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.
- ZAMINDARA COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, LTD., OKARA vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND 5 OTHERS1982 CLC 1276 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-15Read full judgment →
- ZAMINDARA COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, LTD., OKARA vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND 5 OTHER1982 CLC 1276 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-15Read full judgment →
- ZAKIR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER's vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 485 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-11Read full judgment →
- ZAKAUDDIN Alias BILLA vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL1982 SCMR 1197 (2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a tenant's second appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had affirmed concurrent eviction orders passed against the tenant on the ground of default in rent payment. During the proceedings before the Rent Controller, the tenant offered to be bound by a special oath taken by the landlord on the Holy Qur'an, under which the tenant agreed to immediate eviction if the landlord took the oath regarding the default and rent amount. Subsequently, the tenant sought to withdraw this offer through an application, which the Rent Controller rejected as mala fide, thereafter administering the oath and ordering eviction. The Supreme Court considered whether the tenant could unilaterally withdraw the oath offer and whether the Oaths Act applied to Rent Controller proceedings. The Court held that it is discretionary for the forum to permit or refuse the withdrawal of such an offer, and circumstances justified refusing it here. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that a Rent Controller is not bound by strict technical procedures of civil or criminal courts or the Oaths Act. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can a party unilaterally withdraw an offer to settle a case on a special oath after having made it?
- Is a Rent Controller bound by the technical procedures of the Oaths Act or the Code of Civil Procedure?
- Does a Rent Controller constitute a court strictly bound by formal procedural codes?
- ZAIN KHAN KHALIL AND 2 Other vs GOVERNMENT OF N. W. F. P. THROUGH CHIEF1982 PLD Supreme Court 104 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioners' appeal regarding the determination of their seniority. The petitioners were initially appointed as Lawyer Magistrates in the P.C.S. (Executive Branch) on temporary and ad hoc bases between May and June 1972, with express conditions that their service would not count towards seniority or regular appointment. Subsequently, on November 27, 1978, the Governor of N.-W.F.P. promulgated an amendment via notification under section 26 of the North-West Frontier Province Civil Servants Act, 1973, substituting rule 10 of the West Pakistan Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964, to regularize and absorb Lawyer Magistrates and assign them suitable seniority. The core legal question concerns the interpretation of rule 10 as to whether the petitioners' seniority should be reckoned from their initial temporary induction in 1972 or from their date of regular absorption. The Supreme Court held that the phrase prohibiting seniority earlier than the respective dates of appointment as Lawyer Magistrates referred to the date of regular absorption under the rule and not to prior temporary service. The petition was dismissed accordingly.
Questions settled- Whether temporary and ad hoc service rendered prior to regular absorption can be counted towards seniority under rule 10 of the West Pakistan Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964?
- Does rule 10 of the West Pakistan Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964 permit seniority to be dated back to the initial periodic induction of a civil servant?
- Are periodic ad hoc appointment terms and conditions considered unconscionable when they explicitly bar the accumulation of seniority?
- ZAHUR AHMAD vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1202 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1981-07-28Read full judgment →
- ZAHOORUL HASSAN vs RUQAYA BEGUM AND OTHER1982 CLC 351 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-15Read full judgment →
- ZAHOOR AHMAD vs MEHDI HASAN1982 CLC 623 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-17Read full judgment →
- ZAHIRUDDIN AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS ADAM SILK MILLS LTD.1982 PLC 927 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-07-22Read full judgment →
- ZAHID HUSSAIN vs SUPERINTENDENT, NEW CENTRAL JAIL, MULTAN AND OTHERSs1982 P Cr. L J 1235 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-04Read full judgment →
- ZAHID BASHIR vs Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM1982 CLC 1188 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-26Read full judgment →
- ZAHFRAN vs THE STATE-1982 P Cr. L J 58 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-06-23Read full judgment →
- ZAHEER UD DIN vs THE ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other1982 SCMR 925 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the order of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition seeking the transfer of an Ihata claimed to be part and parcel of a shop already transferred to him. The core legal question was whether the High Court could interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with a concurrent finding of fact rendered by the settlement authorities regarding the nature of the disputed property. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the finding of fact by the settlement department was unexceptionable, supported by cogent reasons, and did not suffer from any omission or misreading of the record, thereby warranting no interference under constitutional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact recorded by competent settlement authorities cannot be re-examined or interfered with by the High Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 unless tainted with misreading or omission.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with a finding of fact by settlement authorities in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is an Ihata considered part of a shop when determined as an independent unit by settlement authorities?
