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.
- ABDUL MAJEED vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2970 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJEED KHAN vs ABDULLAH AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 398 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF vs MUHAMMAD ZAMAN AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLD Peshawar 225 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF vs Mst. BILQUEES BEGUM AND ANOTHER1983 P Cr. L J 1451 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF vs AKHTO AND OTHERS1983 CLC 3156 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-12-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF vs ABDUS SAMAD AND OTHERS1983 PLD Supreme Court 390 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the High Court's acquittal of three respondents in a murder case involving a long-standing land dispute. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence regarding the nature of the confrontation and the criminal liability of the respondents. The Supreme Court observed that both parties had actively armed themselves and prepared for conflict after an initial encounter, creating a 'free and planned fight.' The Court held that the High Court failed to correctly apply the law regarding free fights, where the court must draw inferences from the circumstances despite the parties' failure to provide a truthful account. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the acquittal of the primary respondent, Abdus Samad, convicting him under Section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, while maintaining the acquittal of the other respondents due to insufficient corroborative evidence. The judgment reinforces the principle that in free fights, participants are liable for their specific acts regardless of who fired first.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of free fight apply when both parties arm themselves and engage in a conflict over disputed land?
- Is a court permitted to draw inferences from evidence in a free fight case even when the parties suppress the truth?
- Can an appellate court convict an accused for culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on evidence of a free fight despite a High Court acquittal?
- ABDUL LATIF vs ABDUL WAHID1983 CLC 2824 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQ vs HAM AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Lahore 445 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Execution Second Appeal concerns the scope of an executing court's authority when faced with a decree that appears inconsistent with the trial court's findings. The appellant sought execution of a money decree against all defendants, including respondents who were initially considered 'pro forma' defendants by the trial court. The executing court and the first appellate court refused execution, reasoning that the trial court had found no cause of action against the respondents. The core legal question was whether an executing court can look behind an unambiguous decree to refuse execution based on perceived errors or contradictory findings in the underlying judgment. The High Court held that an executing court cannot go behind a decree, even if it is erroneous. The court emphasized that the decree itself, not the underlying findings, is the operative document to be executed. Once a decree attains finality, the executing court is bound to execute it as it stands, provided it is unambiguous. The principle laid down is that an executing court lacks the jurisdiction to rectify mistakes in a decree or refuse execution on the basis of findings that contradict the final decree.
Questions settled- Can an executing court go behind a decree to refuse execution based on findings in the judgment?
- Is an executing court permitted to rectify mistakes in a decree?
- Does a finding in a judgment that contradicts the final decree allow an executing court to decline execution?
- ABDUL KHALIQ AND 2 Other vs PAKISTN RAILWAYS1983 PLC 316 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM vs HOSHIAR KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 1450 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the order of the District Judge, Sialkot, dated 6th March 1982, which accepted an appeal against the dismissal of a pre-emption suit and remanded the matter for a fresh trial. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the trial court disposing of the suit on a single preliminary issue without recording the contesting defendants' complete evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court's procedure of non-suiting the plaintiff prematurely without allowing parties to adduce full evidence was illegal and improper under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, thereby upholding the lower appellate court's remand order. The key principle laid down is that a civil court must not dispose of a suit on a piecemeal basis or solitary issue before the parties have been afforded a full and fair opportunity to lead their complete evidence on all framed issues.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court can dispose of a civil suit on a single issue before the parties have adduced their complete evidence?
- Is an appellate court justified in setting aside a judgment and remanding the case for a fresh trial when the trial court adopted an improper procedure?
- Can a pre-emption suit be decided without recording the contesting defendant's evidence?
- ABDUL KARIM vs CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (PARKS & WILDLIFE),1983 PLC (C. S.) 316 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-07-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM JAFFRANI vs UNITED BANK LTD. AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 3130 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM AND Others vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND Another1983 SCMR 153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing in limine the writ petition filed by the petitioners. The petitioners, tenants of State land occupying approximately 11 to 12 acres each, were granted proprietary rights up to 8 acres each by the Collector, while the remaining excess area was not allotted to them. Their subsequent application to the Board of Revenue for the sale of the excess area was rejected because the excess area exceeded 10% of the prescribed limit under government instructions. The High Court dismissed their writ petition, noting that the original order of the Collector had not been challenged before the revenue authorities and that they were unauthorized occupants of the excess land. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court found the order of the revenue authorities just and fair, as the petitioners had already received 8 acres of land and the excess land had been allotted to others. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal and refused to interfere, resulting in the dismissal of the petition.
