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.
- SHER BADSHAH AND ANOTHER vs The STATE1982 SCMR 872 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for the murders of two individuals under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellants were convicted by the trial court, a decision upheld by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony provided by eyewitnesses was fatally contradicted by medical evidence. Specifically, the defense argued that the multiple injuries sustained by one deceased, Shah Mir, could not have been caused by the single shot attributed to the appellant by the witnesses. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the medical evidence was consistent with the ocular account. The medical expert clarified that the multiple wounds were the result of a single projectile's trajectory and subsequent secondary lacerations. Consequently, the Court found no conflict between the testimony and the medical findings. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the principle that ocular testimony remains credible when medical findings, though complex, can be reconciled with the witness account of the incident.
Questions settled- Does the presence of multiple wounds on a deceased body necessarily contradict ocular testimony claiming a single shot was fired?
- Can medical evidence be reconciled with ocular testimony when injuries are caused by a single projectile's trajectory?
- Is the abscondence of an accused relevant for corroborating ocular evidence in a murder trial?
- SHER ALI vs ABDUL KADER1982 CLC 2029 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-27Read full judgment →
- Sheikh SAFDAR RASHID vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1774 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-10Read full judgment →
- Sheikh NAZIR AHMED ETC. vs Mian NAZIR AHMED ETC.S1982 SCMR 1059 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a suit filed by the transferees of a double-storey building against the petitioners. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to restrain the petitioners from obstructing the construction of a partition wall along the vertical division line established by the Settlement Department, as well as mandatory injunctions regarding roof support and sewerage arrangements. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the District Judge reversed the judgment and decreed the suit, a decision subsequently affirmed by the High Court in regular second appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the property was not transferred on a vertical division basis, that the wall would infringe their easement rights, and that the plaintiffs lacked bona fide intent. The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent factual findings of the High Court, holding that the property was indeed vertically divided, which conferred a right to implement said division. The Court further held that easement rights could not mature between co-transferees from the Settlement Department in these circumstances. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused and the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether transferees of a vertically divided property transferred by the Settlement Department have a right to construct a partition wall along the dividing line?
- Can easement rights mature between transferees of different portions of the same property transferred by the Settlement Department under such circumstances?
- Does the existence of criminal proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bar a party from seeking civil injunctive relief to enforce property division?
- Sheikh MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT1982 PLC (C. S.) 440 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Sheikh MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs ATTA ULLAH1982 CLC 1577 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-05Read full judgment →
- Sheikh MOINUDDIN vs SECRETARY, COMMUNICATIONS, ISLAMABAD AND 21982 PLC (C. S.) 586 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Sheikh MEHAR DIN vs AMIR DIN AND Other1982 SCMR 298 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The petitioner, successor to the original applicant, challenged the transfer of a stable to the respondent, claiming it was part and parcel of a house previously transferred to the petitioner's predecessor. The core legal question was whether the petitioner possessed the locus standi to challenge the respondent's transfer, given that the properties were independently assessed and the petitioner had not originally applied for the stable. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the disputed premises and the house were distinct, independently assessed units. The Court held that since the petitioner had not sought the transfer of the stable and had acquiesced for nearly a decade, they lacked the locus standi to challenge the respondent's transfer. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that settlement authorities lack jurisdiction to reopen matters once a property has been permanently transferred, reinforcing the finality of such transfers under the relevant settlement laws.
Questions settled- Does a party have locus standi to challenge the transfer of a property they did not originally apply for and which is independently assessed?
- Can settlement authorities reopen a transfer of property after a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) has been issued?
- Does the separate assessment of two properties preclude a claim that one is a part and parcel of the other for transfer purposes?
- Sheikh GHULAM RASOOL vs Mst. FARHAT BEGUM1982 PLD Lahore 553 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-14Read full judgment →
- Sheikh GHULAM NABI ETC. vs EJAZ GHANI AND Other1982 SCMR 650 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses the legality of a High Court order dismissing a revision petition on the ground that an alternative remedy by way of a separate suit was available under Order XXI, Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the High Court's view remained tenable following the amendment to Order XXI, Rule 103 by the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972, which took away the right to institute a separate suit and instead mandated adjudication within the execution proceedings, subject to an appeal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its view because the amended Rule 103 had already come into force prior to the High Court's order, thereby barring a separate suit and making revision or appeal the appropriate remedy. The appeal was consequently allowed and the matter remitted back to the High Court for decision in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Whether a separate suit lies against an order passed under Order XXI, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after the amendments introduced by the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972?
- Does an aggrieved party have a right to file a separate suit under Order XXI, Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 following its amendment by the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972?
- How are questions relating to title, right, or interest in immovable property arising during execution proceedings to be determined under the amended Order XXI, Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Sheikh GHULAM ALI & SONS vs REGISTRAR, CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 207 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-21Read full judgment →
- Sheikh FAZAL KARIM vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1340 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-02Read full judgment →
- Sheikh FAZAL KARIM vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA AND OTHER1982 CLC 1340 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-02Read full judgment →
- Sheikh ABDUL HAQUE, ADVOCATE DR. SAFDAR BOKHARI vs DR. SAFDAR1982 SCMR 922 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-11Read full judgment →
- Sheikh ABDUL HAMID vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION1982 SCMR 1008 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of retirement from service upon the completion of 25 years of service. The petitioner contended that the retirement order was invalid because it was issued by the President rather than the Establishment Secretary, whom the petitioner argued was the competent authority under the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973. The core legal question was whether the President, as the delegator of power, could validly exercise the authority to retire a civil servant that had been delegated to the Establishment Secretary. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's failure to raise this factual objection before the Service Tribunal was fatal to his case. Furthermore, the Court clarified that even if the issue were considered on merits, the President, having delegated the power to appoint to the Establishment Secretary under section 25 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, retained the authority to exercise that power himself. Consequently, no prejudice was caused to the petitioner, and the retirement order remained valid.
Questions settled- Can a delegator of power validly exercise the authority that has been delegated to a subordinate?
- Is a party permitted to raise a new factual objection in the Supreme Court that was not agitated before the Service Tribunal?
- Does the President retain the power to retire a civil servant after delegating appointment powers to the Establishment Secretary?
- Sheikh ABDUL HAMEED vs HIFAZAT HUSSAIN JAFRI1982 CLC 744 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-31Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 696 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-23Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT IQBAL vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND OTHERS1982 CLC 824 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-31Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT IQBAL vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND OTHER1982 CLC 824 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-31Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT HUSSAIN vs JAPAN AIRLINES LTD.1982 PLC 105 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-07-29Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT HAYAT vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 48 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-08Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI vs THE STATE1982 PLD Supreme Court 280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two criminal appeals filed by Shaukat Ali against his conviction and sentence for causing death by a rash and negligent act. The appellant, a truck driver, was convicted under Section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for crushing a ten-year-old boy while reversing his vehicle. The trial court sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. Upon revision, the High Court maintained the imprisonment but enhanced the fine to Rs. 10,000 using suo motu revisional powers. The Supreme Court addressed whether the conviction was sound and whether the High Court's enhancement of the fine exceeded statutory limits. The Court upheld the conviction, finding that the appellant failed to exercise due care, but reduced the imprisonment to the period already served. Regarding the fine, the Court held that the High Court’s revisional power under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is constrained by the sentencing limits applicable to the trial Magistrate. Consequently, the Court ruled that the fine could not exceed the statutory maximum of Rs. 5,000, reducing the enhanced fine accordingly.
Questions settled- Can the High Court, in exercise of its suo motu revisional jurisdiction, enhance a sentence beyond the maximum punishment that the trial Magistrate was legally competent to impose?
