accused held the deceased while the principal accused inflicted fatal knife wounds following a dispute regarding visits to a local political leader. The Supreme Court evaluated the credibility of the dying declaration recorded by the police in the doctor's presence, the testimonies of eye-witnesses, the common intention of the co-accused, and the quantum of sentence. The Court held the dying declaration and eye-witness evidence to be credible and untutored. The acquittal of the co-accused was maintained as they lacked knowledge that the principal accused carried a knife or would cause fatal injuries. However, finding that the true motive remained obscure, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment while upholding the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a dying declaration recorded by a police officer admissible and reliable when certified by a doctor confirming the deceased's consciousness and absence of prompting?
  • Does the mere presence of co-accused who hold the victim establish common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if they had no knowledge that the principal accused possessed a knife or intended to inflict fatal injuries?
  • Can an obscure or unproven motive serve as a valid mitigating circumstance to commute a sentence of death to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• ALI HAIDER KHAN vs SHER AFZAL KHAN AND 13 OTHERS1983 PLD SC (A J & K) 5 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-06-26Read full judgment →
• ALI GUL KHAN vs LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE AND Other1983 SCMR 129 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
• ALI BUX AND ANOTHER S vs MURAD AND ANOTHER1983 P Cr. L J 2479 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-29Read full judgment →
• ALI BAKHSH vs Mst. ZOHRA ASHRAF1983 PLD Lahore 61 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-19Read full judgment →
• ALI ASGHAR vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2143 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-04Read full judgment →
• ALI ANWAR SHAIKH AND 3 Other vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND 6 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 408 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
• ALI AKHTAR SOHAIL vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 434 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-12-12Read full judgment →
• ALI AKBAR vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR1983 SCMR 211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-25
  pre-emptionpartial pre-emptionexempt propertyindivisible transactionleave to appealagricultural landvillage immovable property
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which partly accepted a second appeal and decreed a suit for pre-emption to the extent of 10 marlas out of the disputed land. The core legal question involved whether partial pre-emption is permissible when a portion of the sold land is exempt from pre-emption due to the presence of constructed shops, and whether the transaction constituted an indivisible unit. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly decreed the suit for the unexempted portion of 10 marlas since the land was clearly bifurcated and the doctrine of partial pre-emption only applies when a pre-emptor fails to seek substitution for the whole subject-matter of the sale to which their right extends. The key principle laid down is that statutory exemptions from pre-emption apply strictly to the specific portion of land covered by the exempt structures, and bifurcated parcels do not bar a pre-emption decree for the non-exempt portion.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a boundary wall around land automatically qualify it for exemption from pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act?
  • Can a pre-emption decree be passed in respect of only a portion of the disputed land when another portion is exempt from pre-emption?
  • When does the doctrine of partial pre-emption come into play in a pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• ALI AHSAN JAFRI vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND 4 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 810 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-04-24Read full judgment →
• ALI AHMAD vs THE ELECTION AUTHORITY, PUNJAB LOCAL GOVERN MENT AND 21983 PLD Lahore 488 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-08Read full judgment →
• ALI AHMAD vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAHAWALNAGAR AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 261 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-09-15Read full judgment →
• ALI AHMAD vs GHULAM QADIR AND Other1983 SCMR 1307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-16
  state land grantrevenue authoritiesdiscretionary powercivil court interferenceHariland allotment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a civil suit filed by the petitioner, claiming entitlement to the grant of state land as a landless Hari, challenging the administrative decision of the Colonization Officer and the Board of Revenue to grant the land to the respondent. The core legal question was whether the civil courts should interfere with the discretion exercised by revenue authorities in selecting between competing applicants for state land grants. The Supreme Court held that the selection of grantees for state land falls within the discretionary domain of the revenue authorities, provided the exercise of such discretion does not violate any specific rule or law. The Court found that both the petitioner and the respondent had claims as Haris, and the revenue authorities acted within their jurisdiction to prefer one over the other based on factors such as prior landholdings. Consequently, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the suit, establishing the principle that civil courts will not interfere with the administrative discretion of revenue authorities in land grant matters absent a violation of law.

