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.
- ABDUR REHMAN vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 1004 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN vs ALI BAKHSH AND Another1983 SCMR 146 (2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court order that had dismissed his challenge regarding the transfer of a shop. The property in question was auctioned in 1961 to a successful bidder, who later associated with the respondent. Following the bidder's failure to pay the balance, the respondent applied for the transfer of the property, supported by the bidder's affidavit of no objection. The property was subsequently transferred to the respondent, and a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) was issued. Thirteen years later, the petitioner challenged this transfer, alleging fraud. The Settlement Commissioner initially cancelled the P.T.D., but the High Court reversed this, holding that the Settlement Department had become functus officio once the P.T.D. was issued. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner had remained silent for thirteen years and failed to object to the initial transfer. Finding that substantial justice had been served, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, thereby upholding the High Court's decision that the Department lacked jurisdiction to reopen the matter after the issuance of the P.T.D.
Questions settled- Does the Settlement Department become functus officio once a Permanent Transfer Deed is issued?
- Can a party challenge a property transfer after a delay of thirteen years?
- Is the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed a bar to the subsequent reopening of settlement proceedings by the Department?
- ABDUR REHMAN JANJUA vs PUNJAB BAR COUNCIL AND 3 oTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 47 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges the order dated 20-5-1982 passed by the Executive Committee of the Punjab Bar Council, which declared the election of the Secretary of the District Bar Association, Sialkot, illegal and directed a fresh election. The core legal questions involved whether the Tribunal committed any illegality in appreciating evidence, whether the inclusion of ineligible voters violated the election rules, and whether the proceedings were coram non judice due to being signed solely by the Chairman. The Lahore High Court held that findings of fact based on evidence by the Tribunal are not open to interference in writ jurisdiction, that inclusion of non-members violates Bar Council rules justifying setting aside an election, and that failure of all members to sign the judgment is a mere irregularity which does not warrant discretionary constitutional relief where no actual injustice has been caused and the petitioner participated without objection. The court established that discretionary constitutional jurisdiction will be refused if the petitioner is estopped by conduct or if the impugned order corrects a manifest illegality rather than causing injustice.
Questions settled- Whether findings of fact recorded by an election tribunal regarding the eligibility of voters can be interfered with in constitutional writ jurisdiction?
- Does the inclusion of persons not on the rolls of advocates in the list of eligible voters violate the election rules and warrant setting aside an election?
- Whether proceedings conducted and signed by the Chairman of the Executive Committee are rendered coram non judice if other members participated and approved the decision?
- Can discretionary constitutional relief be refused when an impugned order corrects a manifest illegality and causes no actual injustice to the petitioner?
- ABDUR REHMAN Alias LOGAI vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1398 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2462 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REH MAN vs SHUKAR DIN1983 CLC 1441 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAZZAQ vs ILAM DIN1983 SCMR 146 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's civil revision in an interlocutory matter. The underlying dispute involved a suit for a perpetual injunction filed by the petitioner to restrain the respondent from increasing the height of a shop wall, which allegedly deprived the petitioner of the use of the shop's roof. An application for an interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was initially dismissed by the trial court, and a subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. The High Court also dismissed the petitioner's revision petition against these concurrent findings. Upon hearing the counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court found that no valid grounds existed to warrant interference with the impugned order in an interlocutory matter. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decisions regarding the interim injunction.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts in interlocutory matters where no valid grounds are shown?
- Is a revision petition maintainable against an order dismissing an application for interim injunction?
- ABDUR RAZZAQ AND OthersABDUR RAZZAQ AND Others vs THE STATETHE1983 SCMR 234 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an application filed by convicts undergoing sentences of imprisonment for life seeking suspension of their sentences and release on bail pending their criminal appeal before the Supreme Court, based on the ground of delay in the hearing of the appeal. The core legal question is whether the provisions of section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding mandatory or discretionary release on bail due to appellate delay apply to appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Supreme Court held that section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies strictly to appellate courts established under that Code and does not control proceedings before the Supreme Court. However, inordinate delay may be considered as a factor by the Supreme Court when assessing bail during a pending appeal, but it does not create an automatic right to bail. The court laid down the principle that statutory delay periods prescribed for High Courts or lower appellate courts under the Code of Criminal Procedure do not automatically entitle an appellant to bail in the Supreme Court, and each case must be evaluated on its own circumstances.