Questions settled- Can a writ petition be maintained against an order of the Board of Revenue when the primary order of the Collector was never challenged before the revenue authorities?
- Are tenants of State land entitled to purchase excess area exceeding ten percent of the prescribed limit at the average market price under government instructions?
- Does unauthorized and illegal occupation of land confer any right to demand transfer of proprietary rights?
- ABDUL KADER/Tenant vs Saiyid IRTIZA HUSSAIN/Landlord1983 CLC 1754 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KABIR vs D. I.-G. POLICE, PESHAWAR RANGE AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 90 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1982-04-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JALIL KHAN AND ANOTHER vs KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS1983 PLC 891 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JABBAR AND OTHERS vs The STATE1983 SCMR 1191 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which refused bail to the petitioners in a criminal case registered under sections 307, 326, 324/149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners, charged with attacking the complainant and others with firearms and weapons, sought bail on the grounds of inordinate delay. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioners had improperly approached the High Court for bail while a petition for leave to appeal regarding the same matter was already pending before the Supreme Court. The Court held that such conduct was highly improper and that there was no compelling reason to justify the petitioners' actions. Furthermore, the Court found that the ground of delay was not applicable in the circumstances. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's refusal of bail, emphasizing that the petitioners' conduct and the prior dismissal of their earlier petition by the Supreme Court precluded the grant of relief. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Is it permissible for a petitioner to approach the High Court for bail while a petition for leave to appeal regarding the same matter is pending before the Supreme Court?
- Does the ground of inordinate delay justify the grant of bail when the petitioner's conduct in seeking relief is found to be improper?
- ABDUL JABBAR AMIN vs MESSRS SIEGFRIED BEACON (PAKISTAN) LTD.1983 PLC 1078 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HUSSAIN BALOCH vs PRINCIPAL, CHANDKA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND Othfrss1983 SCMR 149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had challenged the acquisition of land for the Chandka Medical College. The core legal question was whether an Additional Commissioner is competent to issue a notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, and whether the invocation of urgency provisions under section 17 was valid. The Supreme Court held that under section 2(17) of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act 1956, the term 'Commissioner' includes an Additional Commissioner, thereby validating the notification. Furthermore, the Court declined to examine the question of urgency as no factual foundation had been laid in the writ petition. The key principle laid down is that an Additional Commissioner can validly perform the functions of a Commissioner under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 by virtue of the extended definition provided in the General Clauses Act, unless excluded by context.
Questions settled- Does the term Commissioner under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 include an Additional Commissioner?
- Can an Additional Commissioner issue a notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Is the invocation of urgency under section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 open to challenge without proper factual foundation in the pleadings?
- ABDUL HAY UZ ZAFAR vs THE STATE- Respondent1983 P Cr. L J 2010 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused public servant charged under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged misappropriation of government funds. The core legal questions were whether the large amount involved and the potential for life imprisonment under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 necessitated the refusal of bail, and whether the ongoing investigation, specifically the pending handwriting expert report, justified continued incarceration. The Court held that the mere magnitude of the misappropriated amount is not sufficient grounds to refuse bail, particularly when the investigation is substantially complete and the evidence is documentary, rendering tampering unlikely. The Court further clarified that the prohibitory clause of Section 497 does not mandate refusal of bail based solely on the maximum potential sentence; rather, the Court must consider the punishment likely to be awarded in the specific circumstances. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, provided there is no risk of abscondence or evidence tampering.
Questions settled- Does the magnitude of the amount involved in a criminal case automatically preclude the grant of bail?
- Is the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 triggered solely by the maximum sentence provided by law?