- ZAFARYAB ALI KHAN vs Mst. AFSAR BEGUM1982 CLC 422 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-31Read full judgment →
- ZAFARULLAH vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AND Another1982 SCMR 571 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition against the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education. The petitioner, having initially been declared successful in the Intermediate Examination, was subsequently issued a charge-sheet for using unfair means, specifically substituting answer books. A Special Disciplinary Committee disqualified the petitioner from the examination and barred him from appearing in the next three examinations. The petitioner contended that the Board lacked legal authority to recall the initially notified result and that the Committee was improperly constituted. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the Board possessed the legal competence to recall and amend results previously notified. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioner had been granted adequate opportunity to defend himself, having been confronted with the evidence and required to answer a questionnaire. Crucially, the Court held that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to grant relief under its constitutional jurisdiction because the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands. The petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Does a Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education have the legal authority to recall or amend a result once it has been notified in the Gazette?
- Can a High Court refuse to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution if the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands?
- Does the constitution of a three-member disciplinary committee instead of a two-member committee cause prejudice to a candidate if the procedure followed was otherwise fair?
- ZAFARUL HAQ ETC.s vs WARIS IQBAL ETC.1982 CLC 1649 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-23Read full judgment →
- ZAFARUL HAQ ETC. vs WARIS IQBAL ETC1982 CLC 1649 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-23Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR YASIN AND OTHERS vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, FINANCE1982 PLC (C. S.) 97 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- ZAFAR QURESHI AND Others vs Khawaja MAQSOODUL HASSAN ETC.S1982 SCMR 392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a rent dispute where the petitioners, tenants of the respondent, challenged the dismissal of their Second Appeal from Order (S.A.O.) by the High Court. The core legal question concerned whether the Rent Controller correctly struck off the petitioners' defence due to their failure to comply with an order under Section 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance regarding the timely deposit of monthly rent. The Rent Controller had found that the petitioners defaulted on rent payments for two specific months, April 1974 and October 1974. The Supreme Court examined the petitioners' contention that they were denied sufficient opportunity to prove compliance and that the delay for one month was negligible. The Court upheld the Rent Controller's findings, concluding that a default had indeed occurred. Regarding the delay, the Court held that the Rent Controller exercised valid discretion in striking off the defence, noting that the delay was not merely one day when considering the grace period provided. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Does a Rent Controller have the discretion to strike off a tenant's defence upon finding a default in the deposit of monthly rent?
- Can a tenant claim that a delay in rent deposit was negligible when the Rent Controller has already determined a default occurred?
- Is a finding of fact by a Rent Controller regarding rent default subject to interference when the tenant fails to demonstrate compliance with deposit orders?
- ZAFAR MAHMOOD AND ANOTHER vs PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY, RASOOL AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1562 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-27Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR IQBAL vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1195 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-11Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR IQBAL vs KARACHI SHIPYARD & ENGINEERING WORKS LTD.1982 PLC 329 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-11-30Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR HUSSAIN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 760 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-21Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR HUSSAIN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER,1982 CLC 760 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-21Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR ALI vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1209 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR AHMED AND Another vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN1982 PLD Karachi 451 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-31Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR AHMAD vs BEGUM AMIR AHMAD KHAN AND 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 785 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-25Read full judgment →
- Z. A. WASTI vs POST MASTER GENERAL, SOUTHERN CIRCLE AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 575 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-31Read full judgment →
- YOUNUS vs MRS.HAMEEDA1982 CLC 580 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from rent proceedings where the appellants challenged an ejectment order passed in favor of the respondent-widow under section 14 of the relevant rent restriction law, on the grounds that the ejectment application was filed before the expiry of the statutory two months' notice period. The core legal question was whether filing an ejectment petition prematurely before the expiry of the notice period under section 14 renders the proceedings incompetent, or if the defect is cured when the cause of action matures during the pendency of the proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that although the petition was filed prematurely, the cause of action matured during the pendency of the proceedings before the ejectment order was passed, and technical objections regarding notice cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage without showing material prejudice. The court laid down the principle that the requirement of substantial compliance applies to summary ejectment provisions for special categories of landlords, and courts may take note of events occurring during proceedings to mould relief and prevent multiplicity of litigation.