Questions settled- Does section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure control the question of bail in criminal appeals pending before the Supreme Court?
- Does inordinate delay in the decision of an appeal before the Supreme Court create an automatic right to bail under the prevailing law?
- Can the principles underlying section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be invoked as a matter of right for release on bail in the Supreme Court?
- Abdur Rashid, Member S. AZIZUR REHMAN SHAHID vs SECRETARY, POPULATION DIVISION, ISLAMABAD1983 PLC (C. S.) 1068 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-07-20Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rashid, Member MUHAMMAD YOUNAS vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 345 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Abdur Rashid, Member FARZAND ALI KHAN vs SECRETARY, DEFENCE1983 PLC (C. S.) 400 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-11-22Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rashid, Member AMIR ALI ISMAILI vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 238 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-12-19Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rashid, Member ABDUR REHMAN vs SECRETARY, ECONOMIC AFFAIRS1983PLC(C.S.) 98 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID vs Mst. FAZAL BIBI AND 18 OTHERS1983 CLC 283 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID vs K. D. A. AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2465 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID vs CHIEF ENGINEER, KALABAGH DAM PROJECT AND ANOTHER1983 PLC 845 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-03-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID CHAUDHARY AND OTRERS vs MUHAMMAD UMER AND Other1983 SCMR 1272 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had upheld the dismissal of an ejectment petition filed by the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest. The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, specifically turning on the validity and execution of a rent deed. The Rent Controller had initially found in favor of the landlord, confirming the execution of the deed. However, the appellate court and the High Court discarded the rent deed based on perceived discrepancies regarding the place of execution and other minor evidentiary defects, without properly addressing the core issue of whether the respondent had indeed executed the document. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred by focusing on peripheral inconsistencies rather than the fundamental question of the deed's execution. Consequently, the Court determined that the matter required further consideration, as the alleged evidentiary defects were of little significance if the execution of the rent deed was established. Leave to appeal was granted.
Questions settled- Does a discrepancy regarding the place of execution of a rent deed invalidate the document if the execution itself is otherwise established?
- Is the determination of the relationship of landlord and tenant a fundamental issue that must be addressed before discarding a rent deed?
- ABDUR RASHID AND OTHERS vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS1983 CLC 443 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID AND 2 Others vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 263 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHIM KHAN vs HOME SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 1017 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-07-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHIM AND 36 OTHERS vs N.W. F. PROVINCE AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Peshawar 143 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 371 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-31Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH SHAH vs AZIZURREHMAN AND 9 OTHERS1983 PLD SC(A J & K) 20 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-12-07Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH KHAN vs SARWAR KHAN AND Other1983 SCMR 955 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted five respondents of charges under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the murder of Hafeezullah. The petitioner, the complainant, challenged the acquittal, arguing that the trial court had correctly convicted the respondents based on eye-witness testimony and the respondents' subsequent abscondence. The core legal question was whether the High Court's acquittal was based on a proper assessment of evidence or if it suffered from legal infirmities. The Supreme Court found that the High Court correctly identified inherent improbabilities in the prosecution's case, including the lack of incriminating recoveries, the absence of crime empties despite multiple shots fired, and the implausible conduct of the accused. The Court held that the acquittal was based on a proper application of the principles of criminal justice administration. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in light of the evidentiary gaps and inconsistencies.
Questions settled- Does the absence of crime empties at a crime scene where multiple shots were allegedly fired weaken the prosecution's case?
- Can an acquittal judgment be sustained when the prosecution case suffers from inherent improbabilities regarding the conduct of the accused?
- Is the abscondence of accused persons sufficient, in the absence of other incriminating evidence, to sustain a conviction for murder?