  Questions settled

  • Do civil courts have the jurisdiction to interfere with the discretionary grant of state land by revenue authorities?
  • Can a claimant demand the grant of state land as a matter of right based on their status as a Hari?
  Read full judgment →
• ALI AFSAR KHAN vs SAID HUSSAIN AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1055 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-02-04Read full judgment →
• ALI AFSAR KHAN vs RAZA MUHAMMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 1872 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-28Read full judgment →
• AlHaj H. I. SHEIKH vs MAHMOOD A. HAROON, FEDERAL MINISTER FOR RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS AND OTHERS1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 21 · Federal Shariat Court · 1980-08-03Read full judgment →
• ALAMGIR vs S. H. O., MODEL TOWN, LAHORE1983 P Cr. L J 76 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-31Read full judgment →
• ALAM KHAN AND Others vs The STATE1983 SCMR 993 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-21
  criminal appealreappraisal of evidenceeyewitness testimonycorroborationabscondencebenefit of doubtmurderattempted murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court concerning charges of murder and attempt to commit murder stemming from a family feud and elopement. The core legal question involved the reappraisal of evidence, the reliability of related and injured eyewitnesses, the necessity of corroboration where eyewitness testimony was partly disbelieved regarding some co-accused, and the legal effect of prolonged abscondence as corroborative evidence. The Supreme Court held that minor discrepancies and honest mistakes in ocular testimony do not discredit natural eyewitnesses whose injuries are established, and that prolonged and unexplained abscondence serves as sufficient corroboration to sustain convictions where testimony is partially discounted. The Court laid down the principle that the partial rejection of ocular testimony regarding certain accused does not inherently falsify the entire prosecution case against other accused whose active participation and specific attribution are consistently proven and corroborated by independent factors such as abscondence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether partial rejection of ocular testimony against certain co-accused necessitates independent corroboration to sustain the conviction of remaining accused?
  • Does prolonged and unexplained abscondence of an accused serve as valid corroborative evidence to support a conviction when eyewitness accounts require corroboration?
  • Whether minor discrepancies and honest mistakes by eyewitnesses are sufficient to discard the prosecution case in a criminal trial?
  • Is failure to put a circumstance like abscondence to an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 fatal to its use against him?
  Read full judgment →
• ALAM DIN AND ANOTHER vs ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Azad J & K 25 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
• ALAM DIN AND 14 OTHERS vs Mst. ZAINAB NOOR AND 7 OTHERS1983 PLD SC (A J & K) 156 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-06-05Read full judgment →
• ALAM ALI AND ANOTHER vs DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 278 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-08
  compromise decreeSection 12(2) CPCrejection of plaintwrit jurisdictionfraud and misrepresentationprocedural due processWAPDA
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges a judgment of the District Judge, Multan, which, in revision, set aside a compromise decree and rejected the petitioners' plaint. The core legal question was whether a court, while deciding an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, can summarily reject a plaint or set aside a decree without framing issues and recording evidence when allegations of fraud and misrepresentation are disputed. The High Court held that the District Judge acted without lawful authority. While the District Judge could set aside the trial court's dismissal of the application, he could not proceed to reject the plaint or set aside the decree without conducting a factual inquiry. The court established that Section 12(2) proceedings require strict adherence to procedural fairness; where factual allegations like fraud or lack of authority are contested, the court must frame issues and allow parties to lead evidence rather than deciding summarily. The power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is distinct from the power to adjudicate under Section 12(2).