- Does a driver who reverses a vehicle without ensuring the path is clear, resulting in a fatality, commit an offence under Section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- What is the maximum fine a Magistrate of the First Class can impose under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- SHAUKAT ALI vs CHIEF ENGINEER, G. S. C. (SOUTH), POWER, WAPDA, HYDERABAD1982 PLC 106 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-09-18Read full judgment →
- SHARIF vs MAQSOOD1982 CLC 2061 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-01Read full judgment →
- SHARBAT AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 977 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-13Read full judgment →
- SHAMSUZZAMAN vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS1982 PLC 605 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-07-14Read full judgment →
- SHAMSUR REHMAN AND ANOTHER vs PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT No, 1, KARACHI AND 19 OTHERS1982 PLC 742 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of three constitutional petitions involving a common question of law regarding the interpretation of Section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question was whether an appeal or application to the Labour Court under Section 8(7) is maintainable only against the Registrar's refusal to register a change of trade union officers under Section 8(5), or whether it also lies when the Registrar registers a disputed change of officers. The Sindh High Court held that Section 8(7) provides two distinct remedies: one in the case of a dispute regarding the change of officers, and another in the case of an appeal against the Registrar's refusal under subsection (5). The court ruled that the dispute does not cease to exist merely because the Registrar has registered the change, and replaced office-bearers or members can challenge it. The petitions were allowed, setting aside the Labour Court's orders and directing it to decide the appeals on merits.
Questions settled- Does an appeal to the Labour Court under Section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, lie against the registration of a change of trade union officers by the Registrar, or only against the refusal to register such change?
- Does a dispute regarding the change of trade union officers cease to exist as soon as the Registrar registers the change under Section 8 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- What is the scope of the Registrar's power when examining a change of trade union officers under Section 8 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- SHAMSUL ISLAM AND Another vs Sh. ARJAMAND AND Another1982 SCMR 545 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, on the ground of laches. The core legal question is whether the unexplained long delay by the petitioner justified the dismissal of the constitutional petition for laches. The Supreme Court held that the delay was not sufficiently explained, rendering the dismissal of the writ petition unexceptionable, and thus found no justification for interference. The key principle laid down is that unexplained delay amounting to laches is a valid ground for dismissing a constitutional petition, and the Supreme Court will not interfere with such discretion exercised by the High Court unless sufficient justification is shown.
Questions settled- Whether an unexplained long delay amounting to laches justifies the dismissal of a constitutional petition?
- Is the High Court's dismissal of a writ petition on the ground of laches unexceptionable when the delay is not sufficiently explained?
- SHAMSUDDIN vs THE STATE1982 PLD Karachi 271 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-11Read full judgment →
- SHAMSUDDIN vs IMAMUDDIN1982 PLD Karachi 327 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-05Read full judgment →
- SHAMSHAD AHMAD AND Another vs THE STATE1982 PLD Lahore 321 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
- SHAMS TEXTILE MILLS LTD., LAHORE vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND Other1982 PLD Karachi 513 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-06Read full judgment →
- SHAMS DIN AND Others vs JALAL DIN AND Other1982 SCMR 445 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns review petitions filed against a majority judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which had previously allowed appeals against a High Court order. The petitioners had originally filed revisions under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, which were time-barred. Consequently, they requested the High Court to convert these revisions into writ petitions, a request that was granted. The Supreme Court's majority judgment subsequently held that this conversion was legally improper as it circumvented statutory limitation periods. In the present review petitions, the petitioners argued that their original revisions were actually filed within the statutory limitation period, claiming an error apparent on the face of the record. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, holding that the petitioners were precluded from raising a new factual contention—that their revisions were timely—which contradicted their previous stance in the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Court affirmed that a review cannot be granted on grounds not urged during the original hearing, particularly when the petitioners had previously admitted the time-barred nature of their revisions by seeking conversion to writ petitions.
Questions settled- Can a party seek a review of a judgment based on a factual contention that was not raised or argued during the original hearing?
- Is it permissible for a party to take a position in a review petition that is diametrically opposed to the position taken by them in the original proceedings?
- Does the conversion of a time-barred statutory revision into a writ petition constitute a valid circumvention of the limitation period prescribed by statute?
- SHAMIR AHMAD vs The STATE1982 SCMR 745 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Shamir Ahmad, petitioner, sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order dismissing his appeal against conviction under sections 409, 468, and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner, serving as a Secretary of Co-operative Societies, conspired with others to prepare bogus resolutions and pronotes, fraudulently obtaining a loan from a bank and misappropriating the funds. The trial court convicted the petitioner, and the High Court maintained the conviction while modifying the fine. The core legal questions addressed whether the petitioner's actions constituted cheating under section 420 and criminal breach of trust under section 409. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner dishonestly induced the bank to deliver money through impersonation and fraud, satisfying the ingredients of cheating, and that his misuse of his position as Secretary established criminal breach of trust. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the conviction and laying down that fraudulent withdrawal of funds by an official using fabricated documents attracts both cheating and criminal breach of trust.
Questions settled- Does the preparation of bogus resolutions and fraudulent withdrawal of bank funds amount to cheating under section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether acting as a Secretary of a Co-operative Society and misusing that position to obtain money through forgery constitutes criminal breach of trust under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- SHAMEEM AHMED CHOUDHRY vs MUSHARAF ALI KHAN1982 C LC 2284 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-12Read full judgment →
- SHAMEEM AHMED CHOUDHRI vs MUSHARAF ALI KHAN1982 CLC 2284 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-12Read full judgment →
- SHAMBHUMAL HIRANAND & CO. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (WEST), KARACHI46 TAX 120 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Shaikh SHAFAUL HAQUE vs QAISER SHIKOH JAFRI1982 CLC 722 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-02Read full judgment →
- Shaikh MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE'parwaz vs INAYAT ALI AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2055 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-16Read full judgment →
- Shaikh MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE PAR WAZ vs INAYAT ALI AND ANOTHERS1982 CLC 2055 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-16Read full judgment →
- Shaikh KHALIL UR REHMAN vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN AND 3 Other1982 SCMR 281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal regarding the transfer of a disputed house. The petitioner, claiming a superior right as a displaced person from Jammu & Kashmir, challenged the transfer of the property to his mother, Mst. Maryam Jan, by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, arguing his own claim form (KNCH) was ignored. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's appeal against the transfer order, filed years after the initial transfer, was time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, who resided in the house with his mother, failed to challenge the transfer within the prescribed period of limitation. The Court rejected the petitioner's claim of ignorance regarding the transfer as unworthy of credence. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower authorities' findings that the appeal was hopelessly barred by time and dismissed the petition in limine, upholding the principle that property transfer challenges must be brought within the statutory limitation period.
Questions settled- Can a challenge to a property transfer order be entertained if the appeal is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation?
- Is a resident of a disputed property entitled to claim ignorance of a transfer order involving that property to justify a delay in filing an appeal?
- SHAIKH HAIDER vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 4 Other1982 PLD Karachi 336 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
- Shaikh FAZAL DIN vs Haji NOOR MUHAMMAD1982 CLC 2595 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-01Read full judgment →
- Shaikh FAZAL DIN vs Haji MOOR MUHAMMAD1982 CLC 2595 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-01Read full judgment →
- Shaikh AZIZ vs Sardar MUHAMMAD ROSHAN1982 CLC 2598 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-14Read full judgment →
- Shaikh ABDUL SHAKOOR vs Shaikh ABDUL KADIR1982 CLC 707 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-11Read full judgment →
- Shaikh ,AZIZ vs Sardar MUHAMMAD ROSHAN1982 CLC 2598 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-14Read full judgment →
- SHAHNAZ IQBAL ADIL AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1231 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-23Read full judgment →
- SHAHID NAZIR vs TIE UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB AND Another1982 PLD Lahore 284 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-06Read full judgment →
- SHAHID MAHMOOD vs CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION AND Another1982 SCMR 369 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged an order disqualifying him from appearing in three examinations for using unfair means, a decision upheld by the Committee of Appeal. The petitioner subsequently sought relief from the Lahore High Court, which, after examining the answer book and the report of the appellate committee, found clear evidence of tampering—specifically disturbed staples, differing ink and paper, and inconsistent handwriting—concluding the candidate had received outside help. The High Court declined to interfere with the factual findings of the domestic tribunal. Upon petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the matter and affirmed the High Court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to interfere with the findings of fact made by the educational board authorities. The Court established that where a domestic tribunal has reached a factual conclusion based on a thorough scrutiny of evidence, such findings are not subject to interference in writ jurisdiction unless a clear justification exists, which was absent in this case.
Questions settled- Can a High Court interfere with findings of fact made by a domestic tribunal in educational matters under writ jurisdiction?
- Is the physical evidence of tampering in an answer book sufficient to uphold a charge of using unfair means in an examination?
- SHAHID IQBAL vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1982 PLC (C. S.) 153 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-29Read full judgment →
- SHAHID HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD ZIAUDDIN KHAN1982, CLC 2648 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
- SHAHID COAL AGENCY vs THE CHAIRMAN (Now GENERAL MANAGER), PAKISTAN RAILWAYS AND ANOIHER1982 PLD Quetta 134 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges an order passed by the District Judge, Sibi, which rejected the petitioner's application for an interim injunction in a suit for declaration and injunction against the Pakistan Railways. The petitioner, a licensee whose agreement to stock coal on railway plots was cancelled, sought to restrain the railway administration from dispossessing them. The core legal question was whether a licensee whose licence has been terminated can maintain an action for an injunction to prevent dispossession, and whether a temporary injunction should be granted to protect unauthorised occupation. The High Court held that a licence is revocable at the will of the grantor and does not create a tenancy or a right capable of specific enforcement, operating as a bar under the Specific Relief Act to the grant of an injunction. The Court laid down the principle that the principles governing temporary injunctions follow those of permanent injunctions, and an injunction will not be issued in favour of a trespasser to protect unauthorised occupation or perpetuate ill-gotten gains.
Questions settled- Does a licence to use railway land create a tenancy or a right in favour of the licensee that entitles them to claim a declaration and injunction upon termination?
- Can an injunction be granted to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which cannot be specifically enforced under the Specific Relief Act?
- Is a temporary injunction to be granted merely because the main suit would otherwise become infructuous?
- Whether an injunction should be issued in favour of a trespasser whose occupation of the land has become unauthorised?
- SHAHID AYUB KHAN vs SUI GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD., KARACHI1982 PLC 455 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1978-05-22Read full judgment →
- SHAH WALI vs ALLAH RAKHA AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Supreme Court 17 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a Letters Patent Appeal, which in turn affirmed concurrent findings holding that a disputed land transfer was a sale rather than an exchange. Two rival pre-emption suits were filed regarding a mutation whereby land was transferred by Dadu to Shah Wali. The vendee, Shah Wali, contended that the transaction constituted an exchange when viewed alongside a contemporaneous mutation reflecting a transfer of land back to Dadu. The trial court, district court, single bench, and Letters Patent Bench concurrently held that the transaction was out and out a sale, noting that the consideration was paid in cash and that the essential requirements of an exchange were not established on the record. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the nature of the consideration paid—specifically cash rather than property—determines the true nature of the transfer, and dismissed the appeal with costs, affirming that the transaction was a sale subject to pre-emption.
Questions settled- Does the payment of consideration in cash determine a land transfer to be a sale rather than an exchange?
- Can two separate land mutations entered on the same date be treated as a single exchange transaction without evidence of contemporaneous completion?
- Does an admission by a party in mutation proceedings regarding a cash sale outweigh subsequent arguments of an exchange?
- SHAH SAWAR (REPRESENTED BY HIS4 HEIRS) vs NAZAR HUSSAIN1982 PLD Lahore 339 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-31Read full judgment →
- SHAH NAWAZ AND 26 OTHERS vs RAB NAWAZ AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 160 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-09Read full judgment →
- SHAH NAWAZ AND 2 Other vs THE STATE1982 PLD Karachi 281 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-26Read full judgment →
- SHAH MUHAMMAD vs FEROZ DIN1982 CLC 949 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-22Read full judgment →
- SHAH BAIG vs CHAIRMAN, ELECTION AUTHORITY AND 3 Other1982 SCMR 1227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a dispute over a local council election held in September 1975. The Presiding Officer initially declared respondent No. 3 the successful candidate based on the count, but the Returning Officer subsequently declared the petitioner as the winner after consolidation. Respondent No. 3 challenged this through an election petition before the Election Tribunal, which concluded that tampering had occurred during consolidation and that respondent No. 3 had actually secured the higher number of votes. The Tribunal declared respondent No. 3 duly elected, and the Sind High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the Tribunal was bound to order a re-election upon finding record manipulation rather than declaring respondent No. 3 elected, and whether an entirely new ground regarding ballot paper signatures could be raised. The Supreme Court held that the Election Rules permit a Tribunal to declare a petitioner duly elected rather than ordering a fresh election, and that new factual pleas not raised below cannot be entertained. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an Election Tribunal is required to order a re-election upon finding that election records have been tampered with?
- Can an Election Tribunal declare a candidate as duly elected when evidence establishes they secured the highest number of votes?
- Is a party permitted to raise a new factual plea regarding ballot paper irregularities before the Supreme Court when it was not pleaded before the Tribunal or the High Court?
- SHAGUFTA BANO vs MUSARRAT HANIF ETC.1982 CLC 1821 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
- SHAGUFTA BANG vs MUSARRAT HANIF ETC.1982 CLC 1821 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
- SHAFQAT IJAZ AHMAD KHAN vs RAHMAN MAIZE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS1982 PLC 448 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-12-15Read full judgment →
- SHAFQAT ELAHI ETC. vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1162 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-29Read full judgment →
- SHAFIQ AHMAD AND Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 623 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-12Read full judgment →
- SHAFAAT ALI vs S. H. O., SADDAR POLICE STATION, KARACHI1982 P Cr. L J 703 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-16Read full judgment →
- SHABIR ALI vs MECHANICAL ENGINEER, CENTRAL SIND1982 PLC 493 · Commissioner For Workmen's Compensation · 1981-12-12Read full judgment →
- SHABIHUR RAZA vs D. S. P., FINGER PRINT BUREAU AND OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 92 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-05-16Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1982 PLC (C. S.) 613 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-07Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR KHAN vs AMIR BUX AND 5 OTHERS1982 CLC 2583 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-05Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR KHAN vs AMIR BUX AND 5 OTHER1982 CLC 2583 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR ALI AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 151 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR AHMAD vs HOTEL INTER-CONTINENTAL, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 377 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-10-17Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR AHMAD vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2358 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-07Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR AHMAD vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE AND OTHER1982 CLC 2358 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-07Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR AHMAD AND FAQIR SAIN vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT1982S C M R 375 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, employees of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), challenged the termination of their services, which were effected under Section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act 1958, as amended by Ordinance LXXII of 1979. Previously, the petitioners had been reinstated by Labour Courts following earlier terminations under Section 17(1-A) of the same Act, but were subsequently relieved of their duties again following the promulgation of the new Ordinance. The petitioners challenged the vires of Ordinance LXXII of 1979 before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the validity of the Ordinance could be challenged in court. The Supreme Court held that, pursuant to Article 15(1) of the Provisional Constitution Order 1981, all laws made on or after July 5, 1977, were declared validly made by competent authority and were immune from challenge in any court on any ground. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the Ordinance was not open to judicial review, and the petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Can the validity of an Ordinance promulgated after July 5, 1977, be challenged in court?
- Does Article 15(1) of the Provisional Constitution Order 1981 preclude judicial review of laws made after July 5, 1977?
- Does the WAPDA Act 1958 permit the termination of employee services under Section 17(1-C)?
- SHABAN ALI vs MUHAMMAD SULAIMAN1982 PLC 76 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-10-20Read full judgment →
- Sh. ZULFIKAR ALI AND Another vs S. H. O. NAULAKHA POLICE STATION, LAHORE1982 P Cr. L J 1302 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-16Read full judgment →
- Sh. ZAHOOR AHMED vs Malik SHAHBAZ KHAN AND Other1982 SCMR 398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an elected Councillor, sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal of his constitutional petition challenging an Election Tribunal's order. The core dispute concerned whether the Election Tribunal was strictly bound by the procedural requirements of Order XVI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the filing of witness lists. The petitioner argued that the failure to file these lists within the prescribed time precluded the respondents from examining their witnesses. The Supreme Court held that while election petitions are tried as nearly as possible in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the Election Tribunal possesses the discretion to dispense with strict enforcement of these provisions. Specifically, the Court noted that Rule 8 of the Punjab Local Council (Election Petitions) Rules 1979 grants the Tribunal authority to manage witness summons, allowing for flexibility in procedure. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, finding no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's exercise of discretion, and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Is an Election Tribunal strictly bound by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the trial of election petitions?
- Does an Election Tribunal have the discretion to dispense with the strict enforcement of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the filing of witness lists?
- Can an Election Tribunal issue summons for witnesses even if the list of witnesses was not filed within the time prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Sh. SARFRAZ AHMAD vs Mst. BILQEES BEGUM AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2212 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-27Read full judgment →
- Sh. SARFRAZ AHMAD vs Mst. BILQEES BEGUM AND OTHER1982 CLC 2212 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-27Read full judgment →
- Sh. QAMAR DIN vs MUHAMMAD DIN AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2491 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-28Read full judgment →
- Sh. QAMAR DIN vs MUHAMMAD DIN AND OTHBR1982C L C 2491 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-28Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUSHTAQ ALAM vs Mst. NAWAB BEGUM ETC.S1982 SCMR 451 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an eviction petition filed by Mst. Nawab Begum against tenant Sh. Mushtaq Alam under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, alleging default in rent payment and subletting. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground of default, which decision was affirmed on appeal by the District Judge who also found against the tenant on the issue of subletting. The Lahore High Court dismissed the tenant's second appeal. The tenant then petitioned the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court held that concurrent findings of fact regarding default in rent payment by the lower forums cannot be reopened or interfered with by the Supreme Court. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, with granted time for the petitioner to voluntarily surrender possession.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding default in rent payment in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Does a failure to challenge an excise assessment preclude a tenant from raising questions regarding the assessment in rent proceedings?
- Can a tenant be evicted for default in paying rent assessed by the Excise Department?
- Sh. MUMTAZ HUSSAIN AND Others vs BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND OTHER1982 CLC 523 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-19Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD YASIN vs JOHN NICHOLAS1982 CLC 1599 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-11Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD MANZOOR ELAHI vs I. G. OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 155 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-11-30Read full judgment →
- Sh. MAULA BAKHSH AND Another vs FAZAL DIN AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Supreme Court 201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These two appeals by leave arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which had dismissed the landlords' second appeals against the refusal of their eviction applications seeking tenants' ejectment on the ground of reconstruction. The High Court's finding was based on the premise that the property did not require demolition because the proposed first floor could be constructed on the existing foundations. The core legal questions involved whether a witness's statement was misread and whether the requirement of reconstruction depends strictly on the weakness of existing structures or the landlord's right to improve property, alongside a plea of res judicata. The Supreme Court held that landlords, as owners, possess the right to improve their property and utilize it profitably by erecting a new building, and the fact that existing foundations could support a new addition does not render the reconstruction unreasonable or lacking in good faith. The Court laid down the principle that an owner's right to reconstruct to improve property does not depend strictly on the dilapidated condition of the existing structure, provided good faith and statutory conditions are established, and allowed the appeals directing eviction.
Questions settled- Whether the reconstruction of a building requires it to be dilapidated and weak in structure?
- Does the fact that existing foundations can support a proposed addition show unreasonableness or lack of good faith in seeking eviction for reconstruction?
- Does the dismissal of an earlier eviction petition operate as a bar under section 14 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 when there is a new cause of action and the matter was not finally adjudicated?
- Sh. KHURSHID AKHTAR vs FEDRAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY AND Others1982 P Cr. L J 1190 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-18Read full judgment →
- Sh. HABIB AHMAD ETC. vs AHMAD SAEED1982 SCMR 262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for special leave to appeal arises from concurrent decisions of the lower forums rejecting the petitioners' ejectment application filed under Section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance against the respondent tenant. The petitioners alleged that the respondent constructed walls and a roof of corrugated sheets, impairing the usefulness and value of the rented shop. The Rent Controller, the Additional District Judge, and the Lahore High Court concurrently found that the construction was made on a portion of the street rather than the rented property itself, and that no damage or impairment to the utility of the property was proved. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of fact by the three lower courts regarding the absence of damage or impairment to the property value are pure questions of fact which the Court does not interfere with. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court interferes with concurrent findings of fact regarding impairment of property value in rent matters?
- Can a landlord seek ejectment of a tenant for construction allegedly impairing the property when lower courts concurrently find the construction was on a public street?