- ABDULLAH Andanother vs TAJ MUHAMMAD AND Other1983 SCMR 1057 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment and decree of the Baluchistan High Court, Quetta, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision concerning a claim for possession of a half share of land. The core legal question involves whether the suit land was ancestral joint property and whether the petitioners maintained a subsisting right to the property despite long-standing exclusive possession by the respondents based on a dower (Haqq a Mehar) claim and prior judicial findings. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to establish any subsisting right in the property, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts and the High Court. The key principle laid down is that concurrent factual findings regarding the lack of a subsisting right to property will defeat claims of joint ancestral ownership and co-sharer possession when unsupported by the evidentiary record.
Questions settled- Whether the possession of one co-sharer amounts to the possession of other co-sharers in the absence of a subsisting right?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be entertained on merits when it is barred by time after examining the underlying contentions?
- Whether concurrent factual findings by lower courts regarding ancestral property ownership can be successfully challenged without supporting evidence?
- ABDULLAH AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2582 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAKEEL vs Mst. AMINA1983 CLC 42 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-10-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAJID vs SHAIKH FAZL UR REHMAN1983 CLC 3018 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHID vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND 4 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 867 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1981-12-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHID AND 4 OTHERS vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SANGHAR AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1412 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHEED AND 7 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 922 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHAB KHAN AND ANOTHER vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND 4 Others1983 PLC (C. S.) 7 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-09-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WADUD KHAN vs CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Supreme Court 183 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against orders passed by Land Reforms Authorities, which declared certain gift alienations of agricultural land invalid under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The core legal question was whether the Land Reforms Authorities could lawfully invalidate these gift transactions without providing the donees—the recipients of the gifts—an opportunity to be heard, despite the donor/declarant having participated in the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the orders passed by the Land Reforms Authorities were without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Court affirmed that the principles of natural justice, specifically audi alteram partem, must be read into the provisions of every enactment unless the contrary is expressly provided. Consequently, because the impugned orders adversely affected the rights and interests of the donees, they were entitled to notice and a fair hearing. The Court rejected the notion that the donor’s participation sufficiently represented the donees' interests. The appeals were allowed, the impugned orders were quashed, and the cases were remanded for fresh decisions following proper notice to all affected parties.
Questions settled- Can Land Reforms Authorities invalidate a gift transaction without providing the donee an opportunity to be heard?
- Does the principle of audi alteram partem apply to proceedings before Land Reforms Authorities?
- Does the participation of a donor in land reform proceedings constitute sufficient representation of the donee's interests?
- ABDUL SHAKOOR vs MESSRS FAZAL CLOTH MILLS LTD.1983 PLC 530 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-09-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SHAKOOR vs Haji SHAUKAT AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 351 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR NADEEM HASHMI vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 1057 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-06-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR AND Others vs The STATE1983 SCMR 1288 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by several accused persons charged under sections 307, 325, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an alleged attack involving firearms and blunt weapons. The petitioners challenged the rejection of their bail applications by the Court of Sessions and subsequently by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the discrepancies between the First Information Report (FIR) allegations and the medical evidence. The Supreme Court observed that while the FIR alleged the use of firearms and sharp-edged weapons, the medical reports did not substantiate the presence of gunshot or sharp-edged weapon injuries on the victims. Consequently, the Court held that the case of two specific petitioners, Abdul Sattar and Muhammad Ajmal, warranted the grant of bail due to the lack of medical corroboration for the specific allegations against them. Conversely, the Court found no sufficient grounds to grant bail to the remaining petitioners, whose applications were rejected. The principle established is that medical evidence is a critical factor in assessing the veracity of allegations in bail matters.
Questions settled- Does the absence of medical corroboration for alleged injuries entitle an accused to bail?
- Can bail be granted to some co-accused while being denied to others based on the specific evidence against them?