  Questions settled

  • Can a court, while deciding an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, summarily reject a plaint without framing issues?
  • Does the term 'want of jurisdiction' in Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 encompass the grounds for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11?
  • Is a compromise decree challengeable under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without a full factual inquiry when allegations of fraud are denied?
  • Can a District Judge, while sitting in revision against an order dismissing a Section 12(2) application, exercise powers beyond those of the trial court to reject a plaint?
  Read full judgment →
• AL-NOOR INDUSTRIES vs MANSAB KHAN1983 PLC 541 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →
• AKHTAR SALEEM ADHAMI vs MRS. SHELA AKHTAR ADHAMI1983 CLC 2725 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-08Read full judgment →
• AKHTAR HUSSAIN JAFFERY vs IMTIAZ HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 1956 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
• AKHTAR ALI vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1473 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →
• AKHTAR ALAM vs KARACHI SHIPYARD & ENGINEERING WORKS LTD.1983PLC 610 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-08-04Read full judgment →
• AKHTAR ABBAS vs PUNJAB ROAD1983 PLC 595 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-04Read full judgment →
• AKHMIR KHAN vs SHER AHMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 1029 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-02-04Read full judgment →
• AKBAR KHAN vs Mst. SHAMOZAI1983 SCMR 474 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-14
  inheritancecustomary lawShariat Actadverse possessionco-sharerappellate reviewN.W.F.P. Courts Regulationgratuitous admission
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a dispute over the inheritance of property originally held under customary law. The core legal question concerned the scope of appellate review under the N.W.F.P. Courts Regulation 1931 compared to the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the marriage of the defendant, Mst. Amazai, occurred before or after the enforcement of the N.W.F.P. Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Application) Act 1935, which determined the devolution of the estate. The Supreme Court held that the N.W.F.P. Courts Regulation permitted a wider scope of review, allowing for the re-appraisal of concurrent findings of fact. Upon re-examining the evidence, the Court affirmed that the marriage occurred after the Shariat Act’s enforcement, entitling the plaintiffs to their shares under Muslim Personal Law. Furthermore, the Court established that a party may withdraw gratuitous admissions made by an attorney if proven incorrect, and that the possession of a co-sharer does not constitute adverse possession absent clear evidence of hostility. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower courts' decree.

  Questions settled

  • Does the N.W.F.P. Courts Regulation 1931 allow for a broader scope of review of facts in a further appeal compared to a second appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a party withdraw a gratuitous admission made in a written statement filed by an attorney if it is proven to be mistaken or untrue?
  • Is the possession of a co-sharer considered adverse against other co-sharers in the absence of evidence of hostility?
  Read full judgment →
• AKBAR GUL vs WAPDA AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLD Peshawar 25 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-11-05Read full judgment →
• AKBAR DIN vs MUHAMMAD YUNUS KHAN1983 PLD Azad J & K 22 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-04-26Read full judgment →
• AKBAR Alias AKKU vs The STATE1983 SCMR 213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-02
  murderlurking house-trespassnight trespassright of private defenceidentification of culpritcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner, Akbar alias Akku, for the murder of Abdul Latif. The prosecution case established that the petitioner and his co-accused, Saifullah, were caught trespassing at night. When the deceased apprehended Saifullah, the petitioner, who was on a rooftop, descended and fired shots to secure his brother's release, killing the deceased and injuring another witness. The petitioner contended that the occurrence, happening at night, made identification doubtful and alleged that the co-accused was beaten by the complainant. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, finding the prosecution's case established beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the deceased acted within his rights to challenge the intruders who were committing lurking house-trespass by night. The petition was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence for the murder committed during the criminal transaction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of a gunshot injury on a witness corroborate their presence at the scene of a crime?
  • Can a person be held liable for murder if they kill someone while attempting to rescue a co-accused from lawful apprehension?
  • Is the testimony of eye-witnesses sufficient to establish identity in a night-time occurrence if their presence is corroborated by physical injuries?
  Read full judgment →
• AKBAR ALI AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1362 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
• AKBAR ALI AKHTAR vs GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE1983 PLC (C. S.) 246 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-09-03Read full judgment →
• AJMAL TANVEER AND ANOTHER vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY TO1983 PLC (C. S.) 613 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-07-28Read full judgment →
• AJMAL HUSSAIN vs HOME SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND 41983 PLC (C. S.) 620 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1978-02-14Read full judgment →
• AJAIB KHAN vs The STATE1983 SCMR 22 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-05
  Federal Shariat CourtAdministrative CourtConstitutional jurisdictionAppellate jurisdictionCompetency of petitionHudood OrdinanceService tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an order of the Federal Shariat Court by invoking Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which provides for appeals to the Supreme Court from Administrative Courts or Tribunals. The core legal question was whether the Federal Shariat Court falls within the definition of an Administrative Court or Tribunal under Article 212, thereby allowing for such an appeal. The Supreme Court held that the petition was incompetent. The Court reasoned that Administrative Courts and Tribunals are strictly limited to matters concerning the terms and conditions of service, government claims, and enemy property, whereas the Federal Shariat Court was established by constitutional amendment to adjudicate matters of Islamic repugnancy. Consequently, the Federal Shariat Court does not qualify as an Administrative Court or Tribunal under Article 212. The Court further noted that, at the relevant time, orders passed by the Federal Shariat Court in its appellate jurisdiction regarding offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, were final and not subject to appeal under Article 212(3).