Questions settled- Does filing an ejectment application before the expiry of the statutory two months' notice period under section 14 invalidate the proceedings if the cause of action matures during their pendency?
- Can a tenant raise an objection as to the validity of a statutory notice for the first time at the appellate stage?
- Is a landlord seeking ejectment under section 14 required to prove good faith in addition to personal requirement?
- YOUNUS MASIH vs DIVISIONAL SUPEIUNTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS1982 PLC 94 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
- YAQOOB vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1311 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-27Read full judgment →
- YAQOOB AND Others vs AMIR HUSSAIN1982 SCMR 777 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the successors-in-interest of a mortgagee against the mortgagor's successors. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the right of redemption for the 1914 mortgage had expired due to the passage of sixty years, thereby extinguishing the defendants' rights and confirming the plaintiffs' ownership. The trial court, the first appellate court, and the High Court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiffs failed to produce the mortgage deed to establish when the right to redeem accrued. The Supreme Court examined whether the limitation period under the Limitation Act 1908 had expired. The Court held that the burden of proof rested on the plaintiffs to establish their plea by producing the best evidence, specifically the mortgage deed. In the absence of this deed, the Court could not determine the accrual of the right to redeem. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, ruling that adverse presumptions arise against a party withholding primary evidence, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does the failure to produce a mortgage deed prevent a court from determining if the right to redeem has become time-barred?
- Can a court draw adverse presumptions against a party who withholds the primary evidence necessary to prove their own case?
- Is the burden of proof on the plaintiff to produce the mortgage deed when asserting that the defendant's right to redeem has been extinguished by efflux of time?
- Y COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs Smt. P.K. KOCHAMMU AMMA, PEROKE46 TAX 176 · Supreme Court of India · 1980-09-22Read full judgment →
- XEN HIGHWAY DIVISION No, II. LARKANA AND ANOTHER vs MANZOOR AHMED1982 PLC 1037 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
- WILAYAT KHAN vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 301 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- WEST PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND 2 Others1982 SCMR 1167 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 29-R of 1981 and Civil Appeal No. 272 of 1979 involving the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority. The core legal question addressed was the determination of the appropriate price per kanal for land acquisition or compensation, which was the subject of the impugned orders. Upon preliminary hearing and discussion, the parties reached a mutual agreement to resolve the dispute. The Court accepted this consensus, holding that the impugned orders should be maintained in their entirety, with the sole modification that the price be adjusted from Rs. 4,000 per kanal to Rs. 3,000 per kanal. Consequently, the Court disposed of the pending application and appeal in accordance with the terms of this agreement, with no order as to costs. This judgment establishes the principle that where parties reach a settlement during appellate proceedings, the Court may dispose of the matter by incorporating the agreed-upon terms into its final order, thereby modifying the impugned decision to reflect the mutual consensus of the litigants.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court dispose of an appeal based on a mutual agreement reached between the parties during the hearing?
- Is a court empowered to modify the price determined in an impugned order if the parties agree to such a change?
- WELFARE UNION (C.B.A.) vs MESSRS PRINCE GLASS WORKS LTD.1982 PLC 660 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-11-03Read full judgment →
- WAZIR vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 739 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-11Read full judgment →
- WAZIR MUHAMMAD ETC. vs ABDUL AZIZ AND Another1982 SCMR 189 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the petitioners (defendant-vendees) challenged the lower courts' concurrent findings in favor of the plaintiffs. The core legal questions concerned whether the trial court correctly dismissed the suit based on the omission of certain Khasra numbers in the plaint, and whether the court could dismiss the suit on the ground of a violation of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 without such a plea being raised in the pleadings. The Supreme Court upheld the lower appellate court's decision, affirming that the omission of specific Khasra numbers in the plaint was a clerical error that did not constitute partial pre-emption, as the property was otherwise correctly identified. Furthermore, the Court held that a court cannot base a decision on a factual ground, such as an alleged violation of a regulation, that was neither pleaded nor proven by the parties. The principle established is that a party cannot secure a judgment on a factual issue that was not formally raised in the pleadings or subjected to inquiry.