- ABDUL SATTAR AND OTHERS vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER1983 CLC 1124 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR AND OTHERS vs ABDUL SHAKOOR AND OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 466 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR AND 10 OTHERS vs COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Peshawar 185 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SAMI vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC .(C. S.) 703 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1983-04-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SALAM SHAMSI AND ANOTHER vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 2633 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SALAM BAIG vs UTTAM CHAND AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 1617 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SALAM AND Others vs NOOR NISA1983 SCMR 1012 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, unsuccessful plaintiffs, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 19-10-1981, which had accepted a civil revision petition, set aside concurrent findings of fact by the two courts below, and dismissed the plaintiffs' pre-emption suit. The dispute arose over a small house purchased by the respondent, in respect of which the petitioners claimed a right of pre-emption as owners of contiguous property. The respondent claimed exemption under Section 5(d) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, asserting she was a resident of Haripur. The trial and appellate courts initially denied the exemption, holding she resided elsewhere, but the High Court reversed this finding upon discovering material misreading and ignoring of evidence regarding her twenty-five-year residence in Haripur. The Supreme Court examined the record and held that revisional interference is justified where there is a manifest misreading or total ignoring of material evidence by fact-finding courts. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Can revisional powers be exercised by the High Court to set aside concurrent findings of fact based on a misreading of evidence?
- Whether residence of the vendee for a significant duration in the town where the property is situated entitles her to exemption under Section 5(d) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act?
- ABDUL SALAM AND 4 OTHERS vs VETERINARY ASSISTANT, ANIMAL HOSPITAL, HAROONABAD AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 472 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SALAAM AND 2 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD RASHEED1983 CLC 1058 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SAEED AND ANOTHER vs KHALILURREHMAN 3 AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1481 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-04-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs VESSEL "MARIANNA N.L."1983 PLD Karachi 242 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs PARVEZ AHMED BUTT AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 1740 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a suit for a declaration and injunction against the Karachi Development Authority (KDA) regarding the cancellation of a layout plan and the subsequent demolition of the plaintiff's construction. The core legal question was whether the KDA’s unilateral withdrawal of the approved layout plan and the demolition of the plaintiff’s property, initiated upon the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, was legal and compliant with due process. The Court held that the KDA’s action was illegal and arbitrary because it was taken without serving a prior show-cause notice or affording the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard. The Court further determined that Section 69 of the Partnership Act 1932 did not bar the suit, as the litigation did not involve enforcing contractual rights against the firm or its members. The key principle laid down is that administrative authorities cannot cancel approved plans or demolish property based on allegations of misrepresentation without first providing the affected party a proper opportunity to defend their position and explain their title, in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Questions settled- Can a statutory authority cancel an approved layout plan without providing a show-cause notice to the affected party?
- Does Section 69 of the Partnership Act 1932 bar a suit that does not seek to enforce a contract against a firm or its members?
- Is an administrative action taken without an opportunity of hearing legally sustainable?
- ABDUL REHMAN vs NOOR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 2865 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Karachi 186 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN AND Others vs The STATE1983 SCMR 958 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns criminal appeals against convictions for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony of interested and inimical witnesses, who were found by the lower courts to have falsely implicated other co-accused, could safely form the basis of conviction for the remaining appellants without independent corroboration. The Supreme Court held that where prosecution witnesses are proven to have perjured themselves by falsely implicating certain individuals, their testimony becomes inherently unreliable and cannot be accepted against other accused persons without strong, independent corroboration. The Court observed that the lower courts erred by applying different standards of evidence and failing to recognize that the witnesses' established tendency to falsely implicate others undermined their entire credibility. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the inconsistencies regarding the time of the occurrence and the lack of credible evidence to support the prosecution's version of events.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of prosecution witnesses be relied upon for conviction if they are found to have falsely implicated other co-accused?
- Is independent corroboration required when ocular testimony is provided by inimical and interested witnesses?
- Does the false implication of some co-accused by prosecution witnesses render their entire testimony unreliable?
- ABDUL RAZZAQ vs The STATE1983 SCMR 408 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had set aside the petitioner's acquittal and convicted him under section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine for injuring the complainant. The core legal question concerns the effect of a written compromise between the parties in respect of a compoundable offence. The Supreme Court held that since the offence under section 325 is compoundable and the parties confirmed the written compromise in open court, the petition should be converted into an appeal and accepted. The court established the principle that a genuine compromise between the parties in a compoundable criminal offence warrants the setting aside of conviction and the acquittal of the accused.