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Shariat Court qualify as an Administrative Court or Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can an appeal be filed in the Supreme Court against an order of the Federal Shariat Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
  • What are the specific matters for which an Administrative Court or Tribunal can be established under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• AISH MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1555 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-16Read full judgment →
• AIMNA vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DERA GHAZI KHAN AND OTHERS1983 CLC 3163 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
• AIJAZ HUSSAIN vs QAISAR AND ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 129 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-18Read full judgment →
• AIJAZ AHMAD vs MESSRS AMIN FABRICS LTD.1983 PLD Karachi 63 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-26
  breach of contractdamages for non-deliverynominal damagesArbitration Act 1940 section 34Contract Act 1872 section 73withholding best evidencecondition precedentfrustration of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This single judgment disposes of three consolidated civil suits filed by commercial agents/exporters against an industrial manufacturing company seeking damages for breach of eleven F.O.B. contracts for the supply of hessian cloth bales intended for export to Iran. The defendants contested the suits on grounds that the contracts were unconcluded, the plaintiffs failed to meet pre-conditions, the contracts were frustrated, and no actual damages were proved. The High Court found that the contracts were fully concluded, noting that the defendants had previously acknowledged their existence by filing applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940. It held that alleged non-payment of advance monies was not a condition precedent and that the frustration plea was abandoned. Addressing damages, the court held that while general breach damages are assessed under Section 73 of the Contract Act 1872 based on contract-market price differentials, where goods were specifically bought for resale to foreign principals (falling under Illustration (j)), actual loss sustained must be shown. Because the plaintiffs deliberately withheld evidence of their resale contracts and actual loss, the court awarded only nominal damages.

  Questions settled

  • Does filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 constitute an admission of the existence of a concluded contract?
  • Whether the failure to pay an advance amount stipulated in a contract automatically excuses non-performance if such payment was not mutually treated as a condition precedent?
  • What is the appropriate measure of damages under Section 73 of the Contract Act 1872 when an aggrieved party deliberately withholds evidence of actual loss on resale contracts?
  • Can a court award nominal damages for breach of contract when a breach is established but actual monetary loss is not proved?
  Read full judgment →
• AHSAN AHMAD SHAH AND Another vs THE STATE1983 PCr.LJ 1101 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
• AHMED HAYAT AND Others vs The STATE1983 SCMR 350 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-02
  interested witnessescriminal appealindependent corroborationocular evidencemedical evidencerecovery evidencebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentences of death and life imprisonment imposed on the appellants for murder. The core legal question was whether the testimony of interested and inimical prosecution witnesses, which formed the basis of the conviction, was supported by sufficient independent corroboration to satisfy the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution’s ocular evidence contained significant discrepancies, specifically regarding the role of one appellant who was alleged to have fired fatal shots at a deceased who, according to medical evidence, sustained no bullet injuries. Furthermore, the Court found the recovery evidence—a knife recovered from a dung heap and revolver empties—to be highly suspect and unreliable. Holding that the prosecution failed to provide the necessary quality of corroborative evidence required when dealing with interested witnesses, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences. The judgment reaffirms the principle that in criminal cases involving inimical witnesses, independent corroboration must be clear, consistent, and logically sound to sustain a conviction, and that discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence undermine the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the testimony of interested and inimical witnesses require independent corroboration to sustain a criminal conviction?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there is a significant discrepancy between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries?
  • Is recovery evidence considered reliable when the circumstances of the recovery, such as the location and timing, are highly suspect?
  Read full judgment →
• AHMED AND Another vs THE STATE-1983 P Cr. L J 1261 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-01Read full judgment →
• AHMED ALI AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1427 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• AHMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1976 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
• AHMAD MUBEEN vs DIRECTOR FOOD, PUNJAB, LAHORE1983 PLC (C. S.) 1062 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-03-14Read full judgment →
• AHMAD KHAN vs Malik FAZAL DAD (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS)1983 CLC 74 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-23
  pre-emptionconsolidation of suitsremand orderjudgment on admissionCode of Civil Procedureurban immovable propertyfirst appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Appeal challenges a remand order passed by the District Judge in a pre-emption dispute. The core legal questions were whether pre-emption suits involving different claims can be consolidated and whether a written statement in one suit constitutes a binding admission in another for judgment under Order XII, Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that consolidation under Section 28 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act is permissible regardless of the specific nature of the right claimed. It further ruled that consolidated suits remain distinct, and a written statement in one suit cannot be treated as a binding admission in another. The remand order was set aside as it was based on an erroneous view of the law regarding consolidation and improperly permitted parties to fill evidentiary gaps. The Court established that remand is unjustified where parties were fully cognizant of the real controversy and led evidence accordingly, even if specific issues were not framed. The matter was remitted to the appellate court for decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-emption suits be consolidated under Section 28 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act if the nature of the right claimed in each suit is different?
  • Does a written statement filed in one suit constitute a binding admission in a separate, consolidated suit for the purpose of obtaining a judgment under Order XII, Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a remand order justified solely on the ground that the trial court failed to frame specific issues, even when the parties were cognizant of the real controversy and led evidence accordingly?
  Read full judgment →
• AHMAD KHAN AND OTHERS vs JAFFAR ABBAS AND OTHERS1983 CLC 3043 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-21Read full judgment →
• AHMAD KHAN AND Others vs DOSA AND Other1983 SCMR 756 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-08
  pre-emption suitrejection of plaintcourt-fee deficiencyvaluation of suitprocedural irregularitysummary adjudication
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment, which upheld a District Judge's order setting aside the trial court's rejection of a plaint in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether a trial court, having framed an issue regarding the valuation of the suit for court-fee purposes, could summarily reject the plaint without allowing the parties to lead evidence on that specific issue. The Supreme Court held that once an issue regarding valuation is framed, the court must allow the parties to adduce evidence or decide the matter based on clear, unconditional admissions. The trial court's hasty, summary rejection of the plaint, without ascertaining the exact deficiency or hearing the plaintiffs regarding the valuation, was deemed procedurally irregular and arbitrary. The Court affirmed that the question of granting indulgence or extension of time for making up court-fee deficiencies only arises after evidence has been led and the plaintiff is found to have acted negligently without a plausible explanation. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court summarily reject a plaint for insufficient court-fee after framing an issue regarding valuation without allowing parties to lead evidence?
  • Is it procedurally proper for a court to reject a plaint based on a valuation statement prepared by the opposing party without hearing the plaintiff?
  • At what stage should a court determine whether a plaintiff has been negligent in paying court-fee deficiencies?
  Read full judgment →
• AHMAD KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs Mst. FEROZ BEGUM AND 6 OTHERS1983 CLC 2916 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-26Read full judgment →
• AHMAD KABIR vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2299 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-09Read full judgment →
• AHMAD HUSSAIN vs THE OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY ETC.S1983 SCMR 827 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-16
  M.L.R. 115M.L.R. 89M.L.R. 91land reformsgovernment servant land allotmentcancellation of allotmentretrospective operationrepurchase of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from proceedings before the land authorities under Martial Law Regulation (M.L.R.) 115 of 1972. The petitioner, a government servant, had initially been allotted 117.32 acres of land prior to 1-1-1959, but under M.L.R. Nos. 89 and 91, his entitlement was reduced, resulting in him surrendering 86.39 acres and later repurchasing it. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could claim exemption under Paragraph 10 of M.L.R. 115 for the entire 117.32 acres on the basis that it was allotted to him prior to 1-1-1959. The Supreme Court held that under Paragraph 7 of M.L.R. 89, previous allotments stood cancelled retrospectively, thereby laying a fresh basis for entitlement. Surrendered surplus land vested in the Government, making its repurchase a separate transaction. Consequently, the original allotment did not remain intact as of 1-1-1959, and exemption was properly restricted to the 31.33 acres continuously retained. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.