Questions settled- Can a court dismiss a suit based on a factual ground that was never raised in the pleadings or issues?
- Does the omission of specific Khasra numbers in a plaint, where the property is otherwise correctly identified, constitute partial pre-emption?
- Is a sale of land indivisible when the sale consideration is a single lump sum?
- WAZIR MUHAMMAD ALI vs ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, KASHMIR AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN AFFAIRS DIVISION AND 2 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 698 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- WAZIR KHAN Etc. (LEGAL REPRBSBNTRATIVE OF KOHLI) vs BUDH SINGH Etc1982 CLC 74 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-21Read full judgment →
- WAZI R vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 81 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-30Read full judgment →
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs WAZIR MUHAMMAD AND 31982 CLC 2238 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-01Read full judgment →
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL1982 PLC 461 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-30Read full judgment →
- WASSAYO AND 3 Others vs THE STATE-Opponent1982 P Cr. L J 97 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-28Read full judgment →
- WASI AHMED RIZVI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1982 PLD Supreme Court 20 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a decision of the Shariat Bench of the High Court, which dismissed a petition seeking to declare the judicial doctrines of laches and res judicata repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The core legal question was whether these doctrines constitute 'law' subject to the jurisdiction of the Shariat Benches or whether they are excluded as matters of court procedure under Article 203-B of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the doctrines of laches and res judicata are essentially procedural in nature. The Court affirmed that the definition of 'law' in the Constitution expressly excludes any law relating to the procedure of any court or tribunal. Consequently, because these doctrines govern the conduct of litigation and the exercise of discretionary relief, they fall within the exclusion clause and are immune from challenge in the Shariat Benches. The principle established is that judicial usages and doctrines pertaining to court procedure are not subject to the repugnancy jurisdiction conferred upon the Shariat Benches by the Constitution.
Questions settled- Are the judicial doctrines of laches and res judicata subject to the jurisdiction of the Shariat Benches?
- Does the exclusion of laws relating to the procedure of any court or tribunal in Article 203-B of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 encompass the doctrines of laches and res judicata?
- Is the law of limitation considered procedural and thus protected from challenge under Article 203-B of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- WARYAM AKHTAR vs CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AND 5 Other1982 SCMR 942 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had challenged the cancellation of the authorization of a ration depot held by the petitioner. The core legal questions concerned whether the cancellation order passed by the Food Allotment Board, Sheikhupura, was vitiated by mala fide and whether the petitioner was denied a proper opportunity of hearing and cross-examination. The Supreme Court held that the proceedings were conducted fairly, as the petitioner was associated with the enquiry, given opportunities to present evidence, and failed to raise the objection regarding cross-examination before the High Court in his pleadings. The Court concluded that the dismissal of the writ petition was fully merited and accordingly refused leave to appeal, affirming that administrative decisions rendered upon proper enquiry and without procedural prejudice will not be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the cancellation of a ration depot authorization is open to constitutional challenge on the ground of mala fide when supported by adequate enquiry material?
- Can an objection regarding the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, not raised in the writ petition, be entertained for the first time during arguments?
- Whether an administrative authority's detailed enquiry conducted in the presence of the affected party satisfies the requirements of a fair hearing?
- WAQAR HUSSAIN AND Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1015 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-01Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs NAEEM TRADING Co.1982 CLC 353 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-13Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs ASGHAR ALI1982 CLC 2395 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
- WAPDA THROUGH RESIDENT ENGINEER, GAS TURBINE POWER STATION KOTRI vs HANIFULLAH1982 PLC 408 · Labour Court · 1982-01-04Read full judgment →
- WAPDA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD MANZOOR1982 PLC 1025 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-03Read full judgment →
- WAPDA THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND 2 OTHERS vs Mian MAHMOOD HUSSAIN1982 PLC 1069 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-10Read full judgment →
- WALL AHMED KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 6 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 1 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-31Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD vs YOUSUF AND 3 OTHER1982 CLC 85 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-26Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 798 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-07Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER ETC.S1982 SCMR 272 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute over the allotment of agricultural land initially obtained by the appellant through fraudulent means. After the Deputy Settlement Commissioner resumed the land, the Lahore High Court, in a previous writ petition, upheld the finding of fraud but allowed the appellant to retain land equivalent to his inheritance share from his father, Umar Din, while leaving the share of his sister, Alam Bibi, to be decided by the Settlement Authorities. The core legal question was whether the appellant could adjust his inheritance share from his sister against the tainted allotment obtained fraudulently. The Supreme Court held that the appellant could not claim protection for the interest inherited from his sister against the fraudulent allotment. The Court reasoned that the High Court’s previous judgment only protected the appellant’s inheritance from his father and did not authorize the Settlement Authorities to allow adjustments for other claims against a tainted allotment. The principle laid down is that a party cannot seek to adjust legitimate inheritance claims against an allotment that is ab initio fraudulent, as such taint precludes the legal right to claim protection for additional interests.
Questions settled- Can a party adjust a legitimate inheritance claim against an allotment that was obtained through fraud?
- Does a High Court order allowing a party to retain land based on one inheritance claim authorize Settlement Authorities to adjust other, separate inheritance claims against the same tainted allotment?
- Is an allotment obtained through fraudulent means subject to resumption regardless of subsequent claims of inheritance?
- WALI MUHAMMAD vs KHUSHDIL AND Other1982 SCMR 1012(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for special leave to appeal against an order passed by the High Court in a civil revision petition. The core legal question was whether a party, having consented to a settlement through their counsel before the High Court, could subsequently challenge the resulting decree in the Supreme Court. The High Court had recorded that the petitioner, through counsel, agreed to accept a specific sum of Rs. 60,000 as a refund of the sale price paid to the vendor, and the respondents had agreed to pay this amount, leading to a consent decree. The Supreme Court held that in light of the fact that the impugned order was passed with the express consent of the parties' counsel, there were no grounds to interfere with the High Court's judgment. Consequently, the petition for special leave to appeal was dismissed. The key principle affirmed is that a party is bound by a consent decree entered into by their counsel, and such a decree cannot be challenged on appeal.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge a decree in the Supreme Court that was passed by the High Court with the consent of their counsel?
- Is a consent decree binding upon the parties who agreed to it through their legal representatives?
- WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF N. W. F. P. AND 3 Other1982 PLD Peshawar 28 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-10-17Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD AND Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) AND OTHERS1982 CLC 816 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-24Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD AND Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) AND Otherpetitioners1982 CLC 816 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-24Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD AND Other vs THE STATE1982 PLD Supreme Court 55 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of three appellants for the murder of Muhammad Hassan Baladi under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside arms offences. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony, the impact of alleged discrepancies between medical and testimonial evidence, and the scope of vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding an accused whose specific participation was disputed. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of two appellants, finding the prosecution evidence, including the recovery of weapons and corroborative testimony, credible. However, the Court acquitted the third appellant, Rajo. The Court held that where eye-witnesses falsely attribute specific overt acts (hatchet blows) to an accused that are contradicted by medical evidence, and where no other evidence establishes a pre-concert or common intention, mere presence at the scene is insufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 34. The principle laid down is that constructive liability requires proof of an overt act or shared intention, and mere presence does not automatically attract criminal liability.
Questions settled- Is mere presence at the scene of a crime sufficient to establish vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus apply to the appreciation of evidence in Pakistani criminal courts?
- Can an accused be held liable under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the prosecution fails to prove any overt act or common intention?
- WALI MUHAMMAD AND 8 Other vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 100 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-24Read full judgment →
- WALI DAD KHAN vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE & TRIBUNAL (SOUTH), KARACHI AND ANOTHER1982 P Cr. L J 264 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-06Read full judgment →
- WAJID ALI AND 2 Other vs BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 716 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged orders of Revenue authorities directing the eviction of the petitioners from government land allotted under the Bara Scheme. The core legal questions concerned whether the petitioners, claiming title via a civil court consent decree, could challenge their eviction, and whether the principles of res judicata barred the current petition following the dismissal of a previous writ petition. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the matter was barred by res judicata as the previous writ petition, involving the same parties and issues, had been dismissed. Additionally, the Court found the petitioners lacked clean hands due to material concealment and inconsistent pleadings. On the merits, the Court held that any transfer of government land without written government consent is void under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. Furthermore, a civil court decree obtained without impleading the government does not bind the government regarding land title, and the Collector possesses statutory authority under Section 32 of the 1912 Act to summarily evict trespassers from government land.