Questions settled- Can a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal upon a compromise between the parties?
- What is the effect of a compromise between parties in a compoundable offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- ABDUL RAZZAQ vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAHAWALPUR AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 1009 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-06-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAQ vs PARVEEN AKHTAR1983 CLC 2799 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAK vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2056 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAK vs Mst. FARKHUNDA SULTANA1983 CLC 122 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAUF AND Another vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 19 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenged the conviction of the petitioners, a bus driver and conductor, for the possession of contraband goods under the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal question was whether the failure to serve a mandatory notice under Section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, upon the accused vitiated the entire trial. The Court held that the requirement of notice under Section 171 is mandatory and not merely a procedural irregularity curable under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court reasoned that the burden of proof regarding the nature of goods only shifts to the accused upon service of such notice; therefore, its absence constitutes a fundamental illegality that violates the constitutional guarantee of trial in accordance with law. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and appellate orders, granting the petitioners liberty while allowing Customs authorities the discretion to reinitiate proceedings following proper compliance with the statutory notice requirements. The judgment establishes that non-compliance with Section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, is an illegality that vitiates the trial.
Questions settled- Is the service of notice under Section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, mandatory for a valid trial?
- Does the failure to serve notice under Section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, constitute a curable irregularity under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the absence of a mandatory notice under the Customs Act, 1969, violate the constitutional guarantee of trial in accordance with law?
- ABDUL RASOOL AID Another vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 1021 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs The STATE1983 SCMR 409 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which maintained the petitioner's conviction under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The petitioner was originally convicted by the trial court under Section 10(3) of the same Ordinance for the abduction and rape of a minor. On appeal, the Federal Shariat Court, after examining additional court witnesses, altered the conviction to Section 10(2), finding the prosecutrix to be a consenting party, and reduced the sentence accordingly. The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing that the medical evidence lacked corroboration, the prosecutrix's testimony was unreliable, and the defense's counter-version regarding the prosecutrix's mental state and the payment of compensation was ignored. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Shariat Court had thoroughly analyzed the evidence, including the relationship between the parties and the lack of motive for false implication. Finding no violation of law or principle in the appreciation of evidence, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the lower court's factual findings were sound.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 when the prosecutrix is found to be a consenting party?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with the appreciation of evidence by the Federal Shariat Court if no principle of law has been violated?
- Is the testimony of a prosecutrix who is disbelieved on the issue of consent sufficient to support a conviction for Zina if corroborated by other evidence?
- ABDUL RASHID vs T1IE STATE1983 SCMR 934 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for committing zina-bil-jabr upon his own daughter. The trial court had sentenced him to 25 years rigorous imprisonment and 30 stripes of whipping, which was upheld by the Federal Shariat Court. The Supreme Court examined the record to determine if the findings of guilt regarding the incestuous act were correct. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting that the petitioner's act was abominable and fully justified the maximum punishment prescribed by law. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Questions settled- Is the maximum punishment under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 appropriate for the offence of zina-bil-jabr committed against one's own daughter?
- Does the Supreme Court have grounds to interfere with concurrent findings of guilt in a zina-bil-jabr case where the lower courts have properly evaluated the evidence?
- ABDUL RASHID vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other1983 SCMR 1285 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing his constitutional petition, which challenged the deletion of a portion of a property transferred to him. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner could relitigate the ownership and transfer of a disputed portion of property that had already been conclusively settled by an earlier administrative order in 1962, which the petitioner failed to challenge. The Supreme Court held that the unchalleged order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 14th April 1962 was binding on the parties, and the petitioner could not reopen a concluded controversy through collateral proceedings such as the apportionment of rent or revaluation. The key principle laid down is that final administrative orders regarding property transfers that are left unchallenged become binding, and parties cannot bypass them to re-agitate settled property rights.
Questions settled- Whether an unchallenged administrative order regarding property transfer binds the parties to subsequent proceedings?
- Can a party reopen a concluded property dispute by raising incidental matters such as the apportionment of rent?
- Does a person not party to an initial round of litigation retain the right to challenge a settled property apportionment if an intervening final order covers the property?