  Questions settled

  • What is the effect of Paragraph 7 of M.L.R. No. 89 on land allotments made prior to 1-1-1959?
  • Does repurchasing land surrendered under M.L.R. No. 89 restore the original allotment for the purposes of exemption under Paragraph 10 of M.L.R. No. 115?
  • Can a government servant claim exemption under M.L.R. No. 115 for land that was surrendered and subsequently repurchased under M.L.R. No. 89?
  Read full judgment →
• AHMAD HUSSAIN vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 2076 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-24Read full judgment →
• AHMAD HUSSAIN vs A. C., VEHARI1983 CLC 2451 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-29Read full judgment →
• AHMAD DIN vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 1385 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-08Read full judgment →
• AHMAD ABDUS SALAM vs ANWAR ELAHI AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2775 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
• AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM1983 PLC (C. S.) 78 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-29Read full judgment →
• Agha TALAT MAHMOOD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2144 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-11Read full judgment →
• Agha MUHAMMAD KAZIM vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND Other1983 SCMR 148 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-10
  proprietary rightsactual tillerTender Schemesub-tenancyBoard of Revenue circularleave to appealstatus quo
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Constitutional Petition by the High Court, which had upheld the decisions of the Board of Revenue denying the petitioner proprietary rights over certain agricultural land. The petitioner, an Advocate, had been cultivating the land as a sub-tenant of his brother, the original lessee under a Tender Scheme. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, despite being a practicing Advocate, qualified as an "actual tiller" of the soil entitled to retain the land or acquire proprietary rights under the prevailing government policy. The Board of Revenue had denied his claim based on a circular dated 7th February 1978, which disqualified practicing lawyers from being considered actual tillers. The Supreme Court, noting the undisputed fact that the petitioner was indeed cultivating the land as a sub-tenant, granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the denial of proprietary rights. The Court ordered the maintenance of the status quo regarding possession pending the final hearing of the appeal, allowing the parties to supplement the existing record.

  Questions settled

  • Does a practicing lawyer qualify as an actual tiller of the soil for the purpose of acquiring proprietary rights under the Tender Scheme?
  • Can a sub-tenant of a government lessee claim proprietary rights if the original lessee is found ineligible?
  • Is a circular issued by the Board of Revenue sufficient to disqualify a class of persons from being considered actual tillers?
  Read full judgment →
• AGHA HUSSAIN vs Mst. RASHEM BIBI AND Other1983 SCMR 121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-16
  evacuee trust landallotment cancellationBorder Area Committeeproprietary rightsJammu and Kashmir refugeepetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a dispute over evacuee trust land measuring 27 kanals 8 marlas in village Ghaziwal, Tehsil Narowal, District Sialkot, initially allotted to Mst. Rahim Bibi in 1962, who later acquired proprietary rights. The Border Area Committee subsequently cancelled her allotment and allotted the land to Agha Hussain, leading to prolonged litigation. Following a remand by the High Court, the Committee restored Mst. Rahim Bibi's allotment, holding her to be a Jammu and Kashmir displaced person, and cancelled Agha Hussain's allotment. Agha Hussain's subsequent writ petition was dismissed in limine by the High Court. The core legal questions concerned whether the Border Area Committee could re-open its earlier finding regarding the status of the allottee and whether an allotment made by way of maintenance reverts upon death after proprietary rights have been acquired. The Supreme Court held that the Committee's view was justified by material on record and that proprietary rights conferred prior to death preclude the land from being treated as a mere temporary maintenance allotment. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Border Area Committee can re-open the question of an allottee's status after previously adjudging her to be a local?
  • Does an allotment made in favour of an allottee survive after her death once proprietary rights have been duly conferred?
  • Whether an order of the Border Area Committee restoring an allotment and cancelling a rival allotment warrants interference under writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• AGDISH PRASAD & Co., RAIPUR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADHYAPRADESH Il, BHOPAL1983 PTD 376 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1982-01-13Read full judgment →
• AFTAB SYED vs Mst. SURAYA SARWAR1983 CLC 2189 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-25Read full judgment →
• AFTAB RASHID vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1483 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-12Read full judgment →
• AFTAB AHMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2155 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
• AFSAR KHAN AND Others vs Mst. KHANUM JAN AND Other1983 SCMR 273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-09
  joint propertyco-shareralteration of landagricultural landpermanent injunctionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which modified a first appellate court decree concerning joint property. The petitioners filed a suit for a declaration and permanent injunction to prevent the respondents, who are co-sharers, from altering the character of jointly owned agricultural land by erecting a building without consent. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court decreed it, holding that a co-sharer cannot convert agricultural land into other uses. The High Court modified the decree, allowing the construction subject to the condition that if the land does not fall into the respondents' share upon partition, they must remove the construction without claiming compensation. The core legal question is whether a co-sharer can alter the nature of joint property without consent. The Supreme Court held that while ordinarily a co-sharer cannot alter the nature of joint property, the High Court's protective stipulations and the enhancement of the property's value caused no prejudice to the petitioners. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a co-sharer alter the character of joint agricultural land by erecting a building without the consent of other co-sharers?
  • Whether a co-sharer raising construction on joint property is entitled to compensation if the land does not fall to their share upon partition?
  Read full judgment →
• AFAQUR REHMAN vs MRS. REHANA SAM11983 CLC 1105 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-03Read full judgment →
• ADMINISTRATOR, THAI DEVELOPMENT vs MEHBOOB ALI KHAN1983 SCMR 159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-21
  leave to appealdeclaratory decreewrit petitionarrears of salaryIntra-Court Appealservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court involving questions regarding the execution of a declaratory decree through a writ petition, the entitlement to arrears of salary under such a decree, and the competency of an Intra-Court Appeal under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The core legal questions pertain to the permissible scope of relief in constitutional petitions relating to declaratory decrees and service matters, as well as the interpretation of appellate remedies. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the contentions raised by the petitioner require detailed examination. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted to consider the propositions of law canvassed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a declaratory decree be enforced and implemented through the agency of a writ petition?
  • Whether a respondent is entitled to the relief regarding payment of arrears of salary following a declaratory decree passed by the High Court?
  • Is an Intra-Court Appeal competent against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, keeping in view the nature of the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs ANILINE DYESTUFFS &1983 PTD 343 · Bombay High Court · 1981-09-11Read full judgment →
• ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs SHAMA ENGINE VALVES LTD.1983 PTD 120 · Delhi High Court · 1982-04-22Read full judgment →
• ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs RAMCHAND DARYANOMAL1983 PTD 261 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1982-01-04Read full judgment →
• ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF I.-T., DELHI II vs MESSERS SHAMA ENGINE1983 PTD 362 · Delhi High CourtRead full judgment →
• ADDITIONAL CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER (PUNJAB), LAHORE vs Mst. GHULAM1983 SCMR 1052 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-01
  land reformmutationgift transactioninterconnected transactionsmisreading of recordwrit jurisdictionadministrative authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a challenge to the decision of the Additional Chief Land Commissioner (Punjab) regarding the validity of land gift transactions. The respondent, Mst. Ghulam Zohra, had gifted land to her husband and son, which was recorded via mutation. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Additional Chief Land Commissioner erred in law by treating these two distinct gift transactions as separate, independent events rather than interconnected transactions. The High Court had previously accepted a writ petition filed by the respondent, concluding that the transactions were indeed interconnected and that the Commissioner had misread the record in separating them. Upon review, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision. The Court found that the Additional Chief Land Commissioner acted without lawful authority by failing to recognize the interconnected nature of the transactions, thereby misreading the evidentiary record. The judgment affirms that administrative authorities must correctly interpret the factual nexus of transactions when exercising their jurisdiction, and failure to do so constitutes an error of law amenable to judicial review.

  Questions settled

  • Can an administrative authority separate interconnected land transactions without misreading the record?
  • Does the misreading of a record by a land commissioner constitute an act without lawful authority?
  Read full judgment →
• ADAM HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD AYUB Defandant1983 CLC 2054 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-09Read full judgment →
• ADAM ABDUL KAREEM vs M. v. KAPTAINS MITSOS1983 CLC 1639 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-02Read full judgment →
• ABU BAKR. vs Mst. NAJMA FARUQI1983 CLC 2610 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-03Read full judgment →
• ABID-UR-REHMAN KHAN vs RAZI GHAZALI1983 CLC 1434 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-27Read full judgment →
• ABID IQBAL ANSARI vs JAVID TABASUM Opponent1983 CLC 3004 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-27Read full judgment →
• ABID HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 200 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
• ABID HUSSAIN vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION1983 PLC 840 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-04-05Read full judgment →
• ABID HUSSAIN vs DIRECTOR OF FOOD, PUNJAB AND ANOTHFR1983 PLC (C. S.) 291 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-08-07Read full judgment →
• ABID AND Anqthfrs vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 912 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-03Read full judgment →
• ABDUS SATTAR vs Naeem Bokhari For Respondents.1983 PLC 288 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-15Read full judgment →
• ABDUS SATTAR IJAZ vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1983 PLC (C. S.) 451 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-11-13Read full judgment →
• ABDUS SAMEE BABAR vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 718 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-04-17Read full judgment →
• ABDUR REHMAN vs Hail MIR AHMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Supreme Court 21 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-04
  constitutional jurisdictionrent restrictionalternative remedypiecemeal litigationinterlocutory orderswrit petitionlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a rent dispute where the petitioner, a tenant, challenged eviction proceedings before a Rent Controller, disputing the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and the applicability of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 to a hotel. After the Rent Controller overruled these objections, the petitioner filed a constitutional petition in the High Court, which was dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, affirming that the petitioner's attempt to invoke constitutional jurisdiction was improper. The Court held that the petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy through the statutory appeal process, which should be exhausted before seeking higher intervention. The judgment emphasizes that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is not intended to bypass the hierarchy of forums established by special rent laws. Furthermore, the Court strongly deprecated the practice of piecemeal litigation, noting that challenging interlocutory orders through writ petitions causes unnecessary delay and defeats the legislative intent of providing summary, speedy disposal of rent cases. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that writ jurisdiction is unavailable where an efficacious alternative remedy exists.

  Questions settled

  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained against an interlocutory order of a Rent Controller when a statutory right of appeal exists?
  • Does the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 apply retrospectively to pending eviction proceedings initiated under the W. P. Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Is the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction permissible to bypass the hierarchy of forums established by special rent laws?
  Read full judgment →