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.

• TIWARI JHUMAR LAL TIWARI JHUMAR LAL vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX45 TAX 150 · Rajasthan High CourtRead full judgment →
• THE WORKMEN vs MESSRS ASPRO-NICHOLAS (PAK.) LTD.1982 PLC 58 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-08-18Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs Sh. MUMTAZ AHMAD AND 2 OTHERSs1982 P Cr. L J 1284 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-29Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs AHMAD DIN AND OTHERS1982 P Cr. L J 1173 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-13Read full judgment →
• THE REGISTRAR, JOINT STOCK COMPANIES, WEST PAKISTAN vs THE BEHTRIN1982 PLD Lahore 236 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-11Read full judgment →
• THE PUNJAB LOCAL COUNCILS ELECTION AUTHORITY, LAHORE vs Malik1982 SCMR 1086 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-15
  election authoritynomination paperspre-election disputeslocal government electionsjurisdiction of election authorityelection petitionsupervisory powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the scope of the Punjab Local Councils Election Authority's jurisdiction under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the Election Authority could intervene in the election process, specifically regarding the validity of nomination papers, before the election results were officially notified, or if Section 17(2) of the Ordinance restricted its powers solely to post-election disputes addressable by an Election Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the Election Authority retains plenary power under Section 17(1) to ensure fair and honest elections during the pre-election phase. The Court clarified that Section 17(2) is a clarificatory provision intended only to exclude matters that can be adjudicated by an Election Tribunal via an election petition after the notification of results. Consequently, the Authority is not barred from correcting irregularities occurring before the official notification of election results. The principle laid down is that the Election Authority’s supervisory jurisdiction remains intact until the election result is officially gazetted, preventing it from being a mere bystander to pre-election illegalities.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Election Authority have jurisdiction to intervene in election matters before the election result is officially notified?
  • Does Section 17(2) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, oust the jurisdiction of the Election Authority over pre-election irregularities?
  • Are the powers of the Election Authority under Section 17(1) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, limited to matters that cannot be raised in an election petition?
  Read full judgment →
• THE MILITARY ESTATE OFFICER, MULTAN CANTT. AND Others vs Mirza1982 SCMR 920 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-18
  ejectmentrent controlstriking off defensedefault in rent paymentspecial leave to appealnegligence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller, the District Judge, and the High Court, all of which upheld an ejectment order against the petitioners (tenants) regarding a bungalow in Rahimyar Khan. The Rent Controller had initially directed the tenants to deposit monthly rent by the 15th of the following month. Upon the tenants' failure to comply, their defense was struck off, and an ejectment order was issued. The tenants argued that the default in payment for November 1977 was not deliberate, attributing it to a clerical error where a cheque was sent to the landlord's incorrect address in Multan rather than Rahimyar Khan. The Supreme Court examined whether this negligence justified the ejectment. The Court held that the lower courts correctly determined the mistake was avoidable and demonstrated a lack of due care and caution. Finding no violation of legal principles in the lower courts' concurrent findings, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that such negligence does not excuse a failure to comply with rent deposit orders.

  Questions settled

  • Does a clerical error in sending a rent cheque to the wrong address constitute a valid excuse for failing to comply with a court-ordered rent deposit schedule?
  • Can a Rent Controller strike off a tenant's defense for failure to deposit rent by the specified deadline?
  • Is a finding of negligence regarding rent payment by lower courts subject to interference in a petition for special leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• The Member Election Commission vs ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN AND Other1982 PLD Supreme Court 146 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-12
  res judicataconstructive res judicatawrit jurisdictioncivil suitleave to appealpre-emption decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal in limine of the petitioners' second appeal by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question is whether a civil suit is barred by the principles of res judicata when the subject matter has already been adjudicated upon by the High Court in constitutional writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that even if Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 does not apply in terms to writ proceedings, the general principles of res judicata, including constructive res judicata, operate to bar parties from re-agitating matters finalized by a superior court through a separate civil suit. The key principle laid down is that the seal of finality attached to a superior court's judgment cannot be bypassed by instituting a fresh civil suit in lower forums, as doing so undermines judicial comity and finality of litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a decision given by a High Court in its constitutional writ jurisdiction operates as res judicata to bar a subsequent civil suit regarding the same matter?
  • Does the principle of constructive res judicata apply where Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 does not apply in terms?
  • Can a party bypass the finality of a superior court's decision by instituting a fresh suit before a civil court on the ground of newly discovered material?
  Read full judgment →
• THE MASJID COMMITTEE, TAGORE PARK vs RASHIDUL HAQ AND Other1982 SCMR 65 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-22
  constitutional jurisdictionorder of remandfindings of factlacheslimitationsettlement claimswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an order of remand passed by the Settlement Commissioner in writ jurisdiction. The appellant, a mosque committee, claimed to have submitted multiple applications prior to 1961 for the transfer of an adjacent plot of land for mosque extension, but the property was allotted to respondent No. 2. The Settlement Commissioner recorded a finding of fact that the appellant had indeed filed prior applications and remanded the matter to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for fresh determination. The High Court reversed this remand order by making its own findings that no prior application existed and that the claim was barred by laches. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in substituting its own factual findings for those recorded by a competent tribunal having jurisdiction and departmental records. The Court ruled that factual inquiries regarding property utilization, limitation, and pending applications ought to be determined by settlement authorities upon remand rather than pre-empted in constitutional jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed and the remand order restored.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction substitute its own findings of fact for those recorded by a competent statutory authority?
  • Whether an order of remand directing a factual inquiry by a tribunal of competent jurisdiction can be set aside in writ jurisdiction without examining the evidentiary record?
  • Do questions of limitation and laches requiring factual determination fall within the primary jurisdiction of settlement authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• THE KAKACHI CLUB vs DIRECTOR GENERAL, EXCISE & TAXATION AND 3 Other1982 PLD Karachi 85 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-24Read full judgment →
• THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH COLLECTOR, GUJRANWALA DISTRICT1982 PLD Lahore 115 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-04Read full judgment →
• THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Through, Joint Secretary, Ministry Of States And Frontier Region, Rawalpindi vs BRIG. HIS HIGHNESS NAWAB MUHAMMAD ABBAS46 TAX 199 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Bahawalpur Merger Agreementsuccessionprivate propertyMuslim Personal LawAct of StateprimogenitureAcceding State (Property) Order 1961judicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the distribution of the personal property of the late Ameer of Bahawalpur among his heirs. The appellant, the successor Ameer, claimed exclusive entitlement to all private property based on the rule of primogeniture, citing the Bahawalpur Merger Agreement. The Central Government, via the Devolution and Distribution of Property (Ameer of Bahawalpur) Order, 1969, had distributed the property. The Supreme Court held that the Merger Agreement’s guarantee regarding succession to personal rights, privileges, dignities, and titles did not encompass proprietary rights, which are distinct. Consequently, the private property was not subject to primogeniture but must be distributed among all heirs according to the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat). The Court affirmed that the Government cannot invoke the Act of State doctrine to bar judicial review against its own citizens. Furthermore, the Court held that while the Government may utilize an inquiry commission for fact-finding, any distribution order must be a reasoned, speaking order based on applicable law, rather than arbitrary division. The case was remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with these principles.

  Questions settled

  • Does the guarantee of succession to personal rights, privileges, and dignities in the Bahawalpur Merger Agreement include succession to private property?
  • Can the Government of Pakistan plead the Act of State doctrine to bar judicial review of its actions against its own citizens?
  • Is the Central Government required to distribute the private property of a former Ruler according to the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) in the absence of a specific contrary provision?
  • Does the appointment of an inquiry commission by the Central Government to ascertain facts constitute an unlawful delegation of authority?
  Read full judgment →
• THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN vs MUHAMMAD ALLAUDDIN1982 SCMR 1096 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-26
  civil servantworkmanjurisdiction of civil courtmixed question of fact and lawrailway employeeleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The Federation of Pakistan sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of its civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld the concurrent decrees in favor of the respondent, a Ward Keeper in the Loco Stores Depot, Pakistan Railways, who was demoted and ordered to refund a sum following departmental action for misappropriation. The core legal questions involved whether the respondent was a civil servant whose suit was barred before a civil court, and whether he could maintain a civil action rather than proceeding under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The Supreme Court held that the question of whether the respondent was a civil servant or a workman was a mixed question of fact and law, and since the Department failed to lead adequate evidence before the trial court, the concurrent findings of the lower courts could not be interfered with. Furthermore, the alternative legal plea regarding the bar of jurisdiction under the Industrial Relations Ordinance could not be raised for the first time before the apex court. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Ward Keeper in the Pakistan Railways stores is a civil servant or a workman for the purposes of court jurisdiction?
  • Can a mixed question of fact and law be agitated when the factual basis has not been established by adequate evidence before the trial court?
  • Whether a new legal plea regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of a Labour Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance can be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LINED CHANNEL DIVISION vs MESSRS AWAN1982 CLC 2335 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
• THE EASTERN FEDERAL UNION INSURANCE Co. LTD vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2316 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-31Read full judgment →
• THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL1982 PLC 883 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-10Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INVESTIGATION) vs MESSRS JAN1982 PLD Karachi 911 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-31Read full judgment →
• THE COLLECTOR, SHEIKHUPURA AND 2 Others vs Mst. ZUBAIDA AND 2 Other1982 SCMR 287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-28
  counsel authoritycompromise decreequestion of factwrit petitionpresumption of authoritylegal representation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over land ownership in Sheikhupura, which was initially the subject of a writ petition between private parties. During the writ proceedings, the petitioners (the Collector and others) were impleaded as respondents. The writ petition was disposed of based on a compromise between the private parties, to which the petitioners' counsel consented by stating 'no objection.' The petitioners subsequently challenged this order, alleging that their counsel lacked the authority to consent to the compromise on their behalf. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could challenge the counsel's authority before the Supreme Court without first seeking a determination of that factual issue in the High Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the question of whether counsel possessed the requisite authority is a question of fact that must be determined by the High Court. In the absence of such a determination, the Court established the principle that it is justified in presuming that counsel had the requisite authority to make statements on behalf of their clients.

  Questions settled

  • Is the question of whether a counsel had the authority to consent to a compromise on behalf of a client a question of fact?
  • Can a party challenge the authority of their counsel to make a statement in court for the first time in the Supreme Court without seeking a determination in the High Court?
  • Is there a presumption that a counsel appearing in court has the requisite authority to make statements on behalf of their clients?
  Read full judgment →
• THE BOOTS COMPANY (PAKISTAN) LTD. vs BOOTS EMPLOYEES' UNION1982 PLC 544 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-11-29Read full judgment →
• TEXTILE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN vs BABAR ALI ETC.1982 PLC 391 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-09-29Read full judgment →
• TEXTILE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI vs PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT No, VI, HYDERABAD (SIND) AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 22 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• TAZA GUL vs SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND Other1982 SCMR 111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-24
  evacuee propertytransfer of propertyauction purchaserdiscretionary jurisdictionconstitutional petitioncancellation of transferextension of time
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a dispute over the transfer and subsequent auction of a evacuee property, House No. 1925, Peshawar City. The property was initially transferred to a claimant displaced person whose transfer was temporarily cancelled due to default in payment of instalments, leading to the property being placed on an auction list. Although the auction was held and a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) was issued to the appellant during the pendency of proceedings, the competent Settlement Commissioner later extended time for payment to the original transferee, a condition which the transferee fulfilled, thereby nullifying the intermediate auction proceedings. The appellant's constitutional petition challenging this outcome was dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's conduct in obtaining confirmation of the auction and the P.T.D. in defiance of operative stay orders disentitled him to equitable relief under discretionary constitutional jurisdiction. The Court further affirmed that the Settlement Commissioner possessed ample jurisdiction and discretion to extend time for payment of the property price to a displaced person.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an auction purchaser who obtains confirmation and a Permanent Transfer Deed in violation of operative stay orders can invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the court?
  • Does a Settlement Commissioner have the jurisdiction and discretion to grant an extension of time to a claimant displaced person to clear the balance price of a transferred property?
  • What is the effect of an order extending time for payment of property arrears on intermediate auction proceedings conducted during the pendency of the matter?
  Read full judgment →
• TAROOMAL AND Another vs DR. ABDUL KADIR1982 SCMR 1216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-20
  special leave to appealejectmentstatutory tenantnotice of demanddefault in payment of rentrelationship of landlord and tenantexcessive rent demand
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose out of petitions for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sindh High Court, which affirmed ejectment orders passed against statutory tenants under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 and the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The core legal questions were whether a transferee under settlement laws could validly serve a statutory notice of demand for rent before the rent had accrued due, whether default under Section 30(3)(i) of the 1958 Act occurs if rent is not tendered within three months of notice receipt, and whether demanding excessive rent absolves a tenant of the obligation to tender rent. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that a transferee is permitted to serve a notice of demand upon the tenant for payment of rent, and if the tenant fails to pay or tender rent within three months from the receipt of such notice, statutory protection against eviction comes to an end. The Court further held that a demand for excessive rent does not relieve a tenant from the statutory obligation to tender rent at the rate prescribed by law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a transferee under settlement laws validly serve a statutory notice of demand for rent before the rent has accrued due?
  • Does a statutory tenant lose protection from eviction under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 upon failing to tender rent within three months of receiving a notice of demand?
  • Does a landlord's demand for excessive rent absolve a tenant from the statutory duty to tender rent at the legally prescribed rate?
  Read full judgment →
• TARIQ SAEED SAIGOL vs DISTRICT EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER, RAWALPINDI1982 CLC 2387 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-21
  education cessemployer liabilitycorporate personalityrecovery as arrears of land revenueChief ExecutiveWorkers' Children Education Ordinancewrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the order of the District Excise and Taxation Officer seeking to recover unpaid education cess levied under the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972, from the Chief Executive of a company as arrears of land revenue, including through his arrest and the attachment of his personal properties. The core legal question is whether an education cess due from a corporate entity can be recovered personally from its Chief Executive or directors, and whether a Chief Executive qualifies as an 'employer' under the Ordinance whose personal assets can be subjected to coercive recovery measures. The Lahore High Court held that while the Chief Executive may fall within the definition of an 'employer' having ultimate control over the establishment, a company is a distinct juristic person separate from its directors and shareholders. Therefore, in the absence of an express statutory provision for vicarious or personal liability, the liabilities of the company cannot be recovered from the personal property or liberty of the Chief Executive or directors, though recovery may be pursued against the company's assets in their hands. The court declared the impugned recovery order illegal and without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chief Executive of a company can be categorized as an employer under section 2(a) of the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972?
  • Can the education cess due from a corporate company be recovered from the personal property or by the arrest of its Chief Executive or directors?
  • Does section 3 of the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972, create a personal liability or charge against the directors or Chief Executive of a company?
  • Whether an alternative remedy of appeal bars a constitutional petition when the impugned order is passed without lawful authority and in excess of jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• TARIQ MASOOD, ADVOCATE vs SUPREME COURT ENROLMENT COMMITTEE, LAHORE HIGH COURT1982 PLD Lahore 6 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-06
  Supreme Court enrolmentcertificate of fitnessadvocate enrolmentreasons for decisiondomestic forumintra-court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal arose from the dismissal of a constitutional petition filed against the decision of the Supreme Court Enrolment Committee of the Lahore High Court, which had deferred the appellant's application for a certificate of fitness to be enrolled as an Advocate of the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the Enrolment Committee is required by law to provide reasons when refusing or deferring the grant of a fitness certificate to an advocate. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Enrolment Committee functions as a domestic body of professional elite vested with absolute discretion, and is not legally required to record or disclose reasons for refusing or deferring a fitness certificate. The court laid down the principle that requiring the disclosure of such reasons would be damaging to the advocate's professional reputation and standing, and that decisions of professional domestic forums regarding peer evaluation should be accepted with grace without the compulsion of recording reasons.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court Enrolment Committee of a High Court is bound to give reasons for refusing or deferring a certificate of fitness for enrolment as an Advocate of the Supreme Court?
  • Does the Enrolment Committee function as a domestic body of professional elite whose discretionary assessments are exempt from recording reasons?
  • Can a writ petition be maintained against the refusal or deferment of a fitness certificate by the Enrolment Committee in the absence of a statutory requirement to provide reasons?
  Read full judgment →
• TARIQ MASOOD vs SUPREME COURT, ENROLMENT COMMITTEE, LAHORE HIGH1982 CLC 329 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-05Read full judgment →
• TARIQ MASOOD vs SUPREME COURT ENROLMENT COMMITTEE1982 SCMR 747 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-13
  Supreme Court Advocatecertificate of fitnessEnrolment Committeediscretionary powerrecording of reasonsdomestic forumIntra-Court Appealleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his Intra-Court Appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the decision of the Supreme Court Enrolment Committee deferring his application for a certificate of fitness to be enrolled as an Advocate of the Supreme Court for one year. The core legal question was whether the Enrolment Committee was legally bound to record reasons for deferring or refusing the grant of a fitness certificate. The Supreme Court held that the statutory instruments vest the competent authority and discretion in the Chief Justice and Judges to decide on the grant of fitness certificates, and the Committee, acting as a domestic forum, is not required to state reasons for its decision. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed, affirming the discretionary nature of the Enrolment Committee's assessment and the non-requirement of recorded reasons.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court Enrolment Committee is required to record reasons when deferring or refusing a certificate of fitness for enrolment as an Advocate of the Supreme Court?
  • Does the High Court interfere in the exercise of discretion by the Supreme Court Enrolment Committee regarding the grant of fitness certificates?
  • Whether the Supreme Court Enrolment Committee functions as a domestic forum not obligated to give express reasons for its decisions?
  Read full judgment →
• TARIQ MAHMOOD vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 686 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
• TARIQ KAMAL AND Others vs Raja MAHFOOZ ALI AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1026 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1981-10-30Read full judgment →
• TARIQ KAMAL AND Others vs Raja MAHFOOZ ALI AND OTHER1982 CLC 1026 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1981-10-30Read full judgment →
• TARIQ AZIZ ETC. vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 396 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-12Read full judgment →
• TAMIZUL HAQUE AND 5 Others vs SINGER SEWING MACHINE Co.1982 CLC 1778 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-24Read full judgment →
• TAMEEZ GUL vs MUMTAZ ALI AND 6 Other.1982 PLD Peshawar 142 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-06-22Read full judgment →
• TALIB HUSSAIN vs PEHLWAN KHAN AND Other1982 SCMR 780 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-16
  withdrawal of complaintacquittalcriminal revisionlocus standijurisdiction of trial courtleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that dismissed a criminal revision petition as not maintainable. The case originated from a direct complaint filed under sections 302/149 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court, the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, permitted the complainant to withdraw the complaint and acquitted the accused before the charge was framed. The petitioner, claiming to be an eye-witness, sought revision, which the High Court rejected, citing the availability of an appeal under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address two critical legal questions: first, whether a Court of Session possesses the jurisdiction to allow the withdrawal of a complaint once cognizance of the matter has been taken; and second, whether an eye-witness who is not the formal complainant is barred by sections 417(2) or 439(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 from filing a revision petition against an acquittal order. The Court condoned the delay in filing the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Court of Session have the jurisdiction to allow the withdrawal of a complaint after cognizance has been taken?
  • Is an eye-witness who is not the formal complainant barred by section 439(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 from filing a revision petition against an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• TALIB HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN AND 8 OTHERS1982 CLC 2107 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-14Read full judgment →
• TALIB HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN AND 8 OTHER1982 CLC 2107 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-14Read full judgment →
• TALIB HUSSAIN AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 635 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-26Read full judgment →
• TALEH MAND vs DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SAHIWAL AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1377 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-28Read full judgment →
• TALEH MAND vs DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SAHIWAL AND OTHER1982 CLC 1377 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-28Read full judgment →
• TALAT FATIMA MAHMOOD AND Others vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND Or1982 CLC 2365 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• TAJUDDIN HAQIQAT vs MUHAMMAD RAFI AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 343 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-27Read full judgment →
• TAJAMMAL HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 835 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-29Read full judgment →
• TAJ WOOLEN MILLS LTD. vs MUHAMMAD YOUNAS, ASSISTANT OF OFFICE OF ASSISTANT.REGISTRAR1982 PLD Lahore 664 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-04Read full judgment →
• TAJ MUHAMMAD vs DR. ABDUL KADIR AND 2 Other1982 PLD Karachi 780 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-03Read full judgment →
• TAJ DIN vs MUHAMMAD ZAFAR AND 4 OTHERS1982 CLC 970 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-26Read full judgment →
• TAJ DIN vs MUHAMMAD ZAFAR AND 4 OTHER1982 CLC 970 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-26Read full judgment →
• TAJ DIN vs Me. MAHMOODA BEGUM ETC.1982 PLD Lahore 126 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-14Read full judgment →
• TAJ DIN AND 2 Other vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Lahore 177 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-12Read full judgment →
• TAIFOOR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD IRSHAD SIPRA AND OTHER1982 CLC 314 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-21Read full judgment →
• TAHIR HANIF vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHER.1982 CLC 1732 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-21Read full judgment →
• TAHIR HANIF vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1732 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-21Read full judgment →
• TAHIR ALI vs SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION1982 PLC 158 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-09-16Read full judgment →
• Syed ZAMMURRAD SHAH AND 4 Other vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND 21982 PLD Peshawar 77 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-02-28Read full judgment →
• Syed WAZIR ALI SHAH vs GHULAM RABBANI AND 13 OTHER1982 CLC 859 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-14Read full judgment →
• Syed WAZIR ALI SHAH vs GHULAM RABBANI AND 13 OTHBRS1982 CLC 859 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-14Read full judgment →
• Syed SHAUKAT ABBAS vs Mst. BUSHRA RANI AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Lahore 281 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-23
  constitutional petitioninterlocutory ordersfamily courtrecovery of dowerclosure of evidencewrit jurisdictionmatrimonial disputes
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged three interlocutory orders passed by a Family Court in a suit for recovery of dower, specifically regarding the refusal to frame an additional issue, the refusal to summon witnesses, and the closure of the petitioner's evidence. The core legal questions were whether a Family Court possesses the jurisdiction to close a party's evidence in the absence of an express statutory provision, and whether interlocutory orders passed by a Family Court can be challenged via constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that the petition was incompetent, ruling that Family Courts possess the inherent power to close evidence when a party fails to produce it without sufficient cause, despite the absence of an express provision in the Punjab Family Courts Act, 1964. Furthermore, the Court established that interlocutory orders do not dispose of the entire dispute and are appealable under Section 14 of the Punjab Family Courts Act, 1964. Consequently, invoking constitutional jurisdiction to challenge such orders would frustrate the legislative intent of ensuring the expeditious disposal of matrimonial disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Family Court have the jurisdiction to close the evidence of a party who fails to produce it without sufficient cause?
  • Are interlocutory orders passed by a Family Court during a suit for dower challengeable through a constitutional petition?
  • Can a party challenge interlocutory orders of a Family Court in an appeal against the final decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed SHAKIR HUSSAIN ZAIDI vs ALI ANWAR GHANORO AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 859 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-20Read full judgment →
• Syed SHAHID HASSAN vs Mrs. ZEENAT FARIJQI AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 457 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-25Read full judgment →
• Syed SHAHENSHAH HUSSAIN RIZVI vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND Another1982 SCMR 487 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-18
  service appealmerger of territoriesterms and conditions of servicedesignation of posttransitional powersleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal seeking to challenge an order of the Sind Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding his service status and designation following the merger of the Federal Territory of Karachi into West Pakistan under President's Order No. 9 of 1961. The core legal question concerns whether the Governor's powers under Article 8 of the said Order were exhausted by a prior administrative order and whether a change in job designation from Inspector to Sub-Inspector violated the terms and conditions of service or protections regarding pay, pension, and leave. The Supreme Court held that the Governor's statutory powers had not been previously exercised in the manner claimed, that the designation of a post is not protected under Article 8(2) of President's Order No. 9 of 1961, and that protection is strictly restricted to pay, pension, and leave. The Court laid down the principle that statutory protections upon merger of territories do not extend to job designations unless expressly provided, and that powers validly exercised under transitional constitutional provisions to determine service conditions are lawful provided financial terms are not varied to the disadvantage of the employee.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the designation of a civil servant is protected against variation under Article 8 of President's Order No. 9 of 1961?
  • Does the protection regarding terms and conditions of service under President's Order No. 9 of 1961 extend beyond pay, pension, and leave?
  • Whether an authority's power to determine service conditions under transitional merger provisions can be exercised more than once if not previously validly exercised?
  Read full judgment →
• SYED SHAH vs POLITICAL AGENT, BAJAUR AND Another1982 SCMR 433 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-09-21
  domicile certificateconstitutional petitionjurisdiction of superior courtstribal arealeave to appealnatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a student at Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which dismissed his constitutional petition challenging the cancellation of his domicile certificate. The core legal question concerned the jurisdiction of the superior courts in respect of acts done by the Political Agent, Bajaur, in light of the bar contained in Article 247(7) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether vested rights were violated when the certificate was revoked without associating the petitioner in the inquiry. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the petition raised questions of general public importance relating to the jurisdiction of superior courts and that the revocation directly affected the petitioner's admission in an institution located within territory where the jurisdiction of superior courts exists. The Court ordered that the interim arrangement allowing the petitioner to attend classes subject to security furnishing should continue pending the disposal of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition lies against the acts of a Political Agent in view of the bar contained in Article 247(7) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a domicile certificate be revoked without associating the affected person in the inquiry when vested rights have accrued?
  • Does the revocation of a domicile certificate affecting admission to an educational institution located outside the tribal areas attract the jurisdiction of the superior courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed SAIFUDDIN SHAH vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 792 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-19Read full judgment →
• Syed ROSHAN ALI SHAH AND ANOTHER vs FISHERMEN'S CO-OPERATIVE1982 CLC 1137 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
• Syed ROSHAN ALI SHAH AND ANOTHER vs FISHERMEN's CO OPERATIVE1982 CLC 1137 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
• Syed RAHIM SHAH vs GOVERNMENT OF N: W.F.P. AND Other1982 PLD Peshawar 93 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
• Syed QAMAR HAYAT NAQVI vs CO-ORDINATOR, LANDHI KORANGI ZONAL1982 PLC (C. S.) 85 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed NIAMAT ALI AND Others vs DEWAN JIRAM DAS AND Other1982 SCMR 443 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-19
  leave to appealappointment of receiveragricultural landrevision petitionproperty waste
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks leave to appeal against an order of the Baluchistan High Court appointing a Tehsildar as a receiver for agricultural land during the pendency of a revision petition. The core legal question concerns the justification for appointing a receiver pendente lite where the original owner's property possession was transferred via an unfulfilled agreement and allegations of property waste existed. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in appointing a receiver to protect the property from destruction during proceedings. The key principle established is that a court may exercise discretion to appoint a receiver pendente lite to preserve disputed property and prevent waste when there are allegations of damage and incomplete performance of a sale agreement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a receiver be appointed during the pendency of a revision petition to protect disputed property from destruction?
  • Whether the appointment of a receiver is justified when possession of land was passed through an agreement that was not fully performed?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed NAEEM HUSSAIN vs PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY Appeal1982 PLC 1001 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-13Read full judgment →
• Syed MURTAZA HUSSAIN vs DAILY MASHRIQ1982 PLC 912 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-25Read full judgment →
• Syed MURTAZA HUSSAIN (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HFIRS) vs DEP UTY1982 CLC 1150 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-02Read full judgment →
• Syed MURTAZA HUSSAIN (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) vs DEPUTY1982 CLC 1150 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-02Read full judgment →
• Syed MUHAMMAD NAQVI vs THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DEPUTY1982 CLC 1017 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-03Read full judgment →
• Syed MUHAMMAD MURTAZA vs REHMAN AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1728 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-14Read full judgment →
• Syed MUHAMMAD MURTAZA vs REHMAN AND OTHER1982 CLC 1728 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-14Read full judgment →
• Syed MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN1982 PLC (C. S.) 594 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• SYED MUHAMMAD AND Others vs MUHAMMAD AMIN AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2235 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-16Read full judgment →
• SYED MUHAMMAD AND Others vs MUHAMMAD AMIN AND OTHER1982 CLC 2235 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-16Read full judgment →
• Syed MEHTAB HUSSAIN RIZVI vs Syed ZAFIR AHMAD1982 CLC 606 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-17Read full judgment →
• Syed MEHTAB HUSSAIN RIZVI vs Syed ZAFAR AHMAD1982 SCMR 962 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-09-21
  ejectmentpersonal requirementlandlord and tenantconcurrent findingsheart ailmentleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court of Sind, which affirmed the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the tenant-petitioner on the ground of the landlord's personal requirement. The core legal question concerned whether the landlord established a bona fide personal requirement to occupy the ground-floor premises due to serious heart ailments preventing him from climbing stairs. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts regarding the landlord's medical condition and bona fide need were based on reliable evidence and were unassailable, rejecting the contention that the landlord must exchange his current upper-floor accommodation with the tenant. The Court laid down the principle that findings of fact by courts below based on a preponderance of evidence are conclusive, and a Rent Controller has no legal warrant to compel a landlord to surrender his existing accommodation to a tenant to satisfy a personal requirement claim.

  Questions settled

  • Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding a landlord's personal requirement conclusive before the Supreme Court?
  • Can a Rent Controller direct a landlord to surrender his current accommodation to a tenant to satisfy a personal requirement claim?
  • Does a landlord seeking ejectment on grounds of health need to establish bona fide personal requirement through medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed MAHMUD HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN1982 CLC 1385 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-26Read full judgment →
• Syed MAHMOOD vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS BOARD AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 231 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-26Read full judgment →
• Syed MAHBOOB HUSSAIN SHAH vs MESSRS COMMERCE BANK LTD.1982 CLC 20 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-15Read full judgment →
• Syed LATIF HUSSAIN SHAH vs I. G. OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 230 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-11-16Read full judgment →
• Syed KHURSHEED ZAMAN vs GHULAM HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 650 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-23Read full judgment →
• Syed KHADIM ALI SHAH AND Others vs THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SHEIKHUPURA AND OTHER1982 CLC 577 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-26Read full judgment →
• Syed JAMIL HUSSAIN vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 4 OTHERS1982 CLC 2092 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
• Syed JALILUR REHMAN ETC. vs MESSRS JOHAR TRADING Co1982 CLC 219 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-06
  rent restrictiondefault in rentwilful defaultejectmentlandlord and tenantdiscretion of Rent Controllersecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from an ejectment application filed by the landlord against the tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on grounds of default in rent payment, unauthorized subletting, and conversion of premises. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, finding that the tenant had committed a wilful default of ten months, which could not be cured by subsequent deposits in court. The Additional District Judge reversed this, finding that the tenant had deposited rent in court prior to the filing of the application and that the landlord had actively avoided receiving rent to manufacture grounds for eviction. The High Court upheld the appellate decision, holding that while a technical default occurred under the Ordinance, the Rent Controller possesses the discretion to condone such default if it is not found to be wilful. The Court affirmed that where the landlord avoids accepting rent, the tenant's subsequent deposit in court negates the 'wilful' nature of the default. Consequently, the appellate court's exercise of discretion to refuse ejectment was upheld, as it was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller exercise discretion to condone a technical default in rent payment if the default is not found to be wilful?