- ABDUL RASHID vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, SARGODHA AND 3 OTHERSs1983 CLC 198 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs MUHAMMAD ZAKARIA KHAN1983 CLC 1304 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs MUHAMMAD JAVED1983 SCMR 685 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from pre-emption suits filed by the appellant, Abdul Rashid, seeking to pre-empt land purchased by the respondent, Muhammad Javed. The trial court dismissed the suits, holding that the plaintiff was estopped from suing due to his participation in the transaction and acquiescence. The District Judge allowed the plaintiff's appeals, reversing the trial court's findings. However, the Peshawar High Court in Regular Second Appeals restored the trial court's judgment and decrees. The core legal question examined by this Court was whether the High Court was justified in reversing the finding of fact of the District Judge and whether the plaintiff's conduct amounted to waiver or estoppel precluding his right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the High Court did not misread the evidence and that the plaintiff's positive acts—such as being present at the transaction and counting the sale money—amounted to acquiescence and waiver, thereby estopping him from enforcing his right of pre-emption. The key principle laid down is that active participation and positive conduct in a sale transaction by a pre-emptor constitutes waiver and estops him from subsequently bringing a pre-emption suit.
Questions settled- Does active participation and presence at a sale transaction estop a pre-emptor from filing a pre-emption suit?
- Whether the High Court can interfere with findings of fact when evidence is not appreciated in its correct perspective by the first appellate court?
- Does counting the sale money and participating in negotiations amount to a waiver of the right of pre-emption?
- ABDUL RASHID vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, LAHORE REGION, LAHORE AND OTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 929 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-06-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 42 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous petition seeks the quashment of proceedings pending before a Magistrate under Section 447 of the Pakistan Penal Code relating to a property dispute over a plot of land. The core legal question is whether a mere civil dispute regarding immovable property and taking possession in the absence of the owner, without the specific statutory ingredients of criminal trespass including the requisite intent to intimidate, insult, or annoy a person in possession, constitutes an offence under Section 447 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Sindh High Court held that mere civil trespass or taking possession without the specific intent required under Section 441 of the Pakistan Penal Code does not amount to criminal trespass, especially where the dispute is civil in nature and subject to pending civil litigation. The Court laid down that to sustain a charge of criminal trespass, the prosecution must specifically state the intent and name the person intimidated, insulted, or annoyed, and that continuing criminal proceedings over a bona fide civil property dispute constitutes an abuse of the process of the court.
Questions settled- Does a mere civil trespass or taking possession of property without consent amount to criminal trespass under Section 447 of the Pakistan Penal Code without proof of specific intent to intimidate, insult, or annoy?
- Can criminal proceedings under Section 447 of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained when the underlying dispute is essentially of a civil nature concerning immovable property?
- Is it mandatory for a charge of criminal trespass to specifically state the intent with which the entry was made and name the person allegedly intimidated, insulted, or annoyed?
- ABDUL RASHID AND 2 OTHERS vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND 21983 CLC 1733 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID AND 2 OTHERS vs Mst. ZEENAT SULTANA AND 8 OTHERS1983 CLC 1926 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHEED vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 105 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHEED Alias SHEEDU vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1091 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHMAN vs THE STATE AND 18 OTHERS-1983 P Cr. L J 484 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHMAN vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD1983 CLC 2174 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHIM vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2345 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHIM vs ABDUL RAUF AND ANOTHER1983 P Cr. L J 1390 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHIM AND Another vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND Another1983 SCMR 384 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their Regular Second Appeal, which affirmed a decree declaring the respondents as rightful heirs to property previously held by Mst. Aisha. The dispute originated from a 1929 gift by one Boota, who granted Mst. Aisha a life interest in the property, conditional upon her lifetime or remarriage. Upon Mst. Aisha's death in 1970, the petitioners claimed absolute ownership, while the respondents, successors to Boota's sons, asserted their right to inherit under Shariat law. The core legal question was whether the 1929 gift created an absolute interest or a limited life estate, and whether the respondents' suit for declaration was maintainable and within limitation. The Supreme Court held that the gift was validly restricted to a life interest or until remarriage, as such conditions were not violative of the law then in force. Consequently, the property devolved according to Shariat upon the termination of the limited estate. The Court affirmed that co-sharers could seek declaratory relief and that the cause of action arose upon the death of the life tenant in 1970.