- Does construction on a street rather than the rented premises constitute a ground for ejectment under the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Sh. GHULAM HUSSAIN vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 604 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1982-01-02Read full judgment →
- Sh. AHMAD DIN AND 78 Other vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND Another1982 PLD Lahore 562 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-19Read full judgment →
- Sh. ABDUL QAYYUM vs THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Etc.S1982 SCMR 475 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- Sh. ABDUL HAMID vs ABU KHURSHID HAQQANI AND 2 Other1982 SCMR 80 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute over the transfer of property under settlement laws, specifically regarding the scope of an order passed by an Additional Settlement Commissioner on 23-11-1960. The appellant, a non-claimant in possession of the first floor of Unit 'A', challenged a High Court decision that held only the first floor was transferred to him, while the ground floor remained with respondent No. 1. The core legal question was whether the appellant's N.C.H. Form application covered the entire Unit 'A' or merely the portion in his possession, and whether the appellant had standing to contest the transfer of the ground floor. The Supreme Court held that the Additional Settlement Commissioner’s order explicitly transferred only the portion in the appellant's possession. Furthermore, the appellant's failure to challenge the original order meant it had attained finality. The Court affirmed that the appellant was not an aggrieved person regarding the ground floor transfer, as the property had been validly divided. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the principle that an un-challenged administrative order regarding property transfer attains finality and binds the parties.
Questions settled- Does an un-challenged order of an Additional Settlement Commissioner regarding property transfer attain finality?
- Can a party claim ownership of an entire unit when the administrative order explicitly restricts the transfer to the portion in their possession?
- Is a person who fails to challenge an administrative order at the appropriate time considered an 'aggrieved person' for subsequent litigation?
- Sh. ABDUL HAMEED AND Another vs MUHAMMAD SARWAR KHAN AND 10 Other1982 SCMR 318 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition concerning a settlement case. The petitioners, vendees of a portion of land allotted to respondent No. 2 (Ali Hussain) in lieu of abandoned agricultural land in Jammu & Kashmir, challenged orders of the Settlement Authorities reducing the land allotment after discovering an excess allocation due to a wrong description of the abandoned property. The core legal questions involved whether the allottee was entitled to exercise a choice regarding the surrender of excess land to protect certain vendees, and whether the High Court rightly exercised its constitutional discretion. The Supreme Court held that the allottee's insistence on retaining excess land brought the case under section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, depriving him of any right to choose which land to surrender. The Court affirmed the application of the principle established in prior jurisprudence and upheld the High Court's refusal to exercise constitutional discretion in favour of the petitioners.
Questions settled- Does an allottee who insists on retaining land in excess of their real entitlement forfeit the right to exercise a choice regarding the surrender of excess land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
- Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to exercise its constitutional discretion in favour of vendees affected by the reduction of an excess land allotment?
- Sh. ABDUL ALI vs ZAHEER ALI JAURA1982 CLC 153 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-02Read full judgment →
- Seth QAMAR DIN vs MESSRS KOH I NOOR TEX TILE MILLS LTD.1982 PLD Lahore 795 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-13Read full judgment →
- SEERAT COMMITTEE, MUZAFFARABAD vs CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY1982 CLC 1720 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-07-18Read full judgment →
- SECURITY PAPERS LTD. vs REHMAT ALI1981 PLC 635 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-31Read full judgment →
- SECRETARY, HEALTH TO GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN, QUETTA AND 2 Others vs IMTIAZ BASHIR ETC.S1982 SCMR 199(2) · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as two appeals filed by the Government of Baluchistan against a High Court judgment directing the admission of the respondents into the Bolan Medical College. The appellants challenged the High Court's exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, arguing that the court should have exercised its discretion to dismiss the writ petitions in the larger interest of other deserving candidates who were effectively denied admission. Furthermore, the appellants contended that the High Court lacked the jurisdiction to mandate admissions, noting that the respondents' admission to the Bolan Medical College would result in wasted seats at the Nishter Medical College, prejudicing other candidates. During the appellate proceedings, the respondents raised a preliminary point asserting that the allegedly prejudiced candidates were no longer interested in the seats and had been adjusted elsewhere. The appellants failed to provide evidence to the contrary despite being granted time. Consequently, the Supreme Court determined that the legal questions regarding the exercise of judicial discretion were being addressed in other pending appeals, rendering a decision in the present case an academic exercise. The appeals were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court should adjudicate on legal questions that have become academic due to subsequent factual developments?
- Does the High Court have the authority to direct the admission of students to a medical college through constitutional jurisdiction?