Questions settled- Does the principle of res judicata apply to a second writ petition when the previous writ petition on the same subject was dismissed?
- Is a transfer of government land made without the written consent of the government void under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912?
- Can a civil court decree regarding land title bind the government if the government was not a party to the suit?
- Does a Collector have the authority under Section 32 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, to summarily evict a trespasser from government land?
- WAJDAD AND 2 Other vs Mir MUHAMMAD BALUCH AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Quetta 41 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, concerning a dispute over the 'Sarishta' (office/rights) of Korjo Mahnaz. The petitioners sought to set aside previous administrative orders, alleging lack of jurisdiction and absence of notice. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could initiate successive constitutional petitions on the same cause of action and whether the principle of res judicata applied to writ jurisdiction. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, affirming that the principle of res judicata applies to constitutional petitions to prevent the re-litigation of issues previously decided or that could have been raised in earlier proceedings. The Court further observed that the petitioners had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Member, Board of Revenue and were guilty of laches and negligence in pursuing their remedies. The key principle laid down is that successive writ petitions on the same cause of action are barred, and parties cannot re-agitate matters that were or should have been challenged in prior litigation, as finality must attach to judicial decisions.
Questions settled- Does the principle of res judicata apply to constitutional petitions?
- Can a party file successive writ petitions on the same cause of action?
- Does a party's submission to the jurisdiction of a tribunal preclude them from later challenging that jurisdiction?
- Is delay and negligence in pursuing legal remedies a ground for dismissing a constitutional petition?
- WAHID GULL vs Mst. AMTARI AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2026 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-11-22Read full judgment →
- WAHID BUXSOOMRO vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD BALUCH1982 SCMR 541 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of an appeal by the Sind High Court. The petitioner had filed an ejectment application against the respondent tenant on the grounds of default in rent and personal requirement. The Rent Controller passed an ex parte ejectment order, leading to the tenant's dispossession. Subsequently, the Rent Controller set aside the ex parte order, and the petitioner's appeal against that order was dismissed by the High Court for lack of legal competence. The petitioner contended that the respondent's application to set aside the ex parte order was barred under sub-section (2) of section 19 and that the appeal under section 21(1) was maintainable. The Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal to consider the important questions of law raised regarding the competency of applications and appeals under the relevant rent restriction laws, directing status quo as to possession pending the hearing.
Questions settled- Whether an application for setting aside an ex parte order is barred under sub-section (2) of section 19 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Is an appeal under section 21(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 competent against an order setting aside an ex parte ejectment order?
- WAHID BUX SOOMRO vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD BALOCH1982 CLC 1436 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
- WAHID BUKHSH vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 4 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-14Read full judgment →
- WAHEEDI BEGUM ETC. vs BAKHSHOO ETC.1982 CLC 2669 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
- WAHEEDI BEGUM ETC. vs BAKHSHOO Etc19821 CLC 2669 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
- VULCAN COMPANY LTD. vs PUNJAB PROVINCE AND OTHER1982 CLC 527 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-15Read full judgment →
- VILLAGE RESTAURANT, KARACHI vs WORKERS' UNION1982 PLC 84 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-05-02Read full judgment →
- V.P. SAMTANI vs COMMISSIONER OE INCOME TAX45 TAX 73 · Bombay High Court · 1981-03-03Read full judgment →
- UTILITY STORES CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs MAHBOOB MAUL AMIN1982 PLC 179 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-09-22Read full judgment →
- USMAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs GUL RAHIM1982 PLC 982 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-11-22Read full judgment →
- UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB AND 2 Other vs REHMATULLAH1982 PLD Lahore 729 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These Intra-Court Appeals arose from a Single Judge's judgment declaring the University of the Punjab's refusal to consider respondents' applications for admission to Law College evening classes to be unlawful. The core legal questions involved: (i) whether an intra-court appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 is maintainable against orders passed under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order 1981; (ii) whether the Vice-Chancellor could invoke emergency powers under Section 15(3) of the University of the Punjab Act 1973 to frame and approve admission regulations bypassing the Academic Council; and (iii) whether excluding self-employed candidates from evening classes violated Section 7 of the Act. The High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that Article 9 replaced Article 199 pursuant to Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act 1897, preserving the right of appeal. The Court held the admission regulations ultra vires because emergency powers under Section 15(3) cannot be used arbitrarily to bypass an existing Academic Council, and total exclusion of non-government employees from admission was unlawful and discriminatory under Section 7.
Questions settled- Is an intra-court appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order 1981?
- Can the Vice-Chancellor invoke emergency powers under Section 15(3) of the University of the Punjab Act 1973 to frame admission regulations when the Academic Council is available to perform that statutory function?
- Does the complete exclusion of self-employed applicants from admission to evening classes violate Section 7 of the University of the Punjab Act 1973?
- Does the word 'preferably' in an admission notice authorise the total exclusion of candidates who are not government or semi-government employees?
- UNIVERSAL BUSINESS EQUIPMENT LTD. vs MESSRS SHAHEEN FOUNDATION AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1095 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-27Read full judgment →
- UNITED PAINTS WORKERS UNION vs Mums UNITED PAINTS (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI1982 PLC 197 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-08-18Read full judgment →
- UNITED COMMERCIAL FINANCE LTD. vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1982 PLD Lahore 810 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-04Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LTD., SUKKUR vs MUNEER AHMED1982 PLC 260 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-05-30Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LTD., LAHORE vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 384 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-12Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LTD., KARACHI ETC. vs MUHAMMAD ALI1982 PLC 1050 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-11-10Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LTD. vs RENT CONTROLLER, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS1982 CLC 1154 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-20Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LTD. vs RENT CONTROLLER, KARACHI AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 1154 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-20Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LTD vs BUSINESS INVESTMENT LTD. AND 3 OTHERS1982 CLC 1101 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-21Read full judgment →
- YAQEEN SHAH vs THE STATE1982 P Cr.L J 718 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-13Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LTD vs BUSINESS INVESTMENT LTD. AND 3 OTHER1982 CLC 1101 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-21Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LIMITED vs AHMED SPINNING MILLS LIMITED1982 CLC 1653 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-14Read full judgment →
- UMAR HA YAT vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1251 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-21Read full judgment →
- UMAR FAYYAZ KHAN vs ABDUL KHALIQ, ETC1982 SCMR 1173 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court in its writ jurisdiction, which remanded a land settlement dispute to the Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision. The appellant, claiming to be a sitting allottee, argued that the High Court should have decided the matter on the merits instead of remanding it, as there was sufficient material to establish his preferential right over the respondents under paragraph 8 of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme. The respondents contested this claim, pointing to a subsequent order by an Additional Settlement Commissioner that declared the entry relied upon by the appellant to be fabricated. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where the assertion of being a sitting allottee is neither undisputed nor substantiated by admitted facts, the controversy involves disputed questions of fact that require a proper inquiry and a hearing for both parties. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's order of remand as the appropriate procedure to resolve the factual dispute and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Is the High Court justified in remanding a land settlement case where the factual status of a party as a sitting allottee is disputed and not substantiated by admitted facts?
- Can the Supreme Court decide disputed questions of fact regarding land allotment status when the underlying record is contested as being fabricated?
- UMAR DIN AND ANOTHER vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND 6 OTHER1982 CLC 1668 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-08Read full judgment →
- UMAID ALI SHAH vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1858 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-09Read full judgment →
- UMAID ALI SHAH vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA AND OTHER1982 CLC 1858 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-09Read full judgment →
- ULFAT HAMEED vs Mst. BIRJIS KHATOON1982 PLD Karachi 823 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 challenged an order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller under section 14 of the Ordinance, directing the appellant to vacate a shop premises. The respondent, a widow, had served a notice seeking personal use of the premises, which the appellant failed to vacate. The core legal questions involved whether section 14 applies to commercial buildings, the validity of a notice with a discrepancy in the shop number, the interpretation of occupation of another building under subsection (2) of section 14, and whether the Rent Controller is required to inquire into the genuineness of the landlord's personal need. The court held that section 14 applies to both residential and commercial buildings, minor discrepancies in shop numbers in notices do not invalidate proceedings absent prejudice, 'occupation' under section 14(2) requires actual physical occupation, and the Rent Controller cannot inquire into the bona fides or genuineness of a landlord's need under section 14. The appeal was consequently dismissed with an allowance of four months to vacate.
Questions settled- Does section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 apply to non-residential or commercial buildings?
- Whether a minor discrepancy in the shop number mentioned in a notice under section 14 renders the notice invalid?
- What constitutes occupation of another building under subsection (2) of section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Is a Rent Controller required to inquire into the genuineness or bona fides of a landlord's need in proceedings under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- UBAIDULLAH vs SHER MUHAMMAD1982 SCMR 279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of the petitioner-tenant's second appeal by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the ejectment order granted by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the District Judge on the ground of default in rent payment. The core legal question is whether the Rent Controller failed to provide the petitioner with an adequate opportunity to prove that he was not a defaulter and that the landlord had refused to accept the rent. The Supreme Court held that the record clearly demonstrated that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to produce evidence and defend his case, yet failed to substantiate his claims or deny non-payment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, affirming the principle that procedural fairness is satisfied when a party is given adequate opportunity to present evidence and is not prejudiced by the proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant can claim denial of opportunity to prove rent payment when the record shows sufficient opportunity was granted?
- Does the failure of a tenant to deny non-payment of rent or produce evidence of tender justify an order of ejectment?
- U. H. JOSEPH AND Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other1982 SCMR 752 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-07-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a Constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court regarding the transfer of property under the Settlement Scheme. The petitioners challenged the restoration of property to the respondents after it had been resumed, alleging multiple transfers. Following the dismissal of their Constitutional petition and the subsequent rejection of their Intra-Court Appeal as incompetent, the petitioners filed the current petition before the Supreme Court. A preliminary issue arose regarding a 12-day delay in filing the petition. The core legal question was whether the time spent prosecuting an incompetent Intra-Court Appeal could be condoned as a bona fide pursuit of a legal remedy. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that they had diligently or in good faith pursued their remedy, noting that the incompetence of the Intra-Court Appeal had been brought to the attention of their counsel during the proceedings. Consequently, the Court refused to condone the delay, holding that the petition was time-barred and dismissing it accordingly.
Questions settled- Can the time spent prosecuting an incompetent Intra-Court Appeal be condoned as a bona fide pursuit of a legal remedy?
- Does the mere filing of an incompetent appeal constitute sufficient grounds for the condonation of delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal?
- TWAHA vs THE MASTER M. V. `ASIAN QUEEN' AND 2 Other1982 PLD Karachi 749 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses various objections concerning the distribution of sale proceeds of the arrested ship m. v. 'ASIAN QUEEN' among multiple decree-holders in various admiralty suits. The core legal questions involved the validity and registration requirements of a ship mortgage under the Admiralty Court Acts, the maintainability of a mortgage suit when the ship was not under arrest at the initial filing, the entitlement of foreign decrees in personam to participate in the sale proceeds of a ship sold in rem, and the proper order of priorities among crew wages, master's wages and disbursements, mortgages, and necessaries. The court held that the mortgage was validly registered under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, that technical defects regarding the timing of the ship's arrest do not vitiate the suit's maintainability when jurisdiction is subsequently acquired, that decrees in personam cannot participate in the proceeds of an action in rem, and that British practice regarding priorities should be applied as a rule of justice, equity, and good conscience in the absence of local rules.
Questions settled- Whether a mortgage suit under the Admiralty Court Act 1840 is maintainable if the ship was not under arrest at the exact time of filing the suit?
- Do foreign decrees passed in personam against shipowners entitle the decree-holders to participate in the sale proceeds of a vessel sold pursuant to an action in rem?
- Whether subsistence allowance claimed by crew members constitutes wages earned on board the ship under section 10 of the Admiralty Court Act 1861?
- How are priorities of claims determined against the sale proceeds of a ship in the absence of local admiralty rules?
- TURAJ AHMAD KHAN vs D. I. G., POLICE, MULTAN1982 PLD Lahore 464 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-15Read full judgment →