Questions settled- Can a gift of property be validly restricted to a life interest or until remarriage under the law applicable in 1929?
- Does the cause of action for a suit regarding property held under a life estate arise upon the death of the life tenant?
- Are co-sharers entitled to seek a declaratory relief in respect of joint land held by a life tenant after the termination of that estate?
- ABDUL RAHIM 4 AND OTHERS vs PROVINCE OF SIND 3 AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1478 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAB SHAJI vs AFTAB AHMAD HASHIM Opponent1983 CLC 2660 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAB AND Others vs THE ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, A. D.1983 SCMR 1090 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of their writ petition by the High Court in a land settlement matter. The petitioners had initially filed a mukhbari application against a deceased individual, Hassan A.I., who had died nearly 15 years prior. After the repeal of the relevant settlement law, they attempted to bring the legal representatives of the deceased onto the record. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners raised two new arguments: that a separate application had been filed against the sons of the deceased, and that impleading a specific person in a mukhbari application was unnecessary provided the challenged allotment was sufficiently identified. The Supreme Court observed that neither of these points had been pressed before the High Court. Holding that it was not a fit case to grant leave to appeal by allowing the petitioners to urge new points for the first time, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner urge new points before the Supreme Court for the grant of leave to appeal if those points were not pressed before the High Court?
- Can a mukhbari application under land settlement laws proceed validly when filed against a deceased person?
- ABDUL QAYYUM vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1983 PLC (C. S.) 948 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QAYYUM CHAUDHARI vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 1209 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABDUL QADIR vs Mst. PARVEEN AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 1451 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QADIR KHAN vs CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER, TARBELA DAM (T. J.V.) AND OTHERS1983 P L C407 · Labour CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDUL NAEEM vs GHULAM MOINUDDIN1983 CLC 925 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MUQTADIR KHAN vs COLLECTOR AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, D. I.1983 CLC 1842 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-04-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MALIK ETC. vs Sh. AKHTAR ALI ETC---1983 P Cr. L J 1413 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MALIK AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2225 · Lahore High Court · 1975-07-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 89 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, ISLAMABAD1983 PLC (C. S.) 1257 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-07-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs MAHMOOD AHMAD QURESHI AND Other1983 SCMR 381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed his constitutional petition regarding the transfer of a small plot of land. The petitioner claimed entitlement to the plot under Settlement Scheme No. VIII, alleging he had raised construction on the property. However, the Settlement authority rejected his claim, finding that at the time of transfer to the respondent, the petitioner was neither in possession of the property nor had he raised any construction. The High Court upheld this decision, declining to interfere with the Settlement authority's findings of fact. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner attempted to re-argue these factual findings by referencing subordinate reports and receipts. The Supreme Court held that it could not engage in the reappraisal of factual findings already determined by the competent tribunal, especially where the High Court had correctly declined to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court affirmed that it would not disturb findings of fact based on spot inspections and the historical record of the case. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with findings of fact recorded by a settlement authority in a constitutional petition?
- Is the High Court empowered to reappraise evidence regarding possession and construction in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when the underlying dispute rests solely on factual findings made by a competent tribunal?
- ABDUL MAJID vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 649 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs ANWAR ALI1983 CLC 2511 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from an order of the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, which set aside the Rent Controller's dismissal of an ejectment application and ordered the tenant's eviction. The respondent-landlord sought ejectment under Section 13(3)(ii) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 on the ground of personal requirement for business after retirement. The Rent Controller had dismissed the application, finding the landlord's claim lacked bona fides because he had previously vacated and re-rented another property instead of using it. The core legal question concerns whether the landlord established bona fide personal need and satisfied the statutory requirements regarding not vacating another suitable building without sufficient cause. The Lahore High Court held that the landlord failed to plead and prove essential statutory prerequisites, specifically omitting required assertions in his application regarding the suitability of other properties and failing to show sufficient cause for previously vacating a similar building. The court established that a landlord seeking ejectment for personal use must affirmatively prove good faith and non-occupation of another suitable building in the same urban area.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord seeking ejectment on grounds of personal requirement must plead and prove that he does not occupy another suitable building in the same urban area?