- Should a court consider the likely punishment to be awarded rather than the maximum sentence when applying the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- ABDUL HAQ vs THE STATE1983 PCr. L J 1610 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAQ vs MESSRS DIWAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD.1983 PLC 528 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-10-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1435 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID vs THE DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS), DASKA, DISTRICT SIALKOT AND 4 OTHERS1983 CLC 1492 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-27Read full judgment →
- ARIF vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1943 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID vs MRS. PARVIN FAREDOON AND 8 OTHERS1983 PLD Karachi 168 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second rent appeal arises from an order of the first appellate authority setting aside the Rent Controller's ejectment order against the respondents on grounds of subletting and unauthorized construction. The core legal questions involve the maintainability of a second rent appeal following the enactment of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and whether the first appellate authority correctly reversed the finding of subletting based on the evidence. The court held that the right to a second appeal in pending matters was saved under Section 27(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and that the appellate authority's reversal of the finding of unauthorized subletting was based on a misreading of evidence and unsupported by the record. The key principles laid down are that a substantive right of appeal is not taken away without express words or necessary intendment, and a first appellate court's finding of fact that reverses the trial court without logical basis or due to a misreading of evidence is open to interference in second appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a second appeal is competent against an order passed in a first appeal under the repealed Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, after the enactment of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Does the mere unauthorized construction by a tenant constitute a valid ground for eviction under the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, without proof of material impairment to the value and utility of the premises?
- To what extent can a second appellate court interfere with a finding of fact reached by the first appellate authority that is at variance with the trial court's finding?
- Whether long-term occupation of a portion of the premises by a sub-tenant without explicit written permission suffices to establish the landlord's consent to subletting?
- ABDUL HAMID vs MRS. PARVIN FARDOON AND 5 OTHERS1983 PLD Karachi 181 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID vs CUSTODIAN AND Other1983 SCMR 783 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a writ petition filed in the High Court challenging the Custodian's order regarding the status of an evacuee property located in Hyderabad. The petitioner had applied for transfer of the property on a CH form, claiming tenancy under an evacuee. After his review application was dismissed by the Custodian following an inquiry, the petitioner filed a constitutional writ petition after a delay of nearly six years. The High Court dismissed the petition on grounds of laches and lack of merit. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that an order under Section 22 of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1957 remains inoperative without an accompanying restoration order under Section 23 of the same Act. The Supreme Court held that the absence of a Section 23 order does not invalidate an order passed under Section 22. Upholding the High Court's dismissal, the Court affirmed that the writ petition was barred by laches and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does the absence of an order under Section 23 of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1957 invalidate an order made under Section 22?
- Can a writ petition filed after an unexplained delay of six years be dismissed on the ground of laches?
- Is an order declared under Section 22 of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1957 inoperative until restoration of possession is ordered under Section 23?
- ABDUL HAMID vs ABDUL WAHEED AND OTHERS1983 CLC 3075 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of concurrent orders dismissing objections filed under Order XXI, rules 97, 99, and 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in execution proceedings relating to an ejectment order. The core legal question was whether objections under the Code of Civil Procedure are maintainable before a Rent Controller executing an ejectment order. The Lahore High Court held that following the amendment of Section 17 of the Rent Restriction Act by Ordinance IX of 1979, ejectment orders are executed by the Rent Controller as a special tribunal rather than a civil court. Consequently, the court ruled that objections filed under Order XXI, rules 97, 99, and 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 were incompetent before the Rent Controller. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Are objections under Order XXI, rules 97, 99, and 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 maintainable before a Rent Controller?
- Does a Rent Controller executing an ejectment order function as a civil court or a special tribunal?
- Whether a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is competent against the dismissal of execution objections by appellate authorities under the Rent laws?
- ABDUL HAMID vs ABDUL GHANI1983 CLC 1022 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID BABAR vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Peshawar 22 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-09-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2428 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1980-08-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID AND 3 Others vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND 2 Other1983SCMR760 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the inheritance and allotment of agricultural land originally held by a limited owner. The petitioners claimed entitlement as collaterals, having secured an inheritance mutation and subsequent land allotments. The contesting respondents later challenged these proceedings through time-barred appeals before the revenue and settlement authorities. The core legal questions involve the jurisdiction of the Additional Settlement Commissioner to entertain revision petitions following statutory omissions, the effect of limitation on belated challenges to long-settled mutations, and the independent application of mind by settlement authorities upon remand. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that substantial questions of law regarding jurisdiction and limitation were involved, and permitted the parties to proceed on the present record with liberty to file additional documents.
Questions settled- Whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner retains revisional jurisdiction after the omission of Section 19(3) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement Act, 1958)?
- Does a belated and time-barred appeal against a long-settled mutation remain maintainable before settlement authorities?
- Whether an order passed by a settlement authority without independent application of mind upon remand is vitiated in law?
- ABDUL HAMID AND 2 Others vs ABDUL AZIZ1983 P Cr. L J 2241 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED vs THE STATE1983 PLD Supreme Court 130 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED vs Mian MUHAMMAD AKHTAR AND OTHERS1983 CLC 595 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED vs ABDUL RASHEED1983 CLC 2805 · Lahore High Court · 1969-06-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED AND Others vs IMAM DIN AND Other1983SCMR611 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a contempt application filed under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Part V, Order XXVII, rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, alleging non-compliance with a Supreme Court order dated 4-1-1979. The core legal question concerned the enforcement and quantification of mesne profits that the respondents had undertaken to pay as a condition for a temporary injunction protecting their possession during the pendency of a civil petition for special leave to appeal, which was subsequently dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the respondents were bound by their consent and undertaking given to the court to pay mesne profits from the date of initial possession, and that the Assistant Commissioner/Collector erred in refusing jurisdiction. The Court directed the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Chunian, to determine and award the mesne profits in accordance with the prior order within three months, establishing that parties obtaining interim relief on specific undertakings cannot subsequently evade their liability or contest the execution of such terms.
Questions settled- Whether a party who obtained an interim injunction on an undertaking to pay mesne profits can subsequently challenge the enforcement of that liability?
- Does an Assistant Commissioner have jurisdiction to calculate and award mesne profits directed by the Supreme Court as a condition of a stay order?
- Can a demand for mesne profits ordered by the Supreme Court be avoided on the ground that a separate suit for declaration is pending?
- ABDUL HAM EED vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1950 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAKIM WARSI vs CHIEF EXECUTIVE, INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER1983 PLC 816 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-04-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAKEEM vs CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY_MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUEIL N. W. F. P. AND 45 OTHERS1983 PLD Peshawar 140 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAFIZ KHAN vs THE STATE AND ANOTHBRs1983 P Cr. L J 1078 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAFIZ KHAN AND ANOTHER vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KHUZDAR AND 41983 PLD Quetta 20 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-10-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAFEEZ vs The STATE1983 SCMR 1143 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the kidnapping of a minor girl. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the essential ingredients of Section 364-A, specifically whether the victim, who was under ten years old at the time of the offence, was kidnapped for the purpose of murder, grievous hurt, slavery, or lust. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that while the appellant did kidnap the child from lawful guardianship, the evidence did not support the specific aggravating circumstances required for a conviction under Section 364-A. The Court noted the child was not subjected to the harms enumerated in that section and that her family members appeared complicit in her employment as a child artist. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction under Section 364-A, substituting it with a conviction under Section 363 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and reduced the sentence to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, granting the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Does the kidnapping of a child under ten years old automatically constitute an offence under Section 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- What are the essential elements required to prove an offence under Section 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a conviction under Section 364-A be converted to one under Section 363 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the specific intent to harm or exploit is not proven?
- ABDUL HAFEEZ vs SIX MEMBERS, PRESIDING OFFICER, UNION COUNCIL No, 113, MULTAN AND 4 OTHERS1983 CLC 1525 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAFEEZ vs PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN AND 3 OTHERS1983 PLD Karachi 40 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAFEEZ vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AND Another1983 SCMR 566 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction because the petitioner had suppressed the material fact that he had already filed a civil suit regarding the same subject matter—his compulsory retirement from the Board of Secondary Education. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly dismissed the writ petition in limine due to the petitioner's failure to disclose the pending civil litigation and his pursuit of an alternative remedy. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had indeed suppressed a material fact in his writ petition. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that such suppression disentitles a petitioner from invoking the High Court's special discretionary jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that a petitioner who fails to disclose the existence of parallel proceedings or the pursuit of alternative remedies in a writ petition is not entitled to relief under the High Court's discretionary writ jurisdiction, as such suppression constitutes a valid ground for dismissal in limine.
Questions settled- Does the suppression of the fact that a civil suit has been filed regarding the same subject matter disentitle a petitioner from invoking the High Court's discretionary writ jurisdiction?
- Is a writ petition liable to be dismissed in limine if the petitioner fails to disclose that they have already availed of an alternative remedy?
- ABDUL HAD alias ABDUL HADI HASAN AND 2 OTHERSs vs Syed ALI HAIDER AND OTHERS1983 PLD Supreme Court 342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case arose from three petitions for leave to appeal filed by tenants occupying shops in a dilapidated hundred-year-old building, seeking to challenge eviction orders obtained by the landlord for the purpose of reconstruction. The landlord's sanctioned plan envisaged replacing the existing structure, which included ground-floor shops, entirely with a residential building. The primary legal question was whether a landlord is barred under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 from converting a non-residential building into a residential building upon reconstruction, given that the tenant's right to re-entry under Section 13(5-B) cannot be exercised if no shops exist in the new structure. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that Section 13(2)(vi) places no limitation on the type of new building to be constructed and no law prohibits converting a non-residential building to a residential one upon reconstruction. Harmoniously interpreting the provisions, the Court held that Section 13(5-B) applies only where the reconstructed building retains the character of the old building, and does not apply when non-residential property is converted into residential property.
Questions settled- Does Section 13(5-B) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 debar a landlord from converting a non-residential building into a residential building upon reconstruction?
- Whether the tenant's right to claim possession under Section 13(5-B) applies where a non-residential building is converted into a residential building after reconstruction?
- Can a landlord seek eviction for reconstruction under Section 13(2)(vi) if the sanctioned reconstruction plan does not contain corresponding commercial spaces for existing tenants?
- ABDUL GHANI vs THE STATE1983 P. Cr. LJ 2163 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs S. H. O., P. S. SADDAR, SHEIKHUPURA AND OTHERS -1983 P Cr. LJ 2172 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition sought a direction to the Station House Officer to register an FIR based on the petitioner's statement regarding the murder of his son. The core legal question was whether the police are legally obligated under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to register a separate FIR when a complainant presents a cross-version of an incident for which an FIR has already been registered by the opposing party. The Court held that the Station House Officer is under a statutory duty to record information regarding a cognizable offence. The existence of a prior FIR regarding the same occurrence does not empower the police to refuse the registration of a cross-version, as the two versions are distinct. The key principle laid down is that the police cannot refuse to register an FIR based on a cross-version of an incident; they must register the case and investigate. If the investigation subsequently reveals the information to be false or incorrect, the police may then proceed with the legal process for the cancellation of that FIR.
Questions settled- Is the police officer under a statutory duty to register an FIR upon receiving information about a cognizable offence even if an FIR for the same occurrence already exists?
- Can the police refuse to register a cross-version of an incident on the ground that an FIR has already been registered for the same occurrence?
- What is the appropriate legal remedy for the police if, after registering a cross-version FIR, the investigation reveals the information to be false?
- ABDUL GHANI vs REHMA1983 CLC 3090 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs BACHAL KHAN AND 6 OTHERS1983 P Cr. L J 886 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs ALI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 1982 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI AND 2 Other vs MESSRS M. M. ISPAHANI TBA PACKETING1983 PLC 789 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-08-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFUR AND 4 OTHERS vs Raja MUKHTAR ALI AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Lahore 103 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 327 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 139 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenged an order by the Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, which rejected the prosecution's application to produce certified copies of public documents during a murder trial. The trial court had refused the evidence on grounds of delay and the potential for filling lacunae in the prosecution's case. The core legal question was whether a trial court possesses the discretion under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to admit additional evidence at a late stage to ensure a just decision. The High Court held that the trial court erred in rejecting the evidence. The court affirmed that the primary objective of judicial proceedings is the discovery of truth and the attainment of a correct decision. It ruled that Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provides wide discretionary powers to receive evidence at any stage of a trial to secure the ends of justice. The court emphasized that such powers should be exercised to prevent technical omissions from obstructing justice, provided the accused is granted a full opportunity to challenge the veracity of the admitted evidence.
Questions settled- Does a trial court have the discretion under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to admit additional evidence at any stage of a trial?
- Is the rejection of evidence on the ground that it fills a lacuna in the prosecution case a valid exercise of judicial discretion?
- Can a court admit certified copies of public documents into evidence if the application is made after the commencement of the trial?
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 23 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-10-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, HOME1983 PLC (C. S.) 191 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-09-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ AND OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 383 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This common judgment disposes of multiple civil revisions, regular second appeals, and a writ petition challenging appellate judgments that dismissed appeals due to a lack of court-fees on memoranda of appeal or treated them as time-barred. The core legal question revolves around the interpretation of the Punjab Government's Notification dated February 4, 1980, issued under section 35 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, which remitted court-fees on civil and revenue suits where the value does not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees, and whether this remission extends to memoranda of appeal at all stages and in all courts. The court held that the language of the notification is broad and liberal, and when construed to fulfill its purpose and intent, it remits court-fees on all documents filed at every step of the litigation, including review, revision, and appellate stages, originating from civil suits. Consequently, the appellate judgments dismissing appeals for want of court-fees were set aside and the matters remanded for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Whether the Punjab Government Notification dated February 4, 1980, issued under section 35 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, remits court-fees on memoranda of appeal at the appellate stage?
- Does the term 'civil suits' and 'at all stages, in all Courts' in the notification cover proceedings in appeal and revision?
- Whether a suit includes an appeal for the purposes of court-fee exemptions under the Court Fees Act, 1870?
- Are appellate courts required to grant an opportunity to make good any deficiency in court-fees under section 28 of the Court Fees Act, 1870?
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1983 CLC 1026 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs CHAIRMAN, STATE CEMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN1983 P Cr. L J 1891 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR AND OTHERS vs LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, L. D. A. AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2652 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR vs Mst. AISHA BAI1983 CLC 1770 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-27Read full judgment →
- ABDUL BARI AND 5 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQ1983 CLC 2193 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2431 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs ALI MUHAMMAD1983 CLC 1224 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs ABDUL RAZZAK AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 1738 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ KHAN vs HABIB BANK LTD.1983 PLC 667 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ AND Others vs Mian RAFIUDDIN THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS1983 SCMR 928 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order that set aside a Magistrate's proceedings under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and remanded the matter to be treated as proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed the authority to convert proceedings between sections when the underlying dispute concerned possession, and whether the pendency of civil litigation ousted the Magistrate's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal. The Court held that the High Court is fully competent to apply the law correctly to the pleadings and material before it, and that a Magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 145 is not ousted by the mere pendency of a civil suit unless a decree or order regulating possession has been passed. Furthermore, the Court established that prolonged litigation does not automatically negate the apprehension of a breach of the peace, which remains a factual determination for the Magistrate.
Questions settled- Does the mere pendency of a civil suit oust a Magistrate's jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the High Court empowered to convert proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the passage of time during prolonged litigation automatically extinguish the apprehension of a breach of the peace necessary for Section 145 proceedings?
- ABDUL AZIZ AND 2 Others vs The STATE1983 SCMR 247 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellants for the murder of two individuals. The core legal question concerns the reliability of ocular testimony in a case where the FIR failed to name the accused, eye-witnesses were allegedly inimical, and significant investigative irregularities were present, including tampering with official records and unexplained delays in post-mortem examinations. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that when eye-witnesses are closely related to the deceased and have an existing enmity with the accused, their testimony requires strong, independent corroboration, which was absent here. Furthermore, the court found the investigation to be fundamentally flawed, noting evidence of tampering with the FIR and inquest reports to alter dates, and the failure of the prosecution to connect the appellants to the crime through forensic evidence, especially since the firearms recovered did not match the crime empties. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants.
Questions settled- Does the failure to name accused persons in the FIR, when they are known to the complainant, cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
- Is strong corroborative evidence required for the testimony of eye-witnesses who are closely related to the deceased and have an existing enmity with the accused?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the investigating officer is found to have tampered with official documents such as the FIR and inquest reports?
- Does the lack of forensic matching between recovered firearms and crime empties entitle the accused to an acquittal in a murder case?
- ABDUL AZIZ ABBASI vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, RAWALPINDI AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 2372 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-27Read full judgment →
- ABBASI TEXTILE MILLS LTD, vs SHADAB COMPANY AND OTHERS1983 CLC 916 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-28Read full judgment →
- ABBAS vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 87 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-14Read full judgment →
- ABBAS BHOY AND ANOTHER vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 2711 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-06Read full judgment →
- A. S. RIZVI vs PAKISTAN ETC.S1983 SCMR 368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which had dismissed his appeal regarding the computation of his pension emoluments. The petitioner, who retired as Deputy Secretary on deputation with the Board of Industrial Management, contended that his special pay and deputation pay should be included in his emoluments for pension calculation purposes. The respondents opposed the petition on the ground that deputation pay is not specifically declared as an emolument reckoning for pension under Paragraph 7(5) of the Civil Service Regulations, 1939. Furthermore, it was established that the special pay of Rs. 100 was not admissible for the deputation post and had subsequently been converted into deputation pay to avoid requiring a refund from the petitioner. The Supreme Court examined the definition of 'emoluments' under Paragraph 7(5) of the Civil Service Regulations, 1939 and the relevant rules, holding that deputation pay could not be counted toward pension calculations as it was not specifically declared as reckoning for pension.
Questions settled- Whether deputation pay falls within the definition of emoluments for the purpose of computing pension under Paragraph 7(5) of the Civil Service Regulations, 1939?
- Can special pay that was mistakenly granted contrary to rules and later converted into deputation pay be counted as an emolument reckoning for pension?
- What components constitute 'emoluments' for the purpose of calculating a civil servant's pension under the Civil Service Regulations, 1939?
- A. RAHIM ZUBAIRI AND ANOTHER vs NIZAMUDDIN AND 5 OTHERS1983 P Cr. L J 467 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-01Read full judgment →
- A. R. KHAN & SONS LTD. vs RICE EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN1983 PLC 483 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
- A. GHANI SAYEED vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1983S C M R 156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former Vice-President of the National Bank of Pakistan, sought leave to appeal against a Sind High Court judgment that dismissed his constitutional petition challenging his removal from service. The petitioner had been retired following an inquiry under the National Bank of Pakistan Staff Rules, 1980. The High Court had dismissed the petition in limine, holding that constitutional remedies were unavailable because the petitioner's employment was governed by internal bank regulations rather than statutory provisions. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that his employment was governed by statutory rules having the force of law, invoking Article 4 of the Constitution of 1973, and contended that nationalization of banks brought their functionaries under the affairs of the Federation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the case required a definitive ruling on whether the applicable service rules were statutory or non-statutory in character, and whether any non-compliance with such rules would entitle the petitioner to maintain a constitutional petition despite not holding a public or statutory office.
Questions settled- Are the service rules governing employees of the National Bank of Pakistan statutory or non-statutory in character?
- Does the non-compliance with statutory service rules entitle an employee, who does not hold a public or statutory office, to maintain a constitutional petition?
- Does the nationalization of banks render the service rules of bank employees statutory in nature?
- A. D. PARVEZ vs PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARIES, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION1983 SCMR 329 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment regarding the reversion of a civil servant from the post of Resident Director to Assistant Resident Director. The petitioner, an employee of the Pakistan National Centre (PNC), which became an attached department of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, argued that his reversion constituted a punishment under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, and was procedurally flawed. The core legal questions were whether the reversion amounted to a disciplinary punishment requiring adherence to the Efficiency and Discipline Rules and whether the petitioner’s initial promotion to Grade-18 was valid given the absence of formal service rules and the failure to utilize the established Selection Board. The Supreme Court held that the reversion was not a punishment but a necessary administrative adjustment due to the repatriation of a senior officer, as the petitioner was the junior-most Resident Director. Furthermore, the Court found the petitioner’s promotion irregular, noting it bypassed the Selection Board and violated service tenure requirements. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Questions settled- Does the reversion of a junior officer to accommodate a repatriated senior officer constitute a punishment under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Can a promotion be considered irregular if it bypasses an established Selection Board in the absence of formal service rules?
- Is a civil servant entitled to the protection of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, when the action taken against them is an administrative adjustment rather than a disciplinary measure?
- A. B. AWAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 23 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-06-13Read full judgment →
- (Auqaf and Settlement), Board of Revenue DARHOON vs AULADI AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Rev. 25 · Board of Revenue · 1983-01-28Read full judgment →
- (Auqaf and settlement) Board of Revenue COST MUHAMMAD vs ALLAHDAD1983 PLD Rev. 19 · Board of Revenue · 1982-12-17Read full judgment →
- .Department vs Assessee46 TAX 10 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1981-05-26Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR vs MADAD ALI AND ANOTHER1982 P Cr. L J 1264 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-14Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR ALI AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1153 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-13Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR AHMAD AND 5 Other vs THE STATE1982 PLD Lahore 373 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-02Read full judgment →
- ZOOR TALAB vs STAR. TEXTILE MILLS LTD.1982 PLC 96 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-05-17Read full judgment →
- ZILLADAR vs iALLAH BANDA AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1843 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-17Read full judgment →
- ZILLADAR vs ALLAH BANDA ANDOTHER1982 CLC 1843 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-17Read full judgment →
- ZIARAT KHAN vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1038 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
- ZIARAT GUL vs AHMAD KHAN AND Other1982 PLD Supreme Court 96 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by special leave arises out of a pre-emption suit concerning a parcel of land measuring about 11 marlas, which was decreed in favor of the plaintiff-respondent and upheld through the appellate stages. The core legal question was whether the vendee-appellant was entitled to the statutory exemption from pre-emption under section 5(c) of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act 1950, given that he owned a share in a residential house and previously purchased another plot of land which he occasionally used for agricultural purposes. The Supreme Court held that while the appellant's fractional ownership of a house within the permissible size limit did not disqualify him from claiming the exemption, his ownership of a previously purchased plot intended for construction constituted a "vacant site" under the statute, notwithstanding its subsequent temporary agricultural use. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the term "vacant site" in section 5(c) of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act 1950 refers to a plot intended for building a house upon which no structure has yet been raised, and its character is not altered by intervening agricultural use.
Questions settled- Does the ownership of a share in a house within the permissible size limit destroy the exemption from pre-emption under section 5(c) of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act 1950?
- What is the legal meaning of the term "vacant site" under section 5(c) of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act 1950?
- Does the temporary or intervening agricultural use of a plot previously purchased for building a house alter its character as a "vacant site" for the purposes of pre-emption exemption?
- Zia-Ur-Rehman And Other vs RAZIA BEGUM AND Other1982 PLD Lahore 459 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from a suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioner against the respondents regarding possession of land. Initially, the respondents contested the suit by filing a written statement, but later made statements before the trial court that they had no concern with the land and undertook never to interfere in the petitioner's possession. Relying on precedent, the trial court dismissed the suit as the apprehension of the petitioner was found to be conjectural, and the appellate court upheld this decision. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that since the defendants had not confessed judgment or stated they had no objection to the suit being decreed, dismissal was justified. The Court further clarified that an undertaking given before a court of law amounts to a stay order or injunction, and any breach thereof would attract legal consequences similar to the disobedience of a court injunction, protecting the petitioner from needing to file a fresh suit in case of future interference.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for permanent injunction should be decreed when defendants state they have no intention to interfere in the plaintiff's possession without confessing judgment?
- Does an undertaking given by a party before a court amount to an injunction or stay order?
- Can a plaintiff file a fresh suit if a defendant breaches an undertaking given before the court regarding possession?
- ZIA-UL-HASSAN SHAH vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 567 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1981-02-22Read full judgment →
- ZARWALI vs JUPITER TEXTILE MILLS LTD., HYDERABAD1982 PLC 490 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-12-01Read full judgment →
- ZARRIN GUL AND 2 OTHERS vs MESSRS SAIFULLAH INDUSTRIES1982 PLC 206 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-08-24Read full judgment →
- ZARNOOSH AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS GLOBE TEXTILE MILLS1982 PLC 510 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-12-16Read full judgment →
- ZARDAD KHAN AND 4 Other vs NORTH WEST FRONTIER PROVINCE AND 7 Arts1982 PLD Peshawar 69 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-12-06Read full judgment →
- ZAMIR HUSSAIN AND Others vs AQIL AND OTHERS1982 CLC 979 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1981-10-02Read full judgment →
- ZAMIR HUSSAIN AND Others vs AQIL AND OTHER1982 CLC 979 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1981-10-02Read full judgment →