  • Does the deposit of rent in court by a tenant, after a period of arrears but before the filing of an ejectment application, automatically negate the existence of a default?
  • Is a finding by an appellate court regarding the non-wilful nature of a rent default subject to interference in a second appeal if the discretion was exercised reasonably?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed INAM AHMAD vs Mst. NURUNNISA MIRZA1982 PLD Karachi 763 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-09Read full judgment →
• Syed IBRAHIM-Tenant vs DR. MRS. SALEEMA FIRDAUSE1982 PLD Quetta 49 · Balochistan High Court · -
  bona fide personal useejectmentlandlord and tenantprivate practiceburden of proofattorney as witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an ejectment application filed by a landlord against her tenant seeking possession of a commercial shop on grounds of non-payment of rent, subletting, and bona fide personal use for opening a medical clinic. While the Rent Controller decided the issues of rent and subletting against the landlord, the plea of bona fide personal use was accepted and ejectment was ordered. The appellant-tenant challenged this decision, arguing that the evidence regarding personal need was hearsay, that the landlord herself did not testify, and that the relevant rent restriction statute did not cater to the requirements of a husband. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the cumulative effect of the unassailed evidence established the landlord's genuine requirement, that an attorney's testimony on behalf of the landlord is legally sufficient, and that the statutory expression for personal occupation is to be liberally construed to include family needs, including that of a husband. The Court affirmed the ejectment order while granting the tenant four months to vacate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an attorney is sufficient to prove a landlord's bona fide personal use without the landlord entering the witness box?
  • Does the expression 'for his own occupation' in rent restriction laws include the family needs or the requirements of a husband?
  • What is the standard and nature of evidence required to prove the factum of bona fide personal use of a rented premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed HASSAN TAHIR vs DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, RAWALPINDI ETC.S1982 SCMR 805 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-27
  leave to appealunfair meansexamination malpracticeDiscipline Committeeconstitutional petitionanswer book replacement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition filed by a student against the dismissal of his appeal by the Discipline Committee of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Rawalpindi. The petitioner was charged with using unfair means, specifically the replacement of answer books in multiple subjects during the Intermediate Spring Examination 1980, and was disqualified for four examinations. The petitioner contended that the rules applied by the Discipline Committee were inapplicable and that the case lacked evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that there was sufficient direct and inferential material to support the finding of guilt, making it unexceptionable. Regarding the legal interpretation of the rules governing the replacement and smuggling of answer books, the Court declined to render a determinative finding because the specific point had not been raised or pressed before the High Court. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a finding of guilt regarding the use of unfair means in an examination can be sustained on inferential and direct material?
  • Can a petitioner raise a new legal question regarding the interpretation of examination rules before the Supreme Court when it was not pressed before the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• TALAT FATIMA MAHMOOD AND Others vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND Others1982 CLC 2365 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed HASSAN IDRIS MIRZA vs K. F. DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHBRS1982 CLC 2198 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-07Read full judgment →
• Syed HASSAN IDRIS MIRZA vs K. F. DEVELOPM ENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2198 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-07Read full judgment →
• Syed GHULAM NABI SHAH AND 2 Others vs OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND 4 OTHERS1982 CLC 1472 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-17Read full judgment →
• Syed GHULAM NABI SHAH AND 2 OTHERS vs OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND 4 OTHER1982 CLC 1472 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-17Read full judgment →
• Syed GHULAM MUHAMMAD SHAH ETC. vs THE UNITED BANK LTD.1982 CLC 1898 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-19Read full judgment →
• Syed GHULAM MUHAMMAD SHAH ETC. vs THE UNITED BANK LTD1982 CLC 1898 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-19Read full judgment →
• Syed FATEH ALI HADERI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) AND 121982 CLC 1794 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-14Read full judgment →
• Syed FATEH ALI HADERI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) AND 12 OTHER1982 CLC 1794 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-13Read full judgment →
• Syed FARIDUDDIN HYDER vs MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1942 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-18Read full judgment →
• Syed FARIDUDDIN HY DER vs MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND OTHER1982 CLC 1942 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-18Read full judgment →