- Is it incumbent upon the landlord to establish sufficient cause for vacating another building after the commencement of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Does the omission in the ejectment application regarding the non-suitability of other owned premises affect the bona fides of the landlord's claim?
- ABDUL MAJID vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHIWAL AND Other1983 SCMR 374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an ejectment petition filed against tenants on grounds of rent default and personal need. The core legal question was whether the appellate authority, upon remand, correctly adjudicated all issues, specifically the landlord's personal need, in compliance with the remand order. The Rent Controller had initially decided the personal need issue, but a subsequent appellate remand order explicitly directed a fresh decision on both preliminary issues and the merits regarding personal need. Upon the second appeal, the Appellate Court reversed the Rent Controller's finding on the notice issue but failed to re-adjudicate the personal need issue, relying instead on the original, pre-remand finding. The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Court erred by failing to comply with the remand order's mandate to decide the merits afresh. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's dismissal and the Appellate Court's order, remanding the case for a fresh determination of the landlord's bona fide personal need, ensuring that all issues are properly adjudicated based on the evidence on record.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court is bound to decide all issues on merits when a remand order explicitly directs a fresh decision on those issues?
- Can an appellate court rely on a pre-remand finding regarding personal need when the remand order mandated a fresh adjudication of that issue?
- Does a failure to decide a material issue on merits as directed by a remand order vitiate the appellate judgment?
- ABDUL MAJID KHAN vs SULTAN JEHAN BEGUM1983 CLC 2485 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID DOGAR vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1983 PLC (C. S.) 754 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-06-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD1983 CLC 577 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID AND Another vs The STATE1983 SCMR 310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave of the court arises from the conviction of the appellants for murder under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in life imprisonment and compensation orders by the High Court. The core legal question concerned the effect of unexplained injuries on the accused persons and whether an unsuccessful plea of self-defence precludes the accused from receiving the benefit of reasonable doubts arising from prosecution omissions. The Supreme Court held that even if the defence fails to fully establish a plea of self-defence under section 105 of the Evidence Act 1872, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubts and gaps in the prosecution case where prosecution witnesses failed to explain injuries sustained by the appellants during the occurrence. The ratio decidendi established is that where the prosecution suppresses the origin of injuries on the accused and reasonable possibilities of self-defence emerge from the record, the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, warranting an acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether an accused person is entitled to the benefit of self-defence when the defence fails to fully establish the plea under section 105 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Can the prosecution secure a conviction when it fails to explain the fire-arm injuries sustained by the accused during the same occurrence?
- Does a reasonable possibility of self-defence arising from the prosecution's own omissions react on the entire prosecution case to warrant an acquittal?
- ABDUL MAJEED vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 285 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJEED vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB1983 SCMR 726 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, who is in cultivating possession of Government land, sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order refusing a temporary injunction pending his civil suit against the offer of the land on tender to the highest bidder. The petitioner claimed entitlement to allotment under instructions of the Board of Revenue. The lower courts and the High Court concurrenty found no prima facie case in his favour, noting he was ineligible as he already held over 106 kanals of land under another scheme, and that the instructions constituted an enabling discretionary power rather than a mandatory command. The Supreme Court held that questions of fact regarding land holdings cannot be tentatively determined by the Court against concurrent findings of three courts, and that the Board of Revenue instructions merely confer a discretionary power rather than an absolute right to allotment. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, establishing that discretionary administrative instructions do not create an enforceable right to allotment for sub-tenants.
Questions settled- Whether instructions of the Board of Revenue create an enforceable right of allotment for sub-tenants?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding land eligibility for the purpose of granting interim relief?
- Does an enabling provision in administrative instructions amount to a mandatory command for making allotments?
- ABDUL MAJEED vs KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND 4 OTHERS1983 PLC 